Search results

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the relationship dynamics between the executive office and the free press; and how these dynamics have been altered under the Trump administration. Donald Trump has questioned the validity and accuracy of claims, even going as far to call some organizations (CNN and The New York Times) “fake news.” The authors discuss the historically contentious relationship between the executive office and the free press as well as the ways in which Donald Trump has altered the dynamics of this relationship.

In this paper, the authors explore the role of the free press in American politics. The authors designed two classroom-ready activities by drawing on the best teaching practices advocated for in the C3 Framework. To elaborate, both activities allow students to research and analyze arguments made by Donald Trump and challenge false claims. This enables students to engage in the four dimensions of the Inquiry Arc in the C3 Framework.

The authors provide two activities that can be utilized in the high school social studies classroom to enable students to dissect American politicians’ messages. These two activities can be adapted and utilized to enable students to examine political candidate’s messages. By completing the steps of these two activities, students are better prepared to be critical consumers of political media messages and take civic action to challenge false claims.

Donald Trump has attempted to undermine the free press in the USA. He objects to stories that do not paint his administration in a positive light. This manuscript uses the media literacy position statement from NCSS and Ochoa-Becker’s framework for truth claims to explore Trump’s statements and claims.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of angry political rhetoric employed by George Wallace and Donald Trump. The authors start by discussing the civic thinking skills stressed within the C3 Framework, specifically the ability to analyze politicians’ arguments. Then, the focus shifts to look at angry political rhetoric within the US history. Next, the authors discuss the parallels of the angry political rhetoric employed by both Wallace and Trump. Finally, two activities are provided that enable students to grasp the convergences with the angry political rhetoric utilized by both Wallace and Trump.

In this paper, the authors explore angry rhetoric in American politics. The authors designed two classroom-ready activities by drawing on the best teaching practices advocated for in the C3 Framework. To elaborate, both activities allow students to research and analyze arguments made by George Wallace and Donald Trump. This enables students to engage in the four dimensions of the Inquiry Arc in the C3 Framework.

The authors provide two activities that can be utilized in the high school social studies classroom to enable students to dissect American politicians’ messages. These two activities can be adapted and utilized to enable students to examine a political candidate’s messages, especially those that draw on angry rhetoric. By completing the steps of these two activities, students are better prepared to be critical consumers of political media messages.

In this paper, the authors explore the role of angry political rhetoric in American politics. The authors examine the parallels of political style between George Wallace and Donald Trump. Two activities are provided to help students break down the angry political rhetoric employed by these two controversial figures.

This paper tests the degree to which Sunstein's law of group polarization predicts the increase or decrease in polarization among individuals in an out-group during a polarizing event. The authors use the discourse on Parler surrounding the events of January 6th as a case study.

The study includes an overall sentiment analysis, a statistical analysis of emotions, along with eight other feelings, including anger, anticipation, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, surprise and trust. Specifically, the authors measure the differences in feelings related language used in posts as they pertain to Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement vs. Trump's Vice President Mike Pence both before and after January 6, 2021. The authors use this empirical analysis to show whether polarization in the Parler community increased or decreased after January 6th.

The authors find evidence that there is more complexity to polarization than Sunstein's theory would predict. The authors would expect a very polarized outed group to become more polarized relative to the general public after a central event; however, the authors see two extremes emerging within the Parler community (both strongly positive and strongly negative feelings toward Trump). The authors do not see unanimous consent across the Parler platform as Sunstein's theory would suggest; the out-group is becoming more polarized relative to the rest of the population. Instead, the authors observe a wide mix in reactions. The results of this study demonstrate that there is dissent even among the Parler echo chamber. For many themes surrounding the January 6th riots, Parler users express strong disagreement with each other and a lack of unity in their feelings for former President Trump.

The results suggest further research into polarization of outed groups and the policy implications of their polarization changes over time.

Increases in group polarization are often a motivator for public policy and are further becoming a major focus for research. Brookings' authors Stephanie Forrest and Joshua Daymude point to polarization as a substantial threat to American society, claiming “reducing extreme polarization is key to stabilizing democracy” (2022). Researchers Diana Epstein and John D. Graham demonstrate that polarized politics has impacted the “substance of rulemaking, judicial decisions, and legislation” along with “complicating long-term policy changes” (2007). The authors study how entrepreneurs have responded to this increase in polarization and its implications for public policy.

