Rhetorical Criticism - President Clintons Initiative on Race - Speech or Presentation Example

Rhetorical Criticism: President Clinton’s Initiative on Race Total Number of Words: 4,803 Introduction Sometimeduring the Clinton’s administration between 1993 to 2001, President William J. Clinton decided to discuss in public about the country’s need to promote diversity by expressing his concerns on racial issues (Clinton, 1997). Due to the fact that President Clinton aims to provide equal “opportunity for all” people who are living in the United States, a significant part of President Clinton’s speech gave emphasis on the importance of removing discrimination or inequalities imposed on certain racial and ethnic groups who are currently living in the United States (Clinton, 1997). There is no doubt that the President Clinton was keen on persuading the people to support his desire to transform the United States into a one nation during the 21st century by resolving issues related to ethnic and racial divide (Lawson, 2009; Churchill & Morris, 1999; Clinton, 1997). In the process of reducing the incidence of ethnic and racial divide, President Clinton (1997) explained that the entire country could solve socio-economic problems related to inequalities in terms of gaining access to education, employment, health care services, and home ownership among others. To accomplish his goals, President Clinton said that he will use the “study, dialogue, and action” approach to address the issue on racial divide (Goering, 2001; Smith, 1998). Right after he delivered his speech, President Clinton started to appoint a total of 7 advisory board members who were assigned to educate the people concerning racial issues such as racial and ethnic divide (Smith, 1998). Rhetoric is all about analyzing how the speakers or writers make use of words verbally or non-verbally as a way of being able to persuade their target audiences (Kuypers & King, 2009: 4). In most cases, a good rhetoric criticism should focus on examining speeches that can create a new insight which can be use in creating hypothesis for future research (Brock, Scott, & Chesebro, 1990: 17). In real-life practice, there are cases wherein speech information is based on impulse or thoughts that are not in accordance to scientific knowledge. To prevent people from believing things that are not based on impulses, rhetorical criticism is normally conducted to allow people to determine whether or not there is a value in what is being said in a campaign or speech act (Brock, Scott, & Chesebro, 1990, p. 13). Conducting rhetoric criticism is important because it can help us generate new political alignment that can work best within our social system (Brock, Scott, & Chesebro, 1990: 17). In line with this, critical race theory (CRT) can be used in critically examining social issues related to race (Yosso, 2005). Using President Clinton’s “commencement address given at the University of California San Diego in La Jolla, California” back on the 14th of June 1997 (Clinton, 1997), this study will incorporate the concept of CRT in rhetorical criticism. In this study, President Clinton himself will be considered as the rhetorical subject whereas the general public will be considered as the audiences. Among the different dimensions of rhetorical criticism include: (1) descriptive dimension; (2) interpretative dimension; and (3) judgmental dimension (Brock, Scott, & Chesebro, 1990: 15 – 16). Throughout the entire discussion, all these three (3) dimensions of criticism will be applied on the speech made by President Clinton with regards to his initiative on race. Application of Rhetorical Theories on President Clinton’s Initiative on Race CRT considers racism as something that is “normal” within the American society (Dixson & Rousseau, 2006: 33; Garcia, 2001: 228; Parker, Deyhle, & Villenas, 1999: 12) and that the practice of racism can result to group inequalities (Dixson & Rousseau, 2006: 33). Similar to the beliefs of CRT theorists, President Clinton was also acknowledges the need to eliminate racial oppression (Dixson & Rousseau, 2006: 33; Denton & Holloway, 2003: 152). However, there are some flaws seen between President Clinton’s intentions to remove racial oppression and his actions (Denton & Holloway, 2003: 160). Specifically the concept of CRT is applicable not only in the field of education but also in legal issues (Dixson & Rousseau, 2006: 48). In line with this, common questions that had arises out of President Clinton’s initiative on race include whether or not his speech was enough to create a policy change or trigger legislative actions with regards to the issue on race in America (Smith, 1998). In general, no one can possibly argue about the good intentions of President Clinton particularly when it comes to the need to promote equal opportunity to all people. In fact, President Clinton received quite a lot