Abstract
This paper argues that surface-level analysis of political argument fails to explain the effectiveness of ideological enthymemes, particularly within the context of presidential debates. This paper uses the first presidential debate of the 2012 election as a case study for the use of “Obamacare” as an ideological enthymeme. The choice of a terminological system limits and shapes the argumentative choices afforded the candidate. Presidential debates provide a unique context within which to examine the interaction of ideological constraints and argument due to their relatively committed and ideologically homogenous audiences.
Publisher
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics,Communication
Reference62 articles.
1. Obama’s Choke Revisited;Alter;New Republic,2013
2. A Clash of Philosophies;Baker;New York Times,2012
3. Obama and Romney Campaigns Seek Breakthrough Strategy;Balz;The Washington Post,2012
4. A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates
5. Aristotle's enthymeme revisited