![Sample our Communication Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, 2013 & 2014 volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5927/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Information-Science2.jpg"})
Abstract
Oath rhetoric took center stage during the 2011–2012 presidential campaign, particularly during the Republican primary races. Several conservative organizations invited candidates to sign pledges, vows, or, as I label them collectively, oaths in an effort to secure the candidates' allegiance to particular policies and communities. Through a close concept-oriented analysis of a representative artifact (the Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge) and candidate Jon Huntsman's refusal to sign it, this essay concludes that oaths serve important rhetorical functions at the personal, cultural, and political level. Whereas traditional political argument in the democratic tradition is meant to mate openings for action, oath rhetoric is circumscriptive. It locks individual identity within a hermetically sealed ideological system. Those who refuse the oaths are treated as apostates who have no place within the system. The result is a political culture based on the affirmation of allegiance rather than the deliberation over and creation of policy.