of praise for his initiative on race (Weber, 1995). However, quite a lot of other presidents in the United States such as the ex-President Harry S. Truman and ex-President Lyndon B. Johnson adopted the use of racial issues in their national speech for their political campaign or political strategies (Lawson, 2009). This triggers the question as to whether or not President Clinton’s intention to bring up the issue on racial problems was sincere or not. The goal of President Clinton’s speech was to create a “multiracial democracy” (Denton & Holloway, 2003: 152). Ever since President Clinton has delivered his speech on his initiative on racial issues, the President has been continuously a subject of rhetorical criticism. After analyzing the rhetorical speech made by President Clinton back in 1997, Carcasson and Rice (1999: 258) said that the presidents’ view on racial inequality can be explained by the present of income inequality which may have had resulted from the practice of bigotry and discrimination – the causative factors. Furthermore, Carcasson and Rice (1999) mentioned that the national speech of President Clinton can be criticized for being “naïve” and “blind to reality” due to the fact that the president has shifted from discussing racial inequality and income inequality (Denton & Holloway, 2003) to other indirectly related topics like sexual orientation or religion. Written in a book entitled “Images, Scandal, and Communication Strategies of the Clinton Presidency”, Denton and Holloway (2003: 154) criticized President Clinton’s initiative on race as a rhetoric that has serious problem with regards to “honesty and explicitness”. Other people felt that President Clinton’s initiative on race was “vague” (Hall, 2003: 167). In the case of Carcasson and Rice (1999: 243), the authors argued that the promises made by President Clinton with regards to his race initiatives between 1997 to 1998 had several “flaws and inconsistencies” in his argumentation. For example, Clinton (1997) stated in his speech that “within the next 3 years, here in California, no single race or ethnic group will make up a majority of the State’s population”. Upon analyzing what President Clinton has said about having “no single race or ethnic group will make up a majority of the State’s population” is too good to be true. How can it be possible for the State of California not to have a single race or ethnic group to make up a majority of its population? Using basic statistical method such as frequency and percentage, there will always be at least one race or ethnic group that will be dominant in each State in the US. In fact, it is close to impossible for the US government to control the number of people of certain race or ethnic group to live in each State. Likewise, there was a clash between President Clinton’s initiative on race and what was really going on in his administration. If President Clinton was serious about his initiative on race, then there should be at least one American Indian in his 7 advisory board members. CRT examines how race-neutrality can be applied in practice (Dixson & Rousseau, 2006: 48). Unfortunately, Denton and Holloway (2003: 154) and Churchill and Morris (1999) pointed out the fact that there was no single American Indian in President Clinton’s 7 advisory board members. This alone strongly suggests that President Clinton’s initiative on removing racial oppression was not effective at all. In fact, up to the present time, inequalities in race and ethnicity still exist (Garcia, 2001: 229). President Clinton’s idea on race is totally different from how other people would perceive race in our society. For instance, the American Indians are actually indigenous people who decided to live in America. If President Clinton was successful in creating “One America in the Twenty-First Century”, it would mean that there would have been reorganization such that the majority of the American people will have to share their own culture, traditions, and language with this particular group of indigenous people so as to create the perception of President Clinton on race (Churchill & Morris, 1999). Obviously, the majority of the American people would definitely reject the idea of having to change their own cultural practices just to make the American Indians fit in the context of “One America”. In a state of the nation address, the president usually aims to persuade or convince his target audiences to think in certain way he or she would want people to believe (Kuypers, 2009: 33 – 34). This is why President Clinton verbally said in his speech that “…I have come here today to ask the American people to join me in a great national effort…” and “…we should learn together, talk together, act together to build one America” (Clinton, 1997). In the process of inviting all American people to join him in his advocacy on race, President Clinton was somehow