Deconstructing Dialectic & Rhetoric in American Political Debate
| dc.contributor.advisor | Tichenor, Daniel | |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Knowlton, Kenny | |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Jacobsen, Trond | |
| dc.contributor.author | Kapur, Sumit | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-07-12T20:26:21Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-07-12T20:26:21Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
| dc.description.abstract | In our American liberal democracy, political progress happens when leaders effectively communicate ideas to the public. These ideas are often shared in debates. However, recent years have seen a devolution in the method by which political debates are conducted. In past years, these debates were dialectical—in other words, they sought to establish truth from two opposing viewpoints. In American politics, however, recent years have seen debates become forums for rhetoric—a style of communication that places emphasis on persuasion without consideration for the opposition. This was not always the case. Politicians used to employ dialectical debate methods, but over time, debate has shifted from a dialectical form to a rhetorical one. In this project, I seek to explore this devolution from dialectic to rhetoric in American political debate. Now more than ever, it is necessary to ask questions about the increasing presence of rhetoric and its wholesale replacement of dialectic. In the aftermath of President Trump’s employment of divisive rhetoric without basis in fact, the divisions in our country are deeper than ever. The opportunity for dialogue seems all but closed as the brute force of rhetoric encloses the electorate in distinct bubbles. So, I ask one framing question: how did American political debate devolve from a dialectical endeavor to a strictly rhetorical one? To answer this question, I first spend time defining dialectic and rhetoric using ancient philosophical schools of thought. Proceeding from these definitions, I track the historical progression of political debate since the New Deal Era. I perform a philosophical analysis of the 1965 Baldwin-Buckley debate and the 2020 Biden-Trump one. After analyzing these debates, I present the theory that this devolution into rhetoric in political debates is the result of shifting “winning” criteria delineated by advancements in communicative technology. Finally, I will chart a path forward endeavoring to restore dialogue: practicing controversy with civility. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.orcid | 0000-0001-9198-8509 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1794/27344 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | |
| dc.publisher | University of Oregon | |
| dc.rights | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | |
| dc.subject | Political | en_US |
| dc.subject | Debate | en_US |
| dc.subject | Dialectic | en_US |
| dc.subject | Rhetoric | en_US |
| dc.subject | Philosophy | en_US |
| dc.title | Deconstructing Dialectic & Rhetoric in American Political Debate | |
| dc.type | Thesis/Dissertation |