Sam Thomas

Project 1

When Science and Hot Air Collide

If there is one thing that those within politics agree on, it is that politics by nature
is a divisive and difficult topic to discuss. The discourse between the public and the
government is predicated on sensitivity on the governments part towards the will of the
people and vigilance on the publics part on how the government is serving them.
Therefore, discourse in the field discusses values and concepts that are inherently
personal and sensitive, rendering discourse difficult. Specifically in an American context,
which is this papers primary focus, the interplay between the government and the
people is fundamentally important to the discussion of what it means to be American. In
this pursuit of difficult discourse, it is of dire importance to understand how
communication between these two communities functions, and how information about
and from the government disseminates to the people. Key to effective discourse is
establishing credibility and authority - in a topic as personally charged as politics,
discourse needs to have a persuasive and believable author. In academia, there is a
greater reliance of verifiable fact, while in more professional politics, there is a greater
reliance on emotion and trust building. Through a thoughtful comparison of Robert
Brulles article, Institutionalizing Delay: Foundation Funding and the Creation of U.S.
Climate Change Countermovement Organizations,1 an academic piece, and President
Trumps webpage discussing energy efficiency, a more professional politician piece, it is
evident how the different goals and audiences of each author shapes how they present
their information and use different rhetorical devices to prove authority.
Brulles article - typical of academic, political discourse exemplifies that the
genre rhetorically values posing political ideas as empirical fact. Using a detached
scientific voice, the credibility of this work comes from the words themselves, rather than
the author. In this work, the author begins with historical context to ground the reader,
establishing that he is speaking about an American context. By grounding the reader, he
then assumes that his audience will know what he means by conservative and social
movement theory2 as well as be aware of the debate in the field between those who
deny or advocate for climate change. This process of grounding the reader in a
particular political climate and context is of the utmost importance and often done at the
beginning of papers. The article also cites other works often to ensure the reader that
the author is well versed in the field and can speak on these matters, building his
credibility. This type of scholarship is structured like a research paper, with a thesis and
sections devoted to answer the questions posed. This author, true to form, answers
these questions in clearly labeled sections and he concludes his thoughts with a succinct
conclusion that there is in fact a strong counter movement towards climate change
studies, and understanding that this exists and how it functions is incredibly important to
understand how to mitigate climate change. Discourse in the academy has largely
remained the same over the years, as the academy wants to hold onto this idea of a
scientific approach to politics in order to legitimize the field. In an area of study that can
be so personal and divisive, the academy strongly values a sense of scientific
detachment. The truth of the matter is that politics is highly theoretical despite how

1 Brulle, Robert J. "Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate
change counter-movement organizations." Climatic Change 122, no. 4 (2013): 681-94.
doi:10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7.
2 Ibid
sure one is about a bill or ideas success there isnt any way to test it short of
implementation. As a result of this reality, the aim of political science discourse is to
rhetorically portray theoretical ideas as soundly and legitimate as possible. The only time
the author uses the personal pronoun I is when he sets up his main argument, and he is
careful throughout to not mention his opinions. Instead, the author employs graphs,
logical connectors such as thus and as a result, and intentional sentence structure
that argues that this leads to that. This article is typical of how political discourse in
academia looks like an attempt to depersonalize and prove a point based inherently in
facts rather than opinions, and offer scientific detachment as a way to persuade the
reader of their point. The author is careful to establish that these are not personally held
convictions, but rather what the facts point to.
A relevant example of a professional politician, the official page of President
Trumps America First Energy Plan3 offers insight of how politicians communicate to
their professional discourse community. A politicians main job is to serve their
constituency - it was the people that elected President Trump into office. Therefore, how
he communicates to the constituency is indicative of professional political discourse. The
fairly short plan on the White House website did not have too much depth to it, as it
mentions a commitment to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies which should
greatly help American workers.4 The author establishes that the plans mentioned are
harmful and unnecessary,5 but says little on why or what they were and does not offer
any evidence. This reveals that politicians understand that their primary goal is to serve
their constituency - they rhetorically need to present information that reinforces that the
voter made the correct decision in putting them into office. Ingrained in politics is this
need to control and frame information in a way that quickly persuades the reader that
this politician is right and his/her opponent is wrong. The author refers to prior
regulations on energy burdensome and presents that eliminating these restrictions,
Presdient Trumps plan, will increase wages by 30 billion over the next 7 years. 6 There
is no reasoning or backing behind the fairly substantial claims, but rather it seems that
this lack of citation reveals that the author wants the reader to believe the information at
face value and evoke a strong, emotional response. Policies are mentioned but in brief,
but without any type of discussions of what they do or mean; it is instead established
what is good and what is bad and associates Trump with good, as the direct actor of
good things, such as [committing] to clean coal. 7 The reader does not have to
question this, but rather can trust the politician to have their interests in mind. Therefore,
within political discourse from actual politicians, there is more of a play to gain trust from
the constituency in order to have more believed with less said. This analysis reveals that
this discourse community values name recognition and persuasive rhetoric the most.
The utmost concern is to please the constituency and present information that will do so.

As seen with comparing these two artifacts, the main difference between
academic and professional discourse is where the authority comes from. In the
academic piece, the author is quick to detach from the work and rather cite other authors
as well as previous studies to persuade the reader. These are much more thoughtful and
well-structured arguments that lead the reader to the authors conclusions. Alternatively,

3 "An America First Energy Plan." The White House. January 19, 2017. Accessed January 25,
2017. https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy.
4 Ibid
5 Ibid
6 Ibid
7 Ibid
politicians are focused on quickly and efficiently giving the reader information to inform
them why he/she is correct and attaches their name to this work. Politicians names are
a large selling point, and they must establish good feelings and sense of authority and
trust to their name. The article is quick to point out that Trump (careful to associate his
name with this idea) is for the American worker, and how the Trump administration is
bringing us to a brighter future.8 Therefore, there is a sense of transparency as this is
what the author believes and the reader/voter should trust this because the reader/voter
trusts the person. Politicians must cater their writing to appease the masses, while
authors of political science articles try to let their research do the talking. Oftentimes
these two intersect when a politician wants to base an idea in fact and will point to article
or quote a fact of figure. In these moments, however, the context that the author of the
article is careful to mention is almost always lost. Discourse analysis in the field reveals
on a whole, both professionally and academically, want to educate the populace and
persuade readers/listeners of their points. The onus that falls on voters is to fact check
and be vigilant of the bias and misconceptions around what politicians say before taking
it all in as fact.

8 Ibid