Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Democratic leadership
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Democratic leadership
The presidential election of 1988 marks an end to eight years of Reagan administration. As the nominee opposing republican candidate George Bush, Michael Dukakis' role is great: he embodies the new Democrat, who could turn the US away from the social darwinism that successions of republican governments, as well as leftover Red Scare, led to. The main theme in his speech was unsurprisingly the social issue. But, more daring, Candidate Dukakis also introduced the voters to a new view on international politics, modern adaptation of a feeling that was mainly witnessed during the post-Vietnam period. As to show voters they won't be led to the unknown, Dukakis refered many times to former presidents. Through examples of Republicans-led decisions, he makes it clear he strongly disagree with the basis and dogma of the party. He sets the tone on L2 with the end of the ''Reagan era'' that divided America and made the American Dream inaccessible to the unpriviledged ones. ''Respect for the Truth'' on line 32 reminds the americans of Nixon's lies and untruthful behavior during the Watergate scandal. Then all through the speech, the democrat nominee alludes to role-model Kennedy, admiratively reminding the voters of the success of the frontier era, the relation of trust between the president, the medias, and the people,before the credibility gap period. As we would expect from a democrat candidate, Michael Dukakis wants to put a stress on the importance of the social issue. He feels the american dreams slightly slipping from the reach of the average citizen. In the land of the Free, and country of all opportunity, every resident should be granted a right to a decent salary, an affordable college education. He is in favor of bringing the best out of every american, and this would call for some changes. He praises equality no matter the race, sex, or religion. He calls for an end of the yuppie era. His positions on international politics are relatively innovating, sice he plans on instauring a new internationalism, as opposed to a new isolationism. Efficiency of the foreign politics, and end of the inconscious american domination.
As we move into the reelection year, the authors accuse Nancy of ensuring that Reagan hasn’t campaigned for eight months, following a “Rose Garden strategy.” But Reagan has no credible opponent for the 1984 nomination, and Walter Mondale, who will be his Democratic opponent in the general election, has not yet been nominated. So there is no need for a strategy, Rose Garden or otherwise. Of course we get the full chapter and verse on Reagan’s poor performance in his first debate with Mondale; at least we also get the report on the second debate. From there the narrative jumps to the Iran-Contra affair. A few high points — like the Berlin Wall speech in 1987 — are indeed included, but without any perspective on Reagan’s strategy, perseverance with the Soviets on arms control, or success in revitalizing the U.S. economy. Nothing is said about Reagan’s four second-term summits with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Except for a few comments that Reagan deplored Communism, this is a policy-free book, and a book
Reagan, Ron Jr. “Remarks by Ron Reagan, Jr., to the 2004 Democratic National Convention.” In Dynamic Argument. Ed Robert Lamm and Justin Everett. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. 428-30.
The election of 1980 brought the re-nominated Democratic candidate, Jimmy Carter, against the newly nominated Republican candidate, Ronald Reagan. While Carter ran a rather “gloom and doom” campaign, Reagan came into the election upbeat and with high hopes of rebuilding the military. Americans, weary of the liberal government, elected Ronald Reagan. Reagan came into the Presidency wanting to restore United States leadership in world affairs w...
Hence, through various rhetorical strategies, Kennedy achieves his purpose of gaining the spectators’ favor through stressing major current events that concerned the American people. These significant concepts include American patriotism and American diplomacy, stressed when he begins four consequent paragraphs with the same recurring three words, “Let both sides.” Kennedy’s brilliant use of pathos, parallelism, antithesis, and varied syntax successfully convey his ambitions and hopes for America, as it makes Kennedy’s speech a very memorable one in history.
During John F. Kennedy’s political campaign, there were many issues present that the candidate had to address: there was tension due to the communist threat, tension among American citizens due to the Civil Rights movement, and a recent recession that was very sluggish in recovering. Relating to these issues President Kennedy’s slogan was “getting America moving again”; these topics are addressed in a fast and effective manner in his minute-long television ad that was endorsed by the group: Citizens for Kennedy-Johnson. This ad was the best way to reinforce President Kennedy’s stance on the emergence of a new frontier. He was able to depict himself as a man of change and new beginnings due to his fresh perspective and young age which was a
Though Kennedy and Clinton addressed their audiences nearly thirty-two years apart, each rhetor faced a common rhetorical barrier – an American populace too heavily focused on the personalities within each respective presidential election rather than the true issues confronting the United States. To overcome that barrier, both Kennedy and Clinton utilize definitional strategies – in the form of association – as well as language strategies –specifically, historical allusions. Whether or not the speeches directly correlate with both candidates winning their presidential elections does not concern the examination; this paper observes how exactly the rhetorical devices used served to dissolve the barriers between the rhetor and the intended audience.
George Washington, the first president of the United States, had written a very important historical speech and document towards the end of his time in office. He had written the Farewell address which focused on helping America understand the importance of preserving unity, acknowledging the rise of political parties forming, strengthening religion and morality, and he stated his position on American foreign policy. He addressed these ideas with strong tone and used incredible amount of dictions that strengthens his tone as well as representing his appeal to ethos to a strong degree. However, today’s society seemed to forget Washington’s position on foreign policy and has created a new form of the policy. But nonetheless as time grew, change occurs. In today’s society Washington’s foreign policy would include many positive and negative manifestations, but it is still a speech and document that will always apply to America.
On November 2, 2004, President George W. Bush was nominated and elected for his second and final term of presidency. Throughout the course of his term, a vast amount of controversy revolved around the actions of President Bush. Some of the main matters that were significant during his first presidency were the issues of abortion, pro-choice versus pro-life, and AIDS, which led to a fluctuation in his popularity with the masses. However, even with these issues, the unforgettable tragedy of September 11, 2001, and the start of the Iraq War, Bush was reelected to President of the United States despite everything he had going against him.
