The rhetoric of democracy in United States Senate campaign debates

ABSTRACT

This project analyzes the rhetoric of democracy, voting, and elections in United States Senate campaign debates during the 2022 midterm elections. Using C-SPAN video archives, we examine candidate exchanges focused on the 2020 election, ballot access, and the peaceful transfer of power. We find that while Democratic and Republican candidates used dramatically different language and arguments to describe their positions on elections, candidates in both parties laid claim to the mantle of “democracy defender.” Democracy functioned as a floating signifier deployed even by election deniers who recast election interference as election protection and positioned themselves as agents of responsive government while obfuscating President Trump’s, and in some cases their own, responsibility for spreading election conspiracies. This rhetorical analysis illuminates how political elites approach questions of democracy and electoral fairness in an era shaped by misinformation and fractured communication environments. Our study advances understanding of the dialectical tensions in conceptualizations of democracy and the role of campaign debates in a post-truth rhetorical climate.

KEYWORDS:

• Rhetoric of democracy
• Senate campaign debates
• rhetorical criticism
• January 6

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Sabato, “Return to Normalcy?” 1–26.

2. Bond and Neville-Shepard, “Rise of Presidential Eschatology,” 1–16.

3. Waymer and Heath, “Explicating.”

4. Yourish, Buchanan, and Denise Lu, ”147 Republicans.”

5. Waxman, “Trump Plans to Skip.”

6. Brennan Center for Justice, “Voting Laws Roundup.”

7. Ward, “Republicans Straddle.”

8. Waymer and Heath, “Explicating.”

9. Carlin, “Presidential Debates,” 251–65.

10. Benoit, Hansen, and Verser, “Meta-Analysis,” 335–50.

11. Murphy, “Presidential Debates,” 227.

12. Coker and Reed, “Patriotism Check,” 200–17; Reed and McKinney, “Constitutive Rhetoric,” 5.

13. McKinney and Carlin, “Political Campaign Debates,” 221–52; Jamieson and Birdsell, Presidential Debates.

14. Murphy, “Presidential Debates,” 227.

15. Waisbord, “Populism is Troubling,” 28.

16. Neville-Shepard, “Post-Presumption Argumentation,” 175–93.

17. Mercieca, Demagogue for President.

18. Jarratt, Rereading the Sophists, 98–100

19. Diamond, “Defining and Developing Democracy,” 29–40; Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, 269.

20. Mercieca, Demagogue for President, 205–07.

21. Goldzwig, “LBJ,” 25–53; Pauley, “Rhetoric and Timeliness,” 26–53; Woods, “Barbara Jordan,” 291–98; Ayers, “Voting as Exclusion,” 373.

22. Goldzwig, “LBJ,” 25–53; Pauley, “Harry Truman,” 211–41; Pauley, “Rhetoric and Timeliness,” 26–53.

23. Goldzwig, “LBJ,” 41.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid., 42–46.

26. Woods, “Barbara Jordan,” 291–98.

27. Ruiz Casado, “Who Owns ‘Democracy’?”, 1–17.

28. Winerman, “Electoral Fraud.”

29. Carlin, ”Presidential Debates,” 251–65.

30. Coker and Reed, “Patriotism Check,” 200–17; Murphy, “Presidential Debates,” 220, 227.

31. Bramlett, “Battles for Branding,” 280–300.

32. Benoit, Political Election Debates; Coker and Reed, “Patriotism Check,” 200–17.

33. McKinney, “Presidential Campaign Debates,” 149–56.

34. Benoit, Hansen, and Verser, “Meta-Analysis,” 335–50; Benoit and Hansen. “Presidential Debate Watching,” 124–44; Bramlett, “Normative and Persuasive Effects,” 37–56.

35. Kraus, Great Debates.

36. McKinney and Carlin, “Political Campaign Debates,” 221–52.

37. Auer, “Counterfeit Debates,” 142–50; Auer, “Great Myths,” 14–21.

38. Stein, “Points of Stasis,” 52–61.

39. Auer, “Counterfeit Debates,” 142–50 ; Stein, “Points of Stasis,” 52–61.

40. Neville-Shepard, “Post-Presumption Argumentation,” 175–93; Bond and Neville-Shepard, “Rise of Presidential Eschatology,” 1–16.

41. Robert Rowland, “2020 Presidential Debates,” 218–35.

42. Ibid., 218.

43. Hinck et al., “2020 Democratic Presidential Primary Debates,” 181–99.

44. Stewart, Audience Decides.

45. Robert Rowland, “2020 Presidential Debates,” 221.

46. Bramlett, “Battles for Branding,” 280–300; McKinney, “Presidential Campaign Debates,” 149–56.

47. Coker and Reed, “Patriotism Check,” 200–17; Reed and McKinney, “Constitutive Rhetoric,” 5.

48. Kahn and Kenney, Spectacle of U.S. Senate Campaigns.

49. Benoit, Brazeal, and Airne, “Functional Analysis,” 75–89; Bramlett, “Normative and Persuasive Effects,” 37–56; Henson and Benoit, “Functional Federalism,” 696–706.

