A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump examines the campaign speeches of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump as they targeted members of the American public that were ideologically different but equally emotionally vulnerable. Each appealed to marginalized segments of the electorate, groups at opposite ends of the political spectrum, joined through a shared distrust and fear of politics instead of political or even party affiliation. Both Sanders and Trump polarized and reinforced their respective bases as “outsiders.” Both relied on anti-establishment arguments and discussions grounded in personal attacks against “enemies” during which they joined their target audiences as marginalized outsiders united through a desire to overthrow the status quo and re-claim America. The book expands on previous ideas about dialogue and political talk and asserts that rather than serving as a model of civic and civil discourse, the rhetoric of Sanders and Trump was reactionary and divisive, begun with different intentions and producing different results.

"Divisive Discourse challenges assumptions about political ideology. The book examines the techniques and contents of the divisive discourse that pervades contemporary American political conversation. It teaches us about extreme rhetoric, thus enabling readers to be more critical consumers of information. The book provides a framework for identifying and interpreting extreme language. Readers learn about rhetorical fallacies and the strategies used by political pundits to manipulate and spin information. In subsequent chapters the author examines and analyzes how divisive discourse is used in discussions of specific political issues including homosexual rights, gun control, and healthcare. Divisive Discourse provides insight into how divisive discourse leads to societal fragmentation, and fosters apathy, confusion, animosity, and ignorance. By exposing the rhetoric of division and teaching readers how to confront it, the book reinvigorates the potential to participate in politics and serves as a guide for how to have civil discussions about controversial issues. Divisive Discourse is an ideal teaching tool for anyone interested in contemporary issues and courses in political science, media studies, or rhetoric."--Page 4 of cover.

The New York Times opinion writer, media commentator, outspoken Republican and Christian critic of the Trump presidency offers a spirited defense of politics and its virtuous and critical role in maintaining our democracy and what we must do to save it before it is too late. “Any nation that elects Donald Trump to be its president has a remarkably low view of politics.” Frustrated and feeling betrayed, Americans have come to loathe politics with disastrous results, argues Peter Wehner. In this timely manifesto, the veteran of three Republican administrations and man of faith offers a reasoned and persuasive argument for restoring “politics” as a worthy calling to a cynical and disillusioned generation of Americans. Wehner has long been one of the leading conservative critics of Donald Trump and his effect on the Republican Party. In this impassioned book, he makes clear that unless we overcome the despair that has caused citizens to abandon hope in the primary means for improving our world—the political process—we will not only fall victim to despots but hasten the decline of what has truly made America great. Drawing on history and experience, he reminds us of the hard lessons we have learned about how we rule ourselves—why we have checks and balances, why no one is above the law, why we defend the rights of even those we disagree with. Wehner believes we can turn the country around, but only if we abandon our hatred and learn to appreciate and honor the unique and noble American tradition of doing “politics.” If we want the great American experiment to continue and to once again prosper, we must once more take up the responsibility each and every one of us as citizens share.

The Hope We Share How do we bring people together when our society is breaking apart? What will it take to bridge our divides, overcome mistrust, and restore our belief that we can get things done together as Americans? How do we bring out the best in us? In Stepping Forward, Richard C. Harwood gives us a new and inspiring blueprint to rediscover what we share in common and actively build upon it. As a trusted civic voice, he argues that to get the country moving in the right direction, these efforts must start in our local communities. Harwood shows us how we can reach within and beyond ourselves to address our shared challenges and create more purpose and meaning in our lives by— • Being a part of something larger than ourselves and truly making a difference in our communities • Refocusing on the desire for good in each other • Unleashing a greater sense of shared responsibility • Finding the courage and humility to take such a path Americans are yearning for answers to the country’s rampant polarization, hate speech, and gridlock. Stepping Forward shows us how to channel our frustrations, energies, and aspirations to get on a more hopeful path.

