When a Bible-quoting Sunday School teacher, Jimmy Carter, won the 1976 presidential election, it marked the start of a new era of presidential campaign discourse. The successful candidates since then have followed Carter's lead in publicly testifying about their personal religious beliefs and invoking God to justify their public policy positions and their political visions. With this new confessional political style, the candidates have repudiated the former perspective of a civil-religious contract that kept political leaders from being too religious and religious leaders from being too political. Presidential Campaign Rhetoric in the Age of Confessional Politics analyzes the religious-political discourse used by presidential nominees from 1976-2008, and then describes key characteristics of their confessional rhetoric that represent a substantial shift from the tenets of the civil-religious contract. This new confessional political style is characterized by religious-political rhetoric that is testimonial, partisan, sectarian, and liturgical in nature. In order to understand why candidates have radically adjusted their God talk on the campaign trail, important religious-political shifts in American society since the 1950s are examined, which demonstrate the rhetorical demands evangelical religious leaders have placed upon our would-be national leaders. Brian T. Kaylor utilizes Michel Foucault's work on the confession with theoretical adjustments to critique the significant problems of the confessional political era. With clear analyses and unsettling relevance, Kaylor's critique of contemporary political discourse will rouse the interest and concern of engaged citizens everywhere.

When a Bible-quoting Sunday School teacher, Jimmy Carter, won the 1976 presidential election, it marked the start of a new era of presidential campaign discourse. The successful candidates since then have followed Carter's lead in publicly testifying about their personal religious beliefs and invoking God to justify their public policy positions and their political visions. With this new confessional political style, the candidates have repudiated the former perspective of a civil-religious contract that kept political leaders from being too religious and religious leaders from being too political. Presidential Campaign Rhetoric in the Age of Confessional Politics analyzes the religious-political discourse used by presidential nominees from 1976-2008, and then describes key characteristics of their confessional rhetoric that represent a substantial shift from the tenets of the civil-religious contract. This new confessional political style is characterized by religious-political rhetoric that is testimonial, partisan, sectarian, and liturgical in nature. In order to understand why candidates have radically adjusted their God talk on the campaign trail, important religious-political shifts in American society since the 1950s are examined, which demonstrate the rhetorical demands evangelical religious leaders have placed upon our would-be national leaders. Brian T. Kaylor utilizes Michel Foucault's work on the confession-with theoretical adjustments-to critique the significant problems of the confessional political era. With clear analyses and unsettling relevance, Kaylor's critique of contemporary political discourse will rouse the interest and concern of engaged citizens everywhere.

The Daily Show and Rhetoric: Arguments, Issues, and Strategies examines the popular Comedy Central program from a rhetorical perspective to uncover the ways in which Jon Stewart, the cast, and writers critique mainstream media and politicians. This volume analyzes the nature of The Daily Show, the arguments the program makes about the media and politics, the strategies that are used, and some of the particular issues about which the program makes arguments. Overall, the contributors skillfully demonstrate that The Daily Show is more than just a show designed to make the audience laugh. Rather, the show provides useful information and arguments so that the audience can make informed decisions about the world around them.

The Daily Show and Rhetoric: Arguments, Issues, and Strategies examines the popular Comedy Central program from a rhetorical perspective to uncover the ways in which Jon Stewart, the cast, and writers critique mainstream media and politicians. This volume analyzes the nature of The Daily Show, the arguments the program makes about the media and politics, the strategies that are used, and some of the particular issues about which the program makes arguments. Overall, the contributors skillfully demonstrate that The Daily Show is more than just a show designed to make the audience laugh. Rather, the show provides useful information and arguments so that the audience can make informed decisions about the world around them.