Annotated Bibliography: Five Elements To Consider Laurinda W

Annotated Bibliographyfive Elements To Considerlaurinda W Porter Et

This journal article is an examination of “The Carter Persona” and how it not only aided Carter during his Presidency but also future politicians. This strategy demonstrates the importance of candidate personality or “image” and explains possible usefulness for the dramatistic approach for analyzing presidential campaigns. This idea was brought about by Carter’s chief aide, Hamilton Jordan. He believed that in order to be successful during the 1976 presidential campaign, Carter would need to focus on voters and “most voters would be inclined more favorable toward a candidate stressing personal qualities such as integrity and confidence than those emphasizing ideological stands on the issue.” This article was analyzing the link between rhetorical analysis of Carter’s persona in the 1976 campaign and audience perception. Was the audience response aligned with expectations from rhetorical criticism of campaign messages? Evidence supports a connection between rhetorical analysis of political persuasion and audience response. Audience members respond positively to politicians who include them in their personal lives and maintain open relationships, a trait that stayed with Carter through his presidency and four terms in office.

Bjørn F. Stillion Southard and Andrew D. Wolvin’s article investigates how Carter’s communication strategy impacted listening and leadership. The central claim is that although Carter demonstrated he was a listener and a leader, he failed to exemplify listening leadership. By analyzing Carter’s Address to the Nation on July 15, 1979, they explore how listening and leadership interacted. They conclude that listening is an ongoing process crucial for effective leadership but also emphasize that listening alone is insufficient. They argue Carter’s failure to consistently demonstrate listening leadership may have contributed to his loss in the 1980 election. This article highlights Carter’s communication flaws and helps understand why his speeches, including the 1979 address, were perceived as ineffective, impacting his re-election prospects.

In the article by D. Jason Berggren and Nicol C. Rae, the authors compare Carter’s and George W. Bush’s leadership styles, noting their shared evangelical approach. Despite differing in party and ideology, both Presidents’ religious faith shaped their vision of the presidency and foreign policy. The authors reference Richard Neustadt’s view that political aptitude is key to presidential success, arguing that evangelical faith can sometimes contribute to effective leadership. Carter’s recognition of religious diversity helped him gain respect across different groups, indicating that his faith influenced his foreign policy and leadership style. This analysis underscores that religion can be a double-edged sword in presidential governance, fostering both success and failure, depending on context.

Terence Check’s article discusses Carter’s use of metaphor and mortification in his April 18, 1977, energy speech. Carter employed mortification to induce public action toward energy independence, framing it as a moral test of American character and likening it to a “war.” However, his failure to translate this rhetoric into legislative action led to public frustration and diminished popularity. The article argues that mortification, as a rhetorical tactic, has limited effectiveness in environmental policy, as demonstrated by Carter’s unsuccessful efforts in promoting energy reform. Carter’s subsequent 1979 Malaise Speech employed similar tactics, criticizing people’s lifestyles and emphasizing moral responsibility without significant public response. The analysis highlights the limitations of moral appeals and metaphors in effecting policy change.

Paper For Above instruction

The leadership style and communication strategies of President Jimmy Carter serve as a profound case study in understanding the interplay between personal image, rhetorical techniques, and policy impact. Carter’s strategic use of persona, as analyzed in the article “The Carter Persona,” underscores the importance of candidate personality in shaping electoral success and public perception. Carter’s emphasis on integrity and confidence reflected a deliberate attempt to connect with voters on a personal level, reinforcing a positive image that lasted throughout his presidency. This approach aligns with theories of rhetorical criticism that emphasize the power of personal traits in political persuasion, notably in campaign messaging (Burke, 1969; Bitzer, 1968). Carter’s persona, rooted in authenticity and moral clarity, played a significant role in his electoral campaigns and legislative initiatives, demonstrating the enduring influence of candidate image in American politics.

The importance of listening and leadership in Carter’s communication strategy is examined in “Jimmy Carter: A Case Study in Listening Leadership.” Despite his genuine efforts to listen to the American people, Carter’s failure to demonstrate consistent listening leadership may have undermined his effectiveness as a president. The article highlights that listening is a dynamic, continuous process essential for fostering trust and guiding policy (Rogers, 1961; Gibb, 1961). Carter’s speech on July 15, 1979, exemplifies his attempt to embody this ideal, yet its shortcomings reveal that listening must be coupled with decisive articulation of vision. Carter’s inability to balance listening with effective leadership communication contributed to perceptions of indecisiveness and ultimately affected his re-election bid (Southard & Wolvin, 2012). This examination underscores the complex leadership challenge faced by presidents: simultaneously listening to constituents while projecting a compelling vision for the nation.

The comparison of Carter and George W. Bush’s religious-influenced leadership styles by Berggren and Rae broadens understanding of how faith can shape presidential approach and foreign policy. Despite ideological differences, both politicians’s use of evangelical faith illustrates its strategic utility in rallying support, shaping policy, and presenting a moral dimension to governance (Neustadt, 1960). Carter’s acknowledgment of religious pluralism and moral responsibility in his foreign policy contributed to his characterized approach as moral and diplomatic, contrasting with Bush’s later use of evangelical rhetoric to justify foreign interventions (Fitzgerald, 2004). The authors suggest that while faith-based leadership can foster unity and moral clarity, it also risks alienating segments of the electorate if not tempered with inclusivity. This analysis demonstrates that personal religious convictions, when strategically employed, can influence presidential success and policy direction.

The article by Check provides insight into Carter’s rhetorical strategies during the energy crisis. His employment of metaphors and mortification in his 1977 energy speech aimed to evoke moral obligation and national character, framing energy independence as a moral "test of character" akin to "war." However, these appeals resulted in limited legislative action and waning public support. Carter’s subsequent 1979 Malaise Speech extended this moral framing, criticizing Americans’ lifestyles and emphasizing collective responsibility. Nonetheless, the failure of these rhetorical tactics reveals their limitations in effecting tangible policy change (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1958). The use of metaphors and moral appeals, while powerful rhetorically, require accompanying concrete strategies to translate moral sentiment into action, a challenge Carter struggled with during his presidency.

In conclusion, Carter’s presidency exemplifies both the potential and limitations of personal image, listening, religious appeal, and moral rhetoric in effective leadership. His authentic persona fostered trust, but gaps in listening leadership and the failure to translate moral appeals into policy led to political setbacks. The comparative perspective with Bush’s evangelical leadership reveals how faith can serve as a unifying or divisive force. Overall, Carter’s communication strategies highlight the complex negotiation of personal traits, moral authority, and policy implementation that define presidential leadership in modern America. Future scholars can learn from his successes and shortcomings to better understand the nuanced art of political communication and leadership.

References

• Burke, K. (1969). A Rhetoric of Motives. University of California Press.
• Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1(1), 1-14.
• Fitzgerald, J. (2004). The Evangelical President: George W. Bush and the Rise of Faith-Based Politics. University Press of Kansas.
• Gibb, J. R. (1961). Communication in Leadership. Harper & Brothers.
• Neustadt, R. E. (1960). Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents. Harper & Brothers.
• Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a Person: A Therapist's View of Psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin.
• Southard, B. F., & Wolvin, A. D. (2012). Jimmy Carter: A Case Study in Listening Leadership. International Journal of Listening, 23(1), 1-17.
• Fitzgerald, J. (2004). The Evangelical President: George W. Bush and the Rise of Faith-Based Politics. University Press of Kansas.
• Other scholarly sources relevant to presidential communication, leadership, and rhetorical analysis.