Abstract:Scholars view the domestic and foreign commitments of the New Deal and Great Society as embodying rights with quasi‐constitutional status. But little research has examined whether presidents have encouraged citizens to perceive New Deal/Great Society commitments as rights deserving of extraordinary veneration. Based on a quantitative content analysis of hundreds of major presidential addresses and a qualitative analysis of inaugural addresses over the period 1933‐2011, this article shows that presidents have l… Show more
“…My objective in this article has been to offer a plausible accounting of the seemingly inexplicable gulf between the Four Freedoms as that 1941 flop and the phrase's largely taken‐for‐granted status, over 70 years later, as a timeless rhetorical moment. Jesse H. Rhodes has recently argued that presidents who seek to establish “novel rights” such as those embodied in the Four Freedoms “must continually explain and reaffirm” their ideas “if they have any hope these interpretations will endure” (, 565). Ironically, however, the initial failure of the Four Freedoms points to situations in which explaining and reaffirming are not sufficient.…”
This article examines the rhetorical failure and eventual resurrection of Franklin D. Roosevelt's (FDR's) Four Freedoms and the implications of this transformation for conceptualizing the rhetorical presidency. By charting the phrase's initial flop and the related troubles of the administration's official Four Freedoms pamphlet, the essay argues that FDR's ideal was restrained by the government's reliance on a diegetic approach to propaganda. The appearance of Norman Rockwell's Four Freedoms series in , in contrast, embraced a mimetic approach. I conclude that Rockwell's paintings and their attendant publicity blitz dramatized and personalized the president's Four Freedoms, fostering a surge of identification on the home front and ultimately launching the ideal on its ascendant course into rhetorical history.
“…My objective in this article has been to offer a plausible accounting of the seemingly inexplicable gulf between the Four Freedoms as that 1941 flop and the phrase's largely taken‐for‐granted status, over 70 years later, as a timeless rhetorical moment. Jesse H. Rhodes has recently argued that presidents who seek to establish “novel rights” such as those embodied in the Four Freedoms “must continually explain and reaffirm” their ideas “if they have any hope these interpretations will endure” (, 565). Ironically, however, the initial failure of the Four Freedoms points to situations in which explaining and reaffirming are not sufficient.…”
This article examines the rhetorical failure and eventual resurrection of Franklin D. Roosevelt's (FDR's) Four Freedoms and the implications of this transformation for conceptualizing the rhetorical presidency. By charting the phrase's initial flop and the related troubles of the administration's official Four Freedoms pamphlet, the essay argues that FDR's ideal was restrained by the government's reliance on a diegetic approach to propaganda. The appearance of Norman Rockwell's Four Freedoms series in , in contrast, embraced a mimetic approach. I conclude that Rockwell's paintings and their attendant publicity blitz dramatized and personalized the president's Four Freedoms, fostering a surge of identification on the home front and ultimately launching the ideal on its ascendant course into rhetorical history.
“…The second analysis explains how Great Society rhetoric was received and in turn deployed by a major media outlet, as an indicator of the extent to which each of the six Great Societies has penetrated the public consciousness: Advocates of a particular constitutional understanding cannot simply assume that a favored construction will remain part of the constitutional “common sense”; if a construction endures in the popular culture, it is due in no small part to the ongoing rhetorical and political efforts of its proponents to maintain “narrative hegemony” against alternative constructions. (Rhodes , 568)…”
Section: Analysis Of Great Society Rhetoricmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Advocates of a particular constitutional understanding cannot simply assume that a favored construction will remain part of the constitutional “common sense”; if a construction endures in the popular culture, it is due in no small part to the ongoing rhetorical and political efforts of its proponents to maintain “narrative hegemony” against alternative constructions. (Rhodes , 568)…”
Section: Analysis Of Great Society Rhetoricmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, . “the march of rights and freedoms associated with the New Deal and Great Society has always been unsteady in domestic affairs” (Rhodes , 564). If Johnson had not faced so many domestic and foreign challenges in the latter part of his presidency—not only the rising financial and military costs of Vietnam but also opposition to rent supplements and model cities, the loss of many northern Democrats in the 1966 elections and a growing white backlash against desegregation—he might have used attributive phrases more and referential ones less (Lekachman ).…”
Section: Presidential Usage Of the Great Societymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The central question examined by this literature is whether presidents can influence public opinion using the “bully pulpit,” and if so how (Cohen ; Edwards ; Kingdon ; Wood, Owens, and Durham ). Deploying sophisticated content analysis techniques, scholars examine the effects of presidential rhetoric in election campaigns, public policy, public opinion, and the operation of government (Rhodes ; Schonhardt‐Bailey, Yager, and Lahlou ; Schroedel et al ). But recently, attention has turned toward the production of presidential rhetoric as a dependent variable: the study of the antecedent conditions of presidential speeches and context in which he communicates (Arthur and Woods ; Lim ; Rowland, Payne, and Payne ).…”
“The Great Society” denotes, variously: a slogan or shorthand, a utopia, a means, an end, an era, and a set of normative claims. This article tracks the changing meanings of The Great Society in order to clarify and formalize scholarly claims about the Johnson administration. Employing Edward Sapir's conception of “condensation symbols” and Keith Donnellan's distinction between “referential” and “attributive” descriptions, I create a typology of six Great Societies and trace the origins and deployment of these six meanings through qualitative textual analysis of presidential speeches, newspapers, and scholarly writings. Attributive uses of the term gave way to referential uses in the late 1960s, as radical movements and practical implementation problems eclipsed utopian visions of a great society. The analysis illuminates Johnson's character and contributes to the literature on the rhetorical presidency by demonstrating the importance of context, ambiguity, and the attribution of descriptive content to political slogans.
This article examines the dynamic between the wartime presidency and domestic policy advocacy. The Truman administration developed a strategy to rhetorically link themes and programs of social welfare and national defense, particularly as concerns about the latter emerged on the national agenda. I find that this practice of rhetorical linkage often involved framing Fair Deal objectives as critical to America's national strength. My conclusion is supported by archival evidence from the Truman Library. Rather than merely a rhetorical posture, it is evident that many Fair Deal advocates maintained the idea that a broad social welfare agenda was necessary to uphold American national security objectives.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
