Presidential Power Rhetoric And The Terror Wars

Presidential Power, Rhetoric, and the Terror Wars: The Sovereign Presidency argues that the War on Terror provided an opportunity to fundamentally change the presidency. Alexander Hiland analyzes the documents used to exercise presidential powers, including executive orders, signing statements, and presidential policy directives. Treating these documents as genres of speech-act that are ideologically motivated, Hiland provides a rhetorical criticism that illuminates the values and political convictions at play in these documents. This book reveals how both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama wielded the personal power of the office to dramatically expand the power of the executive branch. During the War on Terror, the presidency shifted from an imperial form that avoided checks and balances, to a sovereign presidency where the executive branch had the ability to decide whether those checks and balances existed. As a result, Hiland argues that this shift to the sovereign presidency enabled the violation of human rights, myriad policy mistakes, and the degradation of democracy within the United States.

Details how presidents utilize mass media to justify foreign policy objectives in the aftermath of 9/11. Modern presidents have considerable power in selling U.S. foreign policy objectives to the public. In Selling War, Selling Hope, Anthony R. DiMaggio documents how presidents often make use of the media to create a positive informational environment that, at least in the short term, successfully builds public support for policy proposals. Using timely case studies with a focus on the Arab Spring and the U.S. “War on Terror” in the Middle East and surrounding regions, DiMaggio explains how official spin is employed to construct narratives that are sympathetic to U.S. officialdom. The mass media, rather than exhibiting independence when it comes to reporting foreign policy issues, is regularly utilized as a political tool for selling official proposals. The marginalization of alternative, critical viewpoints poses a significant obstacle to informed public deliberations on foreign policy issues. In the long run, however, the packaging of official narrative and its delivery by the media begins to unravel as citizens are able to make use of alternative sources of information and assert their independence from official viewpoints. “Selling War, Selling Hope is an innovative project that pushes the fields of political science, political communication, public opinion, and presidential rhetoric into new and exciting directions. This book is essential reading.” — Mark Major, author of The Unilateral Presidency and the News Media: The Politics of Framing Executive Power “This eye-opening exposition offers a radical new conclusion to the debate over why Americans oppose wars: Americans oppose particular wars for moral reasons. By capturing the wide range of presidential rhetoric from fear to hope, DiMaggio documents the depths plumbed by political and other elites to manipulate the American public to support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In order to counteract American citizens’ moral opposition to war, political elites manipulate citizens’ fears into support for war by giving them hope, but the policies they choose, more often than not, lead to more war and reason for fear which creates a vicious cycle: fear—hope—war. The challenge we face is to break through the noise and the manipulation of political, economic, and military elites. DiMaggio offers us a way to see clearly.” — Amentahru Wahlrab, University of Texas at Tyler

Through the analysis of eighteen years of presidential data, this book shows how Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump have conducted and framed the war on terror since its inception in 2001. Examining all presidential speeches about terrorism from George W. Bush’s two terms as President, Barack Obama’s two terms as President, and Donald Trump’s first year as President, this book is the first to compare the three post-9/11 presidents in how they have dealt with the terror threat. Presidential Rhetoric on Terrorism under Bush, Obama, and Trump argues that when policies need to be “sold” to the public and Congress, presidents make their pertinent issues seem urgent through frequent speech-making and threat inflation. It further illustrates how after policies are sold, a new President’s reticence may signify quiet acceptance of the old regime’s approach. After examining the conduct of the war on terror to date, it concludes by posing policy suggestions for the future.

Post-9/11 American Presidential Rhetoric examines the communication offensive orchestrated by George W. Bush and the members of his administration between the initial terrorism crisis of September 11, 2001, and the March 20, 2003, invasion of Iraq. Colleen Elizabeth Kelley argues that the president relied on a set of particular strategies that coalesced into protofascist talk in order to discursively manage the post-9/11 situation and justify the president's 2003 war against Iraq. This book suggests a framework for analyzing emergent fascist public discourse and its potential for producing additional substantial antidemocratic speech and action. Kelley further reviews the role of the media in conveying President Bush's rhetorical doctrine to the American public. The rhetoric of democratic discourse is presented as a firewall to guarantee that such speech-based behaviors, which are endorsed by willing publics and developed within democracies, fail to thrive and do not destroy the very systems that enabled them in the first place. Post-9/11 American Presidential Rhetoric is a stimulating text that will strike up discussion among scholars of political communication and those interested in cultural studies. Book jacket.

"The American public has an appetite for presidential leadership, and is often critical of presidents who are slow to offer such leadership. Moreover, the leadership they expect is not merely the fulfillment of the president's constitutional role, but also a form of popular rhetorical leadership. The American public does not make comparable demands for leadership of any other public official, thus giving the president tremendous power to shape social and political reality. This power is even greater in times of international crisis or war, when a number of factors combine to augment the power of presidential rhetoric and thus ensure that such rhetoric defines American political reality. Presidential definitions of the enemy become, at least initially, how the enemy actually "is" for the American people." "Given the central role of enemy images in the development, evolution and resolution of international conflicts, understanding presidential images of the enemy is vital to understanding international relations and American foreign policy. This study examines the genesis and evolution of enemy images in the presidential rhetoric that defined the conflicts which have in turn shaped the modern world, including World War I, World War II, the early Cold War, the Vietnam War, the first Gulf War, the so-called Global War on Terrorism and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It explores the rhetorical continuities that cut across these very different conflicts and presidencies, and the interconnections between presidential images of the enemy and prevailing images of the American self." --Book Jacket.

Ending a war, as Fred Charles Iklé wrote, poses a much greater challenge than beginning one. In addition to issues related to battle tactics, prisoners of war, diplomatic relations, and cease-fire negotiations, ending war involves domestic political calculations. Balancing the tides of public opinion versus policy needs poses a deep and enduring problem for presidents. In a first-of-its-kind study, Resowing the Seeds of War explains how Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Obama managed the political, policy, and bureaucratic challenges that arise at the end of war via a series of rhetorical choices that reframe, modify, or unravel depictions of national enemies, the cause of the conflict, and the stakes for the nation and world. This end-of-war rhetoric justifies ending hostilities, rationalizes postwar national policy, argues for the construction of postwar security arrangements, and often sustains public support for massive financial investment in reconstruction. By tracking presidential manipulations of savage imagery from World War II to the War on Terror, this book concludes that even as metaphoric reframing facilitates exit from conflict, it incurs unexpected consequences that make national involvement in the next conflict more likely.

A scathing portrait of contemporary executive power run amok, by the author of the original 1976 Church Committee report on executive abuse.

The surprising truth behind Barack Obama's decision to continue many of his predecessor's counterterrorism policies. Conventional wisdom holds that 9/11 sounded the death knell for presidential accountability. In fact, the opposite is true. The novel powers that our post-9/11 commanders in chief assumed—endless detentions, military commissions, state secrets, broad surveillance, and more—are the culmination of a two-century expansion of presidential authority. But these new powers have been met with thousands of barely visible legal and political constraints—enforced by congressional committees, government lawyers, courts, and the media—that have transformed our unprecedentedly powerful presidency into one that is also unprecedentedly accountable. These constraints are the key to understanding why Obama continued the Bush counterterrorism program, and in this light, the events of the last decade should be seen as a victory, not a failure, of American constitutional government. We have actually preserved the framers’ original idea of a balanced constitution, despite the vast increase in presidential power made necessary by this age of permanent emergency.