Discourse and ideology are quintessential, albeit contested concepts in many functionally oriented branches of linguistics, such as linguistic anthropology, critical discourse studies, sociolinguistics, and sociology of language. With many ways of understanding and utilizing the concepts, the line between discourse and ideology can become blurry. This volume explores divergent ways in which the concept of ideology may be applied in different branches of sociolinguistics and the sociology of language, critical discourse studies, and applied linguistics. The goal is to provide an overview of the ways in which these two concepts can be used separately or together, emphasizing one or the other depending on the ways in which the concepts and their relationship are defined. The volume is targeted at scholars working in various fields of linguistics in which discourse and ideology are used as theoretical and analytical tools. While the target audience includes both senior and junior scholars, a particular goal is to reach junior scholars, who often struggle with the distinction between discourse and ideology and their theoretical and methodological potential. The volume is suitable for classroom use at the graduate level.

Addresses the underlying rhetoric of vaccination debates by examining the full spectrum of viewpoints to develop a nuanced way forward.

The Genocide Convention was drafted by the United Nations in the late 1940s, as a response to the horrors of the Second World War. But was the Genocide Convention truly effective at achieving its humanitarian aims, or did it merely exacerbate the divisive rhetoric of Cold War geopolitics? A Rhetorical Crime shows how genocide morphed from a legal concept into a political discourse used in propaganda battles between the United States and the Soviet Union. Over the course of the Cold War era, nearly eighty countries were accused of genocide, and yet there were few real-time interventions to stop the atrocities committed by genocidal regimes like the Cambodian Khmer Rouge. Renowned genocide scholar Anton Weiss-Wendt employs a unique comparative approach, analyzing the statements of Soviet and American politicians, historians, and legal scholars in order to deduce why their moral posturing far exceeded their humanitarian action.

NATIONAL BESTSELLER To get ahead today, you have to be a jerk, right? Divisive politicians. Screaming heads on television. Angry campus activists. Twitter trolls. Today in America, there is an “outrage industrial complex” that prospers by setting American against American, creating a “culture of contempt”—the habit of seeing people who disagree with us not as merely incorrect, but as worthless and defective. Maybe, like more than nine out of ten Americans, you dislike it. But hey, either you play along, or you’ll be left behind, right? Wrong. In Love Your Enemies, social scientist and author of the #1 New York Times bestseller From Strength to Strength Arthur C. Brooks shows that abuse and outrage are not the right formula for lasting success. Brooks blends cutting-edge behavioral research, ancient wisdom, and a decade of experience leading one of America’s top policy think tanks in a work that offers a better way to lead based on bridging divides and mending relationships. Brooks’ prescriptions are unconventional. To bring America together, we shouldn’t try to agree more. There is no need for mushy moderation, because disagreement is the secret to excellence. Civility and tolerance shouldn’t be our goals, because they are hopelessly low standards. And our feelings toward our foes are irrelevant; what matters is how we choose to act. Love Your Enemies offers a clear strategy for victory for a new generation of leaders. It is a rallying cry for people hoping for a new era of American progress. Most of all, it is a roadmap to arrive at the happiness that comes when we choose to love one another, despite our differences.

Jürgen Habermas's discourse theory demands that human beings see themselves in relations of solidarity that cross national, racial, and religious divides. While his theory has won adherents across a spectrum of contemporary debates, the required vision of solidarity has remained largely unexplored. In The Ends of Solidarity, Max Pensky fills this void by examining Habermas's theory of solidarity, while also providing a comprehensive introduction to the German philosopher's work. Pensky explores the impact of Habermasian discourse theory on a range of contemporary debates in politics and ethics, including the prospect of a cosmopolitan democracy across national borders; the solidarity demanded by the integration process in the European Union; the demands that immigration dynamics make on inclusive democratic societies; the divisive or unifying effects of religion in Western democracies; and the current controversies in genetic technology.

In Speaking Hatefully, David Boromisza-Habashi focuses on the use of the term “hate speech” as a window on the cultural logic of political and moral struggle in public deliberation. This empirical study of gyűlöletbeszéd, or "hate speech," in Hungary documents competing meanings of the term, the interpretive strategies used to generate those competing meanings, and the parallel moral systems that inspire political actors to question their opponents’ interpretations. In contrast to most existing treatments of the subject, Boromisza-Habashi’s argument does not rely on pre-existing definitions of "hate speech." Instead, he uses a combination of ethnographic and discourse analytic methods to map existing meanings and provide insight into the sociocultural life of those meanings in a troubled political environment.