Acclaiming, Attacking, and Defending: A Functional Analysis of U.S. Nominating Convention Keynote Speeches

Abstract

This article applies the functional theory of campaign rhetoric to nominating convention keynote speeches. Because an election is a choice between competing candidates, campaign discourse inherently involves acclaiming (praising) the candidate and party, attacking the opposing candidate and party, and defending against such attacks from the opposition. We apply this perspective to Republican and Democratic nomination convention keynote speeches from 1960-1996. The speeches are replete with acclaims (51%) and attacks (48%). However, defenses are quite rare (1%), probably because there is no immediately prior provoking attack and because keynote speakers do not want the opposition to dictate the grounds of their speeches. Republicans and keynoters from the incumbent party acclaim more than they attack, while Democrats and keynoters from the challenger party attack more than they acclaim. These speakers address both policy considerations (56%) and character of the candidates and parties (44%) but devote more of their remarks to policy. Recent keynotes are more negative (52%) than early keynotes (44%) and are more likely to target candidates than parties; however, there is no change over time in emphasis for topic (policy versus character).