verbally expressing his desire to communicate his thoughts and idea on race to all Americans regardless of their social status, race, or ethnicity. In most cases, “affirmative action” is necessary to prove that public speeches are not one that is formed and delivered out of pure self-interests (Denton & Holloway, 2003: 155). Therefore, the general public should be educated or informed about their role when it comes to performing rhetorical criticism practices in politics and public speeches given to us by government officials. “Metaphor” is referring to words used in political speeches with “abstract meanings” (Chilton & Schaffner, 2002: 28). In real life situation, there are quite a lot of cases wherein metaphor is being used in political speeches (Kuypers, 2009: 100). For instance, President Clinton said that “…when your own grandchildren are in college, there will be no majority race in America” (Clinton, 1997). This particular statement made by President Clinton strongly suggests that there will be no majority race in the US ten or twenty years from now. Since not all politicians would talk straight about their real personal desires and intentions, the general public is expected to listen carefully, analyze, and react to what each political party would say with regards to certain social, economic, or political issues that could affect the entire community as a whole. One should ask himself whether or not there a truth behind what the political speaker is telling us. Are there flaws or contradicting ideas in what the public speaker has delivered in his speech? For instance, President Clinton said that “during the economic boom, only the Hispanic-Americans have actually experienced decrease in income” (Clinton, 1997). Eventually, President Clinton (1997) explained that the main reason why the Hispanic-Americans had experienced a decrease in income is because of the high rates of high school drop-out. How can this statement be true? Was there no single white- or black-American high-school drop-out who was unemployed due to massive lay-offs or had to comply with limited working hours back in 1997? Other than having flaws and inconsistencies in President Clinton’s statement, Carcasson and Rice (1999: 243) also argued that the president was being too “unrealistic” because he has been paying too much focus on issues that are quite difficult or impossible to address. In general, rhetoric criticism can be performed by carefully assessing the truth behind the public speakers’ statement. Often times, assessing the validity of the public speakers’ statement can be done by presenting a well-documentation of the historical events that has taken place during the same period the speaker has made his or her claims on certain things or past events (Kuypers, 2014: 156). In line with this, Anderson et al. (1997) reported that a total of 30 large-scale firms in the United States had publicly announced its intention to layoff between 2,800 to 48,640 workers in order to reduce the company’s fixed operational expenses. In fact, during the same year, the American Express Company purposely removed 3,300 workers, Eastman Kodak removed more than 20,100 workers, International Paper Company removed 9,215 workers, and Whirlpool Corporation removed 4,700 workers (Leondar-Wright & Cavanagh, 1998). Likewise, Leondar-Wright and Cavanagh (1998) also mentioned that Barbie-maker Mattel implemented its job-cuts on 3,174 workers in 1997. Considering the number of people who were affected by the massive lay-offs and job-cuts, it is impossible that only the Hispanic Americans had experienced a significant decrease in income. Furthermore, it is not true that being a high school drop-out was the only reason why thousands of people had lost their job in 1997. It is also not true that the US economy was booming back in 1997. In fact, President Clinton has tried to use rhetorical speech to cover up the fact that the US economy was badly affected by globalization practices. Ever since most large-scale companies had expanded their business operations overseas, a lot of firms started to cut down their fixed operating cost in US by laying-off more than half of their workers (Gilpin & Gilpin, 2000). “Experiential criticism” either “eclectic” or “epistemic” are forms of rhetorical criticism which that is based purely on the past and current experiences of the critics whereas “dramaturgical criticism” are critics made on symbols, elements, or patterns that are commonly used in communicating with the target audiences (Brock, Scott, & Chesebro, 1990: 21). During his speech, President Clinton said that “If we can become one America, celebrating our diversity but knowing what we have in common, then it’s the greatest asset I can imagine for us to take into the 21st century” (Denton & Holloway, 2003: 154; Clinton, 1997). However, his statement often brings up the question “how” can the president