https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5425-7002
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This study presents a rhetorical analysis of the popular songs selected by the major party candidates for their campaigns during the U.S. presidential elections from 1972–2016. Our analysis reveals that music is a form of political expression that, depending on the way it is incorporated, can either bolster or hinder a candidate’s platform. Both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates have largely made use of congruity in their campaign songs, with that congruity only increasing over time. In particular, findings indicated that musically incongruent songs that are politically reinforcing could be a significant boost for candidates striving to expand their base. The research also indicated that Republican candidates tend to select songs that are positive and patriotic in nature, while their Democratic counterparts incorporate songs that offer a critique of the nation.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Clark Callahan and the anonymous reviewers for their help with the study.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. It is interesting to note that in contrast to “Born in the U.S.A.,” this song matched the candidate’s platform but was also musically congruent.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Lottie Elizabeth Johnson
Lottie Elizabeth Johnson (M.A., Brigham Young University) is an assistant editor for the Arts and Entertainment team at Deseret News in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Scott Haden Church
Scott Haden Church (Ph.D., University of Nebraska-Lincoln) is an associate professor in the School of Communications at Brigham Young University.
Quint Randle
Quint Randle is an associate professor in the School of Communications at Brigham Young University where he teaches digital media, design and newswriting.