50. C-SPAN, “Campaign 2022.”

51. Edbauer, “Unframing Models,” 5–24.

52. Ibid., 14.

53. Warner and McKinney, “To Unite and Divide”; Jennings et al., “Tweeting Along Partisan Lines.”

54. Hoffman and Ford, Organizational Rhetoric.

55. Jackson-Beeck and Meadow, “Triple Agenda,” 173–80; McKinney, “Let the People Speak,” 198–212.

56. C-SPAN, “Illinois U.S. Senate Debate.”

57. C-SPAN, “Utah U.S. Senate Debate.”

58. C-SPAN, “Ohio U.S. Senate Debate.

59. C-SPAN, “Iowa U.S. Senate Debate.”

60. Brubaker, “New Media’s Contribution,” 152–70.

61. Bramlett, “Battles for Branding,” 280–300.

62. C-SPAN, “Washington U.S Senate Debate.”

63. C-SPAN, “Washington State Senate Forum.

64. C-SPAN, “Utah U.S. Senate Debate.”

65. Ibid.

66. Paul, Reed, and Bramlett, “Mr. Flake,” 1–19.

67. Jones and Rowland, “Redefining the Proper Role,” 691–718.

68. Reagan, “Inaugural Address 1981.”

69. Lee, “Considering Political Identity,” 719–730; Paul, Reed, and Bramlett, “Mr. Flake,” 1–19.

70. C-SPAN, “Vermont U.S. Senate Debate.”

71. C-SPAN, “Indiana U.S. Senate debate.”

72. C-SPAN, “Ohio U.S. Senate Debate.”

73. C-SPAN, “Arizona U.S. Senate Debate.”

74. C-SPAN, “Wisconsin U.S. Senate Debate.” October 7.

75. Wu and Cheney, “Ron Johnson Tried to Hand Fake Elector Info.”

76. C-SPAN, “New Hampshire U.S. Senate Debate.” November 2.

77. C-SPAN, “Washington State Senate Forum.”

78. Ibid.

79. C-SPAN, “Indiana U.S. Senate Debate.”

80. C-SPAN, “Idaho U.S. Senate Debate.”

81. C-SPAN, “Florida U.S. Senate Debate.”

82. C-SPAN, “Illinois U.S. Senate Debate.”

83. C-SPAN, “Wisconsin U.S. Senate Debate.” October 7.

84. C-SPAN, “New Hampshire U.S. Senate Debate.” October 27.

85. C-SPAN, “Idaho U.S. Senate Debate.”

86. C-SPAN, “Wisconsin U.S. Senate Debate.” October 7.

87. Dimock, “Disturbing Argument,” 161–68.

88. Fenno, Senators on the Campaign Trail.

89. C-SPAN, “Utah U.S. Senate Debate.”

90. C-SPAN, “North Carolina U.S. Senate Debate.”

91. C-SPAN, “Alaska U.S. Senate Debate.”

92. C-SPAN, “South Dakota U.S. Senate Debate.”

93. Ibid.

94. C-SPAN, “Idaho U.S. Senate Debate.”

95. C-SPAN, “Florida U.S. Senate Debate.”

96. Mixon, “Rhetoric of States’ Rights,” 166–87; Pauley, “Harry Truman,” 211–41.

97. Grossmann and Hopkins, Asymmetric Politics; Paul, Reed, and Bramlett, “Mr. Flake,” 1–19; Reed, “Religion and Politics.”

98. Smith, “Upfront Recap;” C-SPAN, “Wisconsin U.S. Senate Debate.” October 7.

99. C-SPAN, “Alaska U.S. Senate Debate.”

100. C-SPAN, “Iowa U.S. Senate Debate.”

101. Ibid.

102. C-SPAN, “Indiana U.S. Senate Debate.”

103. Mercieca, Demagogue for President.

104. C-SPAN, “New Hampshire U.S. Senate Debate.” October 27.

105. Waisbord, “Populism is Troubling,” 29.

106. Ibid.

107. Waisbord, “Populism is Troubling.”

108. Mercieca, Demagogue for President.

109. Neville-Shepard, “Post-Presumption Argumentation,” 184.

110. C-SPAN, “North Carolina U.S. Senate Debate.”

111. C-SPAN, “Florida U.S. Senate Debate.”

112. Ibid.

113. C-SPAN, “Idaho U.S. Senate Debate.”

114. Ibid.

115. C-SPAN, “New Hampshire U.S. Senate Debate.” October 27.

116. C-SPAN, “Arizona U.S. Senate Debate.”

117. C-SPAN, “Illinois U.S. Senate Debate.”

118. C-SPAN, “Washington State Senate Forum.”

119. C-SPAN, “North Carolina U.S. Senate Debate.”

120. Ibid.

121. C-SPAN, “Arizona U.S. Senate Debate.”

122. C-SPAN, “Utah U.S. Senate Debate.”

123. C-SPAN, “Arizona U.S. Senate Debate.”

124. C-SPAN, “Washington State Senate Forum.”

125. C-SPAN, “Ohio U.S. Senate Debate.”

126. C-SPAN, “Wisconsin U.S. Senate Debate.” October 7.

127. C-SPAN, “North Carolina U.S. Senate Debate.”

128. Waldman, “Mike Johnson Is Now the Most Powerful Election Denier.”

129. Ruiz Casado, “Who Owns ‘Democracy’?”, 1–17.

130. Goldzwig, “LBJ,” 25–53.

131. Mercieca, Demagogue for President.

132. Waymer and Heath, “Explicating.”

133. Bramlett, “Normative and Persuasive Effects.”

134. Allison, “Even some RNC Members Are Fed Up.”

135. McKinney, “Let the People.” October 27.

136. Jamieson and Birdsell, Presidential Debates.