promote diversity in the United States? Is it really possible to promote diversity in the United States given that this country is composed of multiple races which include the white Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanic and Latino Americans among others? Experiential criticism was notable in President Clinton’s initiative on race. In fact, President Clinton’s initiative on race was criticized for not being able to provide the people with effective solution that could help narrow down the gap between and amongst certain race and ethnic groups (Weber, 1995). To help solve the problem on racial divide, President Clinton came up with a strategy called “study, dialogue, and action” approach two years after he has delivered his speech on race (Goering, 2001; Smith, 1998). Based on the past and current experiences, President Clinton’s initative on race was again criticized for its failure to provide a useful solution (Weber, 1995). Aside from being criticized for being “naïve” and “blind to reality” (Carcasson & Rice, 1999), “vague” (Hall, 2003: 167), and “flawed” (Carcasson & Rice, 1999: 243), Goering (2001) argued that President Clinton’s desire to use this particular approach was not really effective in terms of being able to meet the President’s vision on racial reconciliation. In line with this, Georing (2001, p. 481) explained that one of the main reason why President Clinton’s initiative on racial issues was a failure is because it does not have a solid framework which can be use to analyze and mobilize effective solutions on racial disparity. This clearly explains why most of the steps taken by President Clinton was mostly done on study and dialogue but not in action. As a common knowledge, public speakers in general are well-trained to making full use of goal-oriented strategies when communicating to a large group of audiences (Kuypers & King, 2009: 6). In most rhetorical practices, Kuypers and King (2009: 6) explained that the public speakers control the mindset of other people by planning ahead of time how, what, and why they want people to perceive themselves or control their thoughts and ideas with regards to a specific subject matter. It means that most public speakers could indirectly control how people would understand their messages by giving them reasons to agree with them. As explained by Brock, Scott and Chesebro (1990: 17), a good political campaign is necessary to ensure that a candidate can win the votes of the people. Knowing that there are quite a lot of minority races and ethnicity in the United States, President Clinton decided to win the sentiment of this group of people by publicly communicating his support and willingness to remove racial and ethnic discrimination in this country. The “social movement” approach in rhetoric criticism was evident in President Clinton’s initiative on race (Brock, Scott, & Chesebro, 1990: 21). On top of highlighting the importance of equal access to education, Clinton (1997) stated in his speech that “we should not stop trying to equalize economic opportunity”. In history, it is the African Americans who suffered from slavery including other forms of racial discrimination (Denton & Holloway, 2003: 153 – 154). Therefore, President Clinton’s advisory board members decided to make use of the African American previous experiences as the main foundation of President Clinton’s initiative on race (Denton & Holloway, 2003: 154). The statement given by President Clinton with regards to equal opportunity to all people in terms of right to own a house, work opportunties and access to education can be effective to those individuals who are not financially capable of earning a college degree including those who are experiencing a hard time trying to find a good paying job or difficulty in owning a house. Back in 1992, income disparities among the wealthy and middle class African Americans widens as compared to the lower class African Americans and that 27% of the entire African American population lived in poverty (Lawson, 2009). Likewise, Lawson (2009) revealed that there were quite a lot fo African Americans who do not have access to higher education. Basically, all these factors explain why the President Clinton’s strong support on the Black Americans made him very famous among the black community (Weber, 1995). By winning the sentiment of the minorities, President Clinton has won their support by the time he ran for his second term as the US president. Despite the flaws and inconsistency in his speech, President Clinton managed to win the sentiment and support of the African Americans (Lawson, 2009). As a result, 83% and 84% of President Clinton’s voters back in 1992 and 1996 were the African Americans respectively (Lawrence, 2004). President Clinton’s failure to solve the socio-economic problems on racial issues was also criticized as being tactical or strategically