In President Barack Obama’s eulogy for Reverend Clementa Pinckney and others who died in the Charleston Church Shooting, delivered on June 26, 2015 at the College of Charleston in South Carolina, he commemorates Reverend Pinckney and at the same time advocates for his own political agenda. President Obama shifts between black and presidential registers, weaves the ideas of grace, sight, and blindness throughout the speech, and cultivates his ethos to better connect with his audience, the American people, not only African Americans or Christians. President Obama addresses the American public during this racially charged time in order to remember the lives lost during the shooting, to promote his political views, and to unify the all Americans.
American Politics in Transition For the United States, as for most states in the world, the 1980’s and 1990’s were a time of change and challenge. During this period the effects of change both within the US and internationally acted as push factors in many areas of life, including economics and politics. This sudden change was primarily due to global shocks and recessions, increased foreign economic competition, the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union, the development of revolutionary new technologies, the achievement of post-industrial society within the US, slower rates of domestic economic growth, and the demographic changes within American society. By the Mid 1980’s important developments had occurred within interest groups, political parties. By 1990’s national debates were being held in regard to America’s future in the post-Cold War world, America’s economic competitiveness, culture, morality and the states relationship with society. Five major things must be taken under account when discussing American politics in transition. 1) the basic nature of the American political system, 2) the sources of political change since the late 1960’s, 3) the conservative renewal and the new conservative agenda, 4) the Reagan-Bush legacy in politics and public policy 5) the new political and economic constraints in the era of divided government, and 6) the public policy environment of the 1990s. At the core of American political culture I support for the values of liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire. The nature of this society with also has glorification of the individual, and the rejection of conservative theories of organic society, hierarchy, and natural aristocracy. Being an American means accepting this liberal Democratic creed (laissez faire), while those who reject it are considered to be un-American. America’s political evolution has also been shaped by the continental scale of the American State. The influx of immigration has caused there to be an extraordinary mixture of ethnic, racial, and religious groups spread across a continent-wide expanse that contributed historically to strong religious, racial and regional cleavages. Even its econony was spread throughout the American state. The largest sector of the economy were commercial agriculture, mercantile capitalism, mining, and heavy (capital goods) industry, but these, however, were also diversified into product specific areas. Collectively, the cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic factors had a profound effect on America’s political development because they reinforced the trend towards decentralization and localism that had already been established in the political and legal domains by the American constitution.
Leo Strauss and Reinhold Niebuhr represent two giants of twentieth century political philosophy. The Jewish classicist and Christian theologian contemporaries articulated profound thoughts on political philosophy and earned recognition for their work on the subject of international relations. Indeed, their prominence within the field of international relations continues into modern times and contemporary debates. The Bush administration’s Straussian policy and President Obama’s favoring of Niebuhrian ideals emphasize the radical differences between Strauss’ invocation of natural right and Niebuhr’s cautious and engaged approach to international relations. Ultimately, despite the strengths of Strauss’ political philosophy, its rigidity and focus on natural right – which contemporary Straussians avidly espouse in foreign policy proposals – makes it a less successful as a contemporary international relations paradigm than the more flexible and cautious paradigm that developed from Niebuhr’s political philosophy.
John F. Kennedy’s ‘New Frontier’ speech was at the Democratic National Convention, trying to become the presidential nominee for the Democratic party. He accomplished this by trying to gain support from not only democrats, but also republicans. In his “New Frontier” speech he talks about and focuses on the future. He said that “...if we open a quarrel between the present and the past, we shall be in danger of losing the future. Today our concern must be with that future, for the world is changing.” (Kennedy, John F. “The New Frontier.” Democratic National Convention.)
The Soviet Union’s collapse at the end of the Cold War left the United States without its major global rival. Now alone at the top, the United States’ strategic imperatives have shifted remarkably. The shift has been significant enough to prompt fundamental questions about the international order and whether this new “unipolar moment” will last. Indeed, since 1989, political scientists have clamored to define the United States’ status relative to the rest of the world. Indispensable nation? Sole super...
All of these central issues came from one major source, his record as Governor of Massachusetts. As Governor of Massachusetts, he refused to sign a bill requiring teachers to lead the pledge, he opposed the death penalty which Bush would use to great advantage including the debates, the weekend passes that would allow Willie Horton to get out and attack a man and rape his girlfriend, and his wife rumored to have burned an American flag during the Vietnam War. He tried to counter these in the debate with a question on the death penalty and the hypothetical rape of his wife, however his answers appeared cold and analytical which did not allow him to overcome the perceptions that Bush had crafted in his campaign message. With the defense issue, he tried to come out with a strong defense program in a policy speech in September of 1988, but the contents of the speech would allow him to be attacked as wanting to give up the Reagan defense policy that was showing real results in ending the Cold War (Sullivan, 1992). Coupled with that, Dukakis tried a photo op with a M1 Abrams tank in Michigan, but would come off as goofy and small. The strong political winds would stem from a popular President and a strong economy which he could not overcome, because of Bush’s connection with that success, thus Dukakis had to run on other issues to make his case. Lastly, Dukakis was an individual that tried to take a moral high ground in his campaigning, but he was up against an opponent that would use any means necessary to win. Additionally, Bush was surrounded by individuals such as Lee Atwater that would use dishonest methods as a means of crafting narratives of Dukakis in the minds of voters (Bartlett, 2016). Furthermore, Dukakis refused to go negative against the Bush which would give Bush multiple openings that Dukakis refused to respond to in the
Kegley, Charles W., and Eugene R. Wittkopf. World Politics Trend and Transformation. New York: St. Martin's, 1981. Print.