Morgan Marietta

From My Cold, Dead Hands: Democratic Consequences of Sacred Rhetoric

Political rhetoric often appeals to sacred values, or nonnegotiable convictions grounded in transcendent authority rather than reasoned consequences. Sacred convictions are treated as absolutes that resist normal value tradeoffs and cast doubt on the moral standing of citizens who violate them. This study examines the political meaning of this form of persuasion in political domains such as guns, gay marriage, the death penalty, and the environment. Experimental evidence suggests that the distinctive effects of sacred appeals are on citizens’ political reasoning and motivation rather than on their expressed opinions. Sacred rhetoric is not more effective in changing minds, but in shifting the nature of public discourse and increasing levels of political intensity. The democratic consequences of sacred rhetoric include greater citizen participation but lesser prospects for meaningful deliberation, a contradictory influence on the health of American democracy.

The Absolutist Advantage: Sacred Rhetoric in Contemporary Presidential Debate

Sacred rhetoric invokes nonnegotiable convictions rather than reasoned consequences. This form of rhetoric, grounded in transcendent authority and moral outrage, provides an electoral advantage by inspiring greater political engagement and valorizing candidates in the eyes of voters. A study of the language employed in contemporary presidential debates from 1976 to 2004 illustrates that while Democrats made sacred appeals in a few political domains, Republicans employed sacred rhetoric more frequently across a broad range of issues. Democrats have relied more heavily on projected numbers and plans rather than protected values and bounds, often yielding to Republicans an absolutist advantage.

Fact-Checking Polarized Politics: Does The Fact-Check Industry Provide Consistent Guidance on Disputed Realities?

Abstract In the contemporary political environment of polarized claims about disputed realities, the online fact-check industry was born. These enterprises have received awards and praise but also accusations of bias and error, bringing their methods and conclusions into question. This paper examines the comparative epistemology of the three major fact-check sites: do they examine the same questions and reach the same conclusions? A content analysis of the published fact-checks addressing three disputed realties – the existence of climate change, the influence of racism, and the consequences of the national debt – suggests substantial differences in the questions asked and the answers offered, limiting the usefulness of fact-checking for citizens trying to decide which version of disputed realities to believe.

VALUE REPRESENTATION—THE DOMINANCE OF ENDS OVER MEANS IN DEMOCRATIC POLITICS: REPLY TO MURAKAMI

Abstract American democracy is not unconstrained or autonomous, but instead achieves what could be termed value representation. Rather than affording representation on policy issues, elections transmit priorities among competing normative ends, while elite politics address the more complex matching of ends and means within the value boundaries established by voters. This results in neither policy representation nor state autonomy, but instead in a specific and limited form of democratic representation.

Less Is More Ideological: Conservative and Liberal Communication on Twitter in the 2016 Race

Prior to the 2016 race, Twitter was seen as a more Democratic than Republican campaign platform. In light of the extraordinary use of social media by the Trump campaign, this chapter examines how ideological communication by either faction can be advanced or limited within this medium. We argue that the simplest and most inciting aspects of each ideology can be communicated clearly, but not the more complex or mundane facets. This suggests that certain issues will be emphasized and others neglected on Twitter by each side. These hypotheses are borne out in the 2016 Twitter campaigns, in which Clinton and Trump focused on only specific aspects and issues of the competing ideologies, and followers retweeted in a similar pattern. In the Twitter campaign, less can indeed be more ideological when the ideologies are communicated in their reduced forms.

The Rhetorical Psychology of Trumpism: Threat, Absolutism, and the Absolutist Threat

Abstract Conventional wisdom suggests that Donald Trump’s rhetoric – aggressive, insulting, often offensive – would be counterproductive to electoral success. We argue that Trump’s surprising victories in both the primary and general campaigns were partly due to the positive effects of his appeals grounded in the intersection of threat and absolutism. The content of Trump’s rhetoric focused on threats to personal safety (terrorism), personal status (economic decline), and group status (immigration). The style of Trump’s rhetoric was absolutist, emphasizing non-negotiable boundaries and moral outrage at their violation. Previous research has shown perceived threat to motivate political participation and absolutist rhetoric to bolster impressions of positive character traits. Trump employed these two rhetorical psychologies simultaneously, melding threat and absolutism into the absolutist threat as an effective rhetorical strategy. Analysis of Trump’s debate language and Twitter rhetoric, as well as original data from political elites at the Republican National Convention and ordinary voters at rallies in New Hampshire confirm the unconventional efficacy of Trump’s rhetorical approach.

Supreme Facts: The Prevalence and Justification of Social Facts in Landmark Decisions of the Supreme Court

One of the central roles of the Supreme Court is to settle controversies over social facts, but little is known about the prevalence of these rulings or the justifications for them offered by the Court. An analysis of the landmark decisions from 1900 to 2015 reveals that most include a ruling on a disputed social fact, though the Court rarely offers an explicit justification. Rulings from different ideological perspectives invoke social facts at the same rate but with distinct patterns of justification, illustrating a division in approach to this vital aspect of the Court’s work.

The Historical Continuum of Financial Illusion

Can a clever financier outrun a diligent regulatory system? Are these recurrent excesses controllable, or are they an inevitable feature of economic life? The paper examines a representative history of financial illusions, specifically John Laws 18th century Mississippi Bubble, the original 1920s Ponzi scheme, the Investors Overseas Services (IOS) affair of the 1970s, and the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) affair, illustrating the growth over time in the size and complexity of such institutions as well as some of their animating characteristics. If a certain level of entrepreneurial experimentation (deviltry) is a necessary and permanent fixture of the economy, and if we cannot successfully determine between the desirable and the undesirable before outcomes are known, we are faced with continuing growth along the continuum of financial illusion.