planned (Smith, 1998). Other than solely relying on the media coverage, Smith (1998) mentioned that President Clinton’s initiative on race does not have the necessary initiative and focus needed to ensure that his plans are effective in terms of reaching his goals. Kim (2000) condemned that the President Clinton’s initiative on race was strongly influenced by several political factors which include his strong desire to persuade and capture the interests of the local citizens to support his intention to run his second term as the US president. The fact that President Clinton’s initiative on race was more on winning the interests of the media coverage is a clear sign that President Clinton’s initiative on race was purely based on his political interests (Kim, 2000; Smith, 1998). Discussion Rhetoric speech is a form of art. Often times, uplifting the hope of the target audience is effective in terms of winning their attention and support of people to work together towards the implementation of a successful political agenda. Aside from the option to choose the best and most effective topic discussion for a rhetorical speech and the right time for its execution are equally important. Furthermore, a good public speaker will always have the option to make use of metaphor or simile in his or her speech (Chilton & Schaffner, 2002: 28). The goal of President Clinton was to effectively persuade or convince a large group of people to believe each word he has tried to communicate with regards to his initiative on race. As a public speaker, it is expected that the president has already analyzed what works best in terms of winning the sentiment and support of his target group of audiences without seriously causing harm to other group of people who are also living within the entire society. Back then, President Clinton was trying to avoid discussing the issue on racial discrimination to a point that he could inflict harm to the middle class and the elite members of the society (Coles, 2001). To sum it up, President Clinton’s rhetoric speech was clearly a goal-oriented by nature. The topic on racial discrimination or racial inequality is not the only problem that is being experienced by people in the United States but also in other countries around the world (Coles, 2001). Therefore, it is expected that some of the Americans would be more than willing to extend a helping hand to those people who are victims of racism. With this in mind, President Clinton was criticized for not staying in focus on other more important problems that the country was experiencing back in 1997. Globalization was strong since the early part of the 20th century. For this reason, President Clinton should have tackled other more important social and economic issues such as those that are directly related to the long-term adverse impact of shifting the business operations of most large-scale companies from the United States to other developing or emerging countries worldwide. Rhetoric criticism is not focused only on identifying flaws or conflicting ideas that are present in the speech of a public speaker but mostly on determining whether or not the speech given by the public speaker has been effective in terms of fulfilling his or her goal. Specifically the speech of President Clinton with regards to his initiative on race is not one that is perfect in terms of persuading all people to believe and support his idea on race. Denton and Holloway (2003: 160) pointed out that there is a huge difference between pure talk and having an action plan which can be use to solve future problems. In line with this, President Clinton was criticized for not being able to come up with an effective solution to make his vision on racial reconciliation a reality (Goering, 2001; Weber, 1995). Technically speaking, there is nothing wrong with discussing issues related to racism and its negative impact on the socio-economic situation of a country. However, a speech that focuses on one’s own initiative on race should be one that has an action plan. Assuming that President Clinton was really sincere in creating “One America” and his desire to achieve racial reconciliation between the majority and minority groups, he should have had exerted more time and attention in solving socio-economic problems related to the US economy, race, and class (Denton & Holloway, 2003: 159). However, instead on focusing on designing useful framework for the implementation of effective solution, President Clinton was only focused on discussing racial inequalities that has long time been present in the United States (Goering, 2001: 481). President Clinton was also focused on describing the short- and long-term consequences of not being able to solve racial and ethnic disparities within the society. In his commentary on race, President Clinton mentioned something about the presence of racial inequality on income and the need to