Annotated Bibliography

Annotated Bibliography

Five Elements to Consider

Laurinda W. Porter, et al. "The Carter Persona: An Empirical Analysis Of The Rhetorical Visions Of Campaign '76." Quarterly Journal Of Speech 63.3 (1977): 258. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 4 Mar. 2012.

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 an 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 trying to discover a link between a rhetorical analysis of the Carter persona in the 1976 Presidential campaign and the audience perception of Carter’s persona. Was the audience response in line with expectations developed from the rhetorical criticism of campaign messages? From the results, there is some evidence in support of a link between rhetorical critical analysis of political campaign persuasion and audience response. Audience members react positively towards politicians that include them more in their personal lives and have a more open relationship with them. This idea stayed with Carter throughout his Presidency race and his four terms as President.

Stillion Southard, Bjørn F., and Andrew D. Wolvin. "Jimmy Carter: A Case Study In Listening Leadership." International Journal Of Listening 23.2 (2009): 141-152. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 4 Mar. 2012

Taking cues from Carter's own communication strategy, this article investigates how listening and leadership interacted in the creation and delivery of Carter's Address to the Nation on July 15, 1979. The central claim driving this analysis is that although Carter demonstrated that he was a listener and a leader, he failed to show that he was a listening leader. This claim is supported by, first, understanding the literature concerning leadership, listening, and politics. Second, they turn to Carter's Address to the Nation to explore how the president performed the relationship between listening and leadership. Finally, they conclude with observations on Carter and listening leadership in American politics. After analyzing the listening and leadership techniques of Carter used during his speech, this article was able to draw two conclusions. First, although listening is a first step to creating a vision and demonstrating leadership, it must be seen as an ongoing process. And second, listening is not an unequivocal good for a leader. Carter demonstrated more explicitly than any president, before or since, that he had listened to the American people. Listening is a necessary condition for effective leadership, but it is not a singularly sufficient one. Listening leadership at the presidential level is a complex negotiation of listening and articulation of one's own vision. A slip in either direction can damage one's ability to lead a country toward a common goal. This article goes one to say that President Carter did unfortunately slip and they believe that the damage was enough to cost him re-election in 1980. This article helps us identify some of Carter’s faults and possible reasoning behind why people saw this speech as a failure.

Berggren, D. Jason, and Nicol C. Rae. "Jimmy Carter And George W. Bush: Faith, Foreign Policy, And An Evangelical Presidential Style." Presidential Studies Quarterly 36.4 (2006): 606-632. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 4 Mar. 2012

In this article, the authors argue that both President Jimmy Carter and President George W. Bush share a distinctive approach to politics and governing: an “evangelical” style of presidential leadership. Though they differed in terms of party and ideology, the authors claim, using examples from the President’s foreign policies, that the evangelical faith of Carter and Bush provided them with a particular vision of the presidency and the global role of the United States. Richard Neustadt argued that aptitude for politics is the most essential attribute for contemporary presidential success and that the evangelical approach will inevitably lead to political failure. From this analysis of the Carter and Bush approaches to foreign policy, they conclude, however, that in certain circumstances, the evangelical style can contribute to successful presidential leadership and is worthy of further serious study by presidential scholars. For example, Carter recognized that he was president of a nation with many different religious beliefs and perspectives, so it would be inappropriate for him to impose his religious ideals on the entire country. This balance allowed Carter to gain respect from both the religious realm and the anti-religious groups.

Check, Terence. "The Moral Equivalent Of War": Jimmy Carter's Use Of Metaphor And Mortification In The Energy Speech Of April 18, 1977." Conference Proceedings – National Communication Association/American Forensic Association (Alta Conference On Argumentation) (1999): 403-410. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 3 Mar. 2012

This article offers information on the use of President Jimmy Carter of metaphor and mortification in the energy speech of April 18, 1977. He used mortification in his attempt to induce the public into action relative to energy issues. But as time had expired without the action of the congress, his popularity waned. His attempts at mortification fell short, and the public became frustrated with the President and blamed him for their problems. The failure of the President's energy appeals underlines the limits of mortification as an argumentative tactic in promoting change in environmental policy. This same tactic was used in Carters Malaise Speech in 1979. Instead of criticizing the public on their use of energy, he criticized their way of life and proposed ways to fix the problems, which included the energy crisis. During his energy speech in 1977, Carter called the nation’s fight for energy independence a test of the “character of the American people and the effort was the “moral equivalent of war.” He used similar wording and descriptions in his 1979 speech, enabling him to remind people of his previous speech and the message that he had sent during that one.