Abstract:

This dissertation explores a question often overlooked in contemporary theories of deliberative democracy and discourse ethics. It asks: when does political rhetoric enhance and when does it diminish democracy? To understand the moral qualities of rhetorical speech, it outlines a three-fold distinction between "deliberative persuasion," "strategic persuasion," and "manipulation." "Deliberative persuasion" induces agreement with an orientation toward understanding, while "strategic persuasion" induces agreement with an orientation toward winning. Manipulative rhetoric arises when (i) agent A uses hidden or irrational force to affect agent B's choices and (ii) agent A acts intentionally. Deliberative and strategic forms of persuasion allow listeners to choose freely, while manipulative rhetoric interferes with this capacity. Lies, concealments, and other forms of manipulation erode individual autonomy and the democratic ideal of rule of the people.

In actual politics, deliberative, strategic, and manipulative rhetoric arise in a variety of deliberative contexts. To understand the affect of context on the moral status of rhetoric, this dissertation distinguishes two sets of deliberative conditions. "Richly contestatory spaces" consist of the fair competition of diverse interests and tend to enhance the moral quality of rhetoric. "One-sided information spaces" consist of a single perspective insulated from direct engagement with other views and tend to diminish the moral quality of rhetoric.

To enrich and illuminate these conceptual reflections, this dissertation appeals to a case study of the American Christian right. This case offers an empirical illustration of deliberative, strategic, and manipulative rhetoric. Christian right activists employ a "two-tiered rhetoric," using explicitly religious reasons internally and more publicly accessible reasons to engage the broader public. At various moments, this rhetorical approach has embodied the qualities of all three forms of speech. This case study also highlights the problems that arise in one-sided information spaces. The counter-cultural enclave space of Christian right groups like Focus on the Family cultivates polarization, intolerance, and anti-contestatory practices.