increase the minimum wage and so on (Clinton, 1997). The issue on wage inequality is very important particularly among those individuals who are receiving below minimum wage. However, President Clinton did not mention anything more than the need to create more jobs to meet the needs of each working individual. Obviously, President Clinton was brought up these important socio-economic issues only for political purposes (Denton & Holloway, 2003: 159). As a result, President Clinton received quite a lot of criticism from his target audiences (Hall, 2003; Goering, 2001; Carcasson & Rice, 1999; Weber, 1995). In response to the criticism he has received from the people, it was only 2 years after President Clinton delivered his speech on race that he decided to create a solution for his initiative (Goering, 2001; Smith, 1998). As a common knowledge, a good public speaker is one that is able to make use of goal-oriented strategies when communicating to a large group of audiences (Kuypers & King, 2009: 6). Even though President Clinton’s speech with regards to his initiative on race was criticized for being “naïve” and “blind to reality” (Carcasson & Rice, 1999), has serious problem with regards to “honesty and explicitness” (Denton & Holloway, 2003: 154), “vague” (Hall, 2003: 167), and with “flaws and inconsistencies” (Carcasson & Rice, 1999: 243), he has been successful in terms of raising the “hopes” of most of the African Americans particularly in terms of having a better quality of life (Denton & Holloway, 2003: 160). For this reason, one cannot deny the fact that he has been successful in terms of satisfying his self-interest which is to win the vote of the African Americans for his second term in US presidential campaign (Denton & Holloway, 2003: 155, 165). Conclusion Even though CRT theorists considers racism as something that is “normal” within the American society (Dixson & Rousseau, 2006: 33; Garcia, 2001: 228; Parker, Deyhle, & Villenas, 1999: 12), this group of individuals aim to examine how one can effectively eliminate racial oppression (Dixson & Rousseau, 2006: 33; Denton & Holloway, 2003: 152). Upon analyzing the rhetorical speech made by President Clinton with regards to his initiative on race, one can easily conclude that he has been successful in winning the votes of the African Americans but not in terms of being able to persuade the majority that racism was at that time the most serious socio-economic problem being faced by the American people. Within this context, one can argue that President Clinton’s decision to make use of racial inequality in his speech was mainly out of pure self-interests. In case President Clinton was not planning to run for his second term as the present of the United States, he could have had chosen other more important political, social and economic topic to discuss. In relation to President Clinton’s speech on his initiative on race, it is clear that pre-planning is essential behind its success. For example, the process of publicly communicating President Clinton’s concern on the need to remove racial and ethnic inequalities throughout the United States has been very effective in terms of being able to capture the interests and sentiments of people who were once a victim of racism. This explains why most of President Clinton’s vote during his first and second term in US presidential election came mostly from the African American group. In general, good and effective rhetorical speeches used in politics are those that are directly related to the main social and economic concerns of the people. Aside from raising the hope of most people, it is essential on the part of the public speaker to effectively communicate his or her future plan. By verbally expressing how he or she can effectively solve various problems related to his or her chosen topic, the chances of being able to build trust with his or her target audiences increases. In the process of satisfying these two requirements, the public speaker can effectively lessen the chances of becoming a subject of long-list of criticism. When analyzing the speech given to us by the politicians, a lot of people now-a-days have been taught about the importance of rhetorical criticism. For this reason, showing signs of flaws and inconsistency in the arguments made by the public speaker will definitely not work among audiences who are well-educated and those with great minds. Likewise, showing signs of unclear or unrealistic reasoning will also not work in rhetorical speeches. Often times, the inability of the public speaker to address unrealistic goals as well as flaws and inconsistency in his public speech ahead of time will subject the public speaker to more criticism. As a result, the public speaker is putting himself at risks of becoming a subject of political scandals (Blaney & Benoit, 2001). Another possible reason why President Clinton received