Matching Items (6)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

134155-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
President Donald Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015, and the America immediately knew that he was an unorthodox candidate. Early on in his campaign, Trump isolated groups of people and treated them as enemies, but none so consistently as the news media. What began as criticism of "fake news,"

President Donald Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015, and the America immediately knew that he was an unorthodox candidate. Early on in his campaign, Trump isolated groups of people and treated them as enemies, but none so consistently as the news media. What began as criticism of "fake news," turned into calling the news media "the opposition party." However, media professionals agree that when the Trump administration called the news media the "enemy of the American people" \u2014 a line had been crossed. In the last two years Trump has denied simple fact and credible journalism countless times. His avid use of social media allows his messages to reach millions of people in moments - which had the potential to be a positive thing. However, Twitter is often where Trump turns to dispute the media, science, fact or anything else that "opposes" him. If Americans cannot believe the news media, cannot believe science, and cannot believe established fact, what can they believe? Allowing one man, in this case, Trump, to become the beacon of truth is dangerous and destructive to democracy. The news media must do their best to recapture the trust and faith of the American people by producing good, honest journalism. Seasoned journalism professionals say that his attacks on the media are likely a facade, just another way to appeal to his base, but that those attacks have the potential to wreak havoc in American society. Regardless of Trump's intentions, the toxicity between him and news media could have consequences that reach far beyond his presidency.
Created2017-12
133877-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
In 2016, the Western world was shocked by the victory of the "Leave" campaign in the referendum on European Union membership in Great Britain and by the victory of Donald Trump in the United States' presidential election. These two electoral successes have been called "populist" campaigns in their respective countries.

In 2016, the Western world was shocked by the victory of the "Leave" campaign in the referendum on European Union membership in Great Britain and by the victory of Donald Trump in the United States' presidential election. These two electoral successes have been called "populist" campaigns in their respective countries. In this paper, I ask whether the widespread populist sentiment in the United States and Great Britain qualifies as "populist" and should be regarded as part of the same movement. I then explore whether Trump and Leave voters are motivated by a common issue or set of issues. Initially, I frame my argument by defining populism and showing how both campaigns meet the definition. Next, I compare the Leave campaign with the Trump campaign and explore the similarities and differences in the demographics and opinions of their supporters. I determine that while the Trump and Leave campaigns certainly have differences, they should ultimately be treated as two branches of the same movement. Finally, I conclude that both campaigns are more motivated by versions of cultural resentment than economic anxiety.
ContributorsDunning, Alexander Chase (Author) / Lennon, Tara (Thesis director) / Simhony, Avital (Committee member) / Department of Finance (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
134131-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
On November 8th, 2016, pollsters, news correspondents, and millions of American voters watched in disbelief as the news came in; Donald J. Trump had been elected as the 45th President of the United States. Donald Trump, How Did This Happen?: An Analysis of Rhetorical Strategies Utilized in the 2016 Presidential

On November 8th, 2016, pollsters, news correspondents, and millions of American voters watched in disbelief as the news came in; Donald J. Trump had been elected as the 45th President of the United States. Donald Trump, How Did This Happen?: An Analysis of Rhetorical Strategies Utilized in the 2016 Presidential Campaign of Donald Trump is a rhetorical analysis of the strategies implemented in Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential campaign. It challenges the idea that the Donald Trump win was "unprecedented" and rather that when looking at the white, working-class in the the United States, their attraction to Trump should have been expected. White, blue-collar Americans trust the government at historically low rates. That, coupled with economic insecurity and a culture of fear that is heavily steeped in racial undertones, allowed the Trump campaign to successfully use fear as a mechanism to encourage Trump supporters to vote.
ContributorsHoffer, Aubrey Linn (Author) / Doty, Roxanne (Thesis director) / Lennon, Tara (Committee member) / Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-12
148343-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

This paper is an in-depth analysis of the actions and rhetoric of Donald Trump’s presidency from the perspective of Machiavelli’s most famed work, 'The Prince'. Its premise is born from two articles claiming Donald Trump was either the American Machiavelli or the Anti-Machiavelli, and sets out to find out which title

This paper is an in-depth analysis of the actions and rhetoric of Donald Trump’s presidency from the perspective of Machiavelli’s most famed work, 'The Prince'. Its premise is born from two articles claiming Donald Trump was either the American Machiavelli or the Anti-Machiavelli, and sets out to find out which title is the most accurate. The end findings suggest that President Trump did not follow enough rules in 'The Prince' to be Machiavellian, but that Trumpism as a political doctrine has the potential grow into a modern day Machiavellianism.

Created2021-05
137118-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
If democracy is the best way to rule why then is it limited only to the political sphere? This question is central to economic democracy which is the theory that economic activities should be governed by democratic principles. In America, ESOPs are used for a variety of reasons, and I

If democracy is the best way to rule why then is it limited only to the political sphere? This question is central to economic democracy which is the theory that economic activities should be governed by democratic principles. In America, ESOPs are used for a variety of reasons, and I believe that they can be used for the development of democratic firms. My thesis looks at current ESOPs to see if they are democratic, and suggests how they can be used to develop democratic firms.
ContributorsHeth, Zachary Fredrick (Author) / Simhony, Avital (Thesis director) / Lennon, Tara (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2014-05
161089-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

I examine trends in hate crime incidents in the U.S. during the presidencies of Barack Obama and Donald Trump. In addition, I examine overall hate crime incidents, as well as single-bias motivations for hate crimes such as race/ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. Lastly, I test whether there were differences in

I examine trends in hate crime incidents in the U.S. during the presidencies of Barack Obama and Donald Trump. In addition, I examine overall hate crime incidents, as well as single-bias motivations for hate crimes such as race/ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. Lastly, I test whether there were differences in hate crime trends across the two presidents. My results find that hate crime trends were overall lower during Obama’s presidency and higher in Trump’s. To add on, I conclude that various legislations and the rhetoric used by the former presidents can affect the rate of hate crimes.

ContributorsKang, Jenny (Author) / Wallace, Danielle (Thesis director) / Woo, Bongki (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor)
Created2021-12