Not only does group polarization impact all types of groups, from the social to the economic, but also it has “particular implications for insulated ‘outgroups’” (Sunstein, 1999, p. 21). Groups that are excluded by either coercion or choice from dialog with other groups become even more polarized and extreme (Sunstein, 1999; Turner et al., 1989).

The authors have engaged in an empirical analysis that no other paper has addressed. This paper summarized the Parler sample data set and analyzed various themes associated with the events of January 6th, namely President Trump and MAGA themes and Vice President Pence. The analysis demonstrated a dramatic increase in negative sentiment and emotion related to Vice President Mike Pence after January 6th as well as mixed support for President Trump and an increase in disgust before and after the Capitol riot.

The 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision accomplished more than the national legalization of same-sex marriage; it also laid bare a deep rift among US Supreme Court justices over the question of whether and how religious objections to same-sex marriage should be accommodated in this new era of marriage equality. This chapter will explore the rift revealed in Obergefell between the Court’s differing conceptions of religious free exercise and will highlight the ways in which this legal dispute was translated into a forceful mode of conservative religious activism in the buildup to the groundbreaking 2016 election.

Contemporary American politics has been characterized by excessive, vitriolic rhetoric since the 2016 presidential victory of Donald Trump. However, Donald Trump’s brand of politics is nothing new. He is the inheritor and latest proponent for a brand of American politics that utilizes demagogic rhetoric. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of demagoguery along with the traits of demagogic rhetoric. Two activities for the high school classroom are given that look at the demagogic rhetoric employed by Joseph McCarthy and George Wallace, two of the most infamous political demagogues of the twentieth century.

With the first activity, McCarthy’s “Enemies from Within Speech” is analyzed by breaking down the speech with Gustainis’ seven traits of demagoguery (1990). Similarly in the second activity, George Wallace’s inaugural address is examined with Gustainis’ seven traits of demagoguery, and then, the authors provide a series of activities that students can do to protest the demagogic rhetoric in Wallace’s inaugural address. Finally, an appendix is provided with additional speeches from American demagogues that social studies teachers can use to teach about elements of demagoguery.

In this paper, the authors provide an overview of demagoguery along with the traits of demagogic rhetoric. Two activities for the high school classroom are given that look at the demagogic rhetoric employed by Joseph McCarthy and George Wallace, two of the most infamous political demagogues of the twentieth century.

Contemporary American politics has been characterized by excessive, vitriolic rhetoric since the 2016 presidential victory of Donald Trump. However, Donald Trump’s brand of politics is nothing new. He is the inheritor and latest proponent for a brand of American politics that utilizes demagogic rhetoric. In this paper, the authors provide an overview of demagoguery along with the traits of demagogic rhetoric. Students need to be able to critically examine demagogic rhetoric to hold elected officials accountable for their words, actions and policies.

This paper aims to contend that populism is damaging to both domestic and international politics; not only does it erode liberal democracy in established democracies but also fuels authoritarianism in despotic regimes and aggravates conflicts and crises in international system.

The research is divided into two main sections. First, it examines how populist mobilization affects liberal democracy, and refutes the claims that populism is beneficial and reinforcing to democracy. Second, it attempts to demonstrate how populism is damaging to domestic politics (by undermining liberal democracy and supporting authoritarianism) as well as international relations (by making interstate conflicts more likely to materialize). Theoretically, populism is assumed to be a strategy used by politicians to maximize their interest. Hence, populism is a strategy used by politicians to mobilize constituents using the main features of populist discourse.

The research argues that populism has detrimental consequences on both domestic and international politics; it undermines liberal democracy in democratic countries, upsurges authoritarianism in autocratic regimes and heightens the level of conflict and crises in international politics. Populism can lead to authoritarianism. There is one major undemocratic trait shared by all populist waves around the world, particularly democracies; that is anti-pluralism/anti-institutions. Populist leaders perceive foreign policy as the continuation of domestic politics, because they consider themselves as the only true representatives of the people. Therefore, populist actors abandon any political opposition as necessarily illegitimate, with repercussions on foreign policy.

Some scholars argue that populism reinforces democracy by underpinning its ability to include marginalized sectors of the society and to decrease voter apathy, the research refuted these arguments. Populism is destructive to world democracy; populists are reluctant to embrace the idea of full integration with other nations. Populists reject the idea of open borders, and reckon it an apparent threat to their national security. The research concludes that populists consider maximizing their national interests on the international level by following confrontational policies instead of cooperative ones.