quite a lot of criticism in his initiative on race is because of wrong timing (Denton & Holloway, 2003: 162). Back in 1997, a lot of American people feared that they will be one of the few thousands who will be affective by the massive lay-offs (Leondar-Wright & Cavanagh, 1998). During the same year, only 4% of the entire US population strongly believed that racism is an important socio-economic problem that needs immediate attention (Denton & Holloway, 2003: 160). References Anderson, S., Bayard, M., Cavanagh, J., & Collins, C. (1997, May 1). Executive Excess 1997: CEOs Gain From Massive Downsizing. Retrieved May 3, 2014, from http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/executive_excess_ceos_gain_from_massive_downsizing Biesecker, B., & Lucaites, J. (2009). Rhetoric, Materiality, & Politics. NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc. Blaney, J., & Benoit, W. (2001). The Clinton scandals and the politics of image restoration. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Brock, B., Scott, R., & Chesebro, J. (1990). Methods of Rhetorical Criticism: A Twentieth-century Perspective. 3rd Edition. US: Wayne State University Press. Carcasson, M., & Rice, M. (1999). The Promise and Failure of President Clintons Race Initiative of 1997-1998: A Rhetorical Perspective. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 2(2):243-274. Chilton, P., & Schaffner, C. (2002). Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins North America. Churchill, W., & Morris, G. (1999). Clintons Initiative on Race. The Latest Chapter in Americas Indian Wars. Retrieved May 4, 2014, from http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ccbh/souls/vol1no3/vol1num3art6.pdf Clinton, W. (1997, June 14). Commencement Address at the University of California San Diego in La Jolla, California," June 14, 1997. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. Retrieved May 3, 2014, from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=54268 Coles, R. (2001, November 1). Building the Clinton Legacy Through Frame Alignment. Social and Cultural Sciences Faculty Research and Publications. Retrieved May 4, 2014, from http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=socs_fac Denton, R., & Holloway, R. (2003). Images, Scandal, and Communication Strategies of the Clinton Presidency. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Dixson, A., & Rousseau, C. (2006). Critical Race Theory in Education: All Gods Children Got a Song. Oxon: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Garcia, E. (2001). Hispanic Education in the United States: Raíces Y Alas. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. Gilpin, R., & Gilpin, J. (2000). The Challenge of Global Capitalism. The World Economy in the 21st Century. Princeton University Press. Goering, J. (2001). An Assessment of President clintons Initiative on Race. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24(3): 427-484. Hall, M. (2003). Clinton: Race Dialogue is Not New Program. In Denton, R.E. & Holloway, R.L. (eds) "Images, Scandal, and Communication Strategies of the Clinton Presidency". Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group Inc. Kim, C. (2000). Clintons Race Initiative: Recasting the American Dilemma. Polity, 33(2): 175-197. Kuypers, J. (2014). Purpose, Practice, and Pedagogy in Rhetorical Criticism. Maryland: Lexington Books. Kuypers, J., & Althouse, M. (2009). Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action . Plymouth: Lexington Books. Kuypers, J., & King, A. (2009). What is Rhetoric? In Kuypers, J.A. & Althouse, M. (eds) "Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action". Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Lawrence, J. (2004, October 19). Kerry slow to energize black vote. USA Today. Retrieved May 4, 2014, from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-19-kerry-black-vote_x.htm Lawson, S. (2009). One America in the 21st century: The Report of President Bill Clintons Initiative on Race. Yale University Press. Leondar-Wright, B., & Cavanagh, J. (1998, April 9). EXECUTIVE EXCESS 98 UNITED FOR A FAIR ECONOMY. CEOs Reap Millions From Massive Lay-Offs. Downsizer Dozen Roll in Dough while Dumping Workers. Retrieved May 3, 2014, from http://faireconomy.org/press_room/1998/executive_excess_98_ceos_reap_millions_from_massive_lay_offs Parker, L., Deyhle, D., & Villenas, S. (1999). Race Is... Race Isnt: Critical Race Theory and Qualitative Studies in Education. Oxford: Westview Press. Smith, R. (1998). The Public Presidency Hits the Wall: Clintons Presidential Initiative on Race. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 28(4): 780-785. Weber, J. (1995, October 16). William Jefferson Clinton, "Racism in the nited States". Retrieved May 4, 2014, from http://archive.vod.umd.edu/civil/clinton1995int.htm Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), pp. 69-91. Read More