Rhetoric & Public Affairs is an interdisciplinary journal devoted to the history, theory, and criticism of public discourse. Published quarterly, the journal explores the traditional arenas of rhetorical investigation including executive leadership, diplomacy, political campaigns, judicial and legislative deliberations, and public policy debate. Critical, analytical, or interpretive essays that examine particular instances of symbolic inducement in any historical period are welcome. Of special interest are manuscripts that explore the nexus of rhetoric, politics, and ethics–the worlds of persuasion, power, and social values as they meet in the crucible of public debate and deliberation.
Since its founding in 1947, the mission of the Michigan State University Press has been to be a catalyst for positive intellectual, social, and technological change through the publication of research and intellectual inquiry, making significant contributions to scholarship in the arts, humanities, sciences, and social sciences.
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our
Rhetoric and Public Affairs
© 2012 Michigan State University Press