Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nonfallacious Rhetorical Strategies: Lyndon Johnson’s Daisy Ad

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The traditional concepts of rhetorical strategy and argumentative fallacy cannot be readily reconciled. Doing so requires escaping the following argument: All argumentation involves rhetorical strategies. All rhetorical strategies are violations of logical or dialectical ideals. All violations of logical or dialectical ideals are fallacies. Normative pragmatics provides a perspective in which rhetorical strategies can be seen to have the potential for constructive contributions to argumentation and in which fallacies are not simply violations of ideals. One kind of constructive contribution, framing moves, is illustrated with the case of Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 TV campaign commercial known as the Daisy ad.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams E. W.: 1998, A Primer of Probability Logic, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexy R.: 1990, A Theory of Practical Discourse, in S. Benhabib, F. Dallmayr (Eds.), The Communicative Ethics Controversy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 151–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Alger, D.: 1996, November 5, ‹Johnson: “Daisy” (1964)’, Minnesota Public Radio Online, retrieved September 5, 2006, from http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/199611/05_newsroom_election/advertising/ad_2.htm

  • Aristotle: 1991, On Rhetoric. A Theory of Civic Discourse (ed., with introduction by G.A. Kennedy), Oxford University Press, Oxford

  • Associated Press: 1964, September 17, ‹Morton Lays TV Ads on Bomb on Johnson’, The New York Times, p. 16

  • Associated Press: 1964, September 19, ‹McNamara Reopens Nuclear Issue’, The Washington Post, Times Herald, p. A6

  • Auden, W. H.: 1939, October 18, ‹September: 1939’, The New Republic, p. 297

  • Austin J. L.: 1962, How to Do Things with Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth E. M., E. C. W. Krabbe: 1982, From Axiom to Dialogue, De Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitzer L.: 1968, The Rhetorical Situation, Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockriede W.: 1972, Arguers as Lovers, Philosophy and Rhetoric, 5, 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Broder, D. S.: 1964, September 27, ‹Why the Candidates are Targets for Mudslingers’, The New York Times, Sunday Magazine Supplement, p. SM19

  • Bryant D. C.: 1953, Rhetoric: Its Functions and Scope, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 39, 401–424

    Google Scholar 

  • Childs, M.: 1963, September 4, ‹Does Goldwater Want a War?’ The Washington Post, Times Herald, p. A14

  • Daisy: 1964, September 7, QuickTime recording available at The 30 Second Candidate, Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 Presidential Campaign Spots, PBS Online, retrieved September 5, 2006, from http://www.pbs.org/30secondcandidate/timeline/years/1964b.html

  • Davidson D.: 1978, What Metaphors Mean, Critical Inquiry, 5, 31–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek J. S.: 1990, Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren F. H.: 1990, The Study of Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics, Text, 10, 37–44

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren F. H., R. Grootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, Foris, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren F. H., R. Grootendorst: 1988, Rules for Argumentation in Dialogues, Argumentation, 2, 499–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren F. H., P. Houtlosser: 1999, Strategic Manoeuvering in Argumentative Discourse, Discourse Studies, 1, 479–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and P. Houtlosser (eds.): 2000a, ‹Special Issue: Rhetoric and Dialectic’, Argumentation, 14

  • van Eemeren F. H., P. Houtlosser: 2000b, Rhetorical Analysis within a Pragma-Dialectical Framework, Argumentation, 14, 293–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van and P. Houtlosser (eds.): 2002a, Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, Kluwer, Dordrecht

  • van Eemeren F. H., P. Houtlosser: 2002b, Strategic Maneuvering: Maintaining a Delicate Balance’, in F. H. van Eemeren, P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 131–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabbay D., J. Woods: 2001, ‹The New Logic’, Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9, 157–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman A. I.: 1994, ‹Argumentation and Social Epistemology’, Journal of Philosophy, 91, 27–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ‹Goldwater Defines ‹Conservatism’,’ 1963, November 24, The New York Times, Sunday Magazine Supplement, P. SM129

  • Goodwin J.: 2000, ‹Comments on ‹Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics’’, Argumentation, 14, 287–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin J.: 2001, ‹The Noncooperative Pragmatics of Arguing’, in E. T. Nemeth (Ed.), Pragmatics in 2000: Selected Papers from the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, Vol. 2, International Pragmatics Association, Antwerp, pp. 263–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin J.: 2002, ‹Designing Issues’, in F. H. van Eemeren, P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 81–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P.: 1975, ‹Logic and Conversation’, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts, pp. 41–58, Academic Press, New York

  • Gunderson A. G.: 2000, The Socratic Citizen: A Theory of Deliberative Democracy, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann A., D. Thompson: 1996, Democracy and Disagreement, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J.: 1981, The Theory of Communicative Action. In T. McCarthy (ed.), Reason and the Rationalization of Society Vol. 1: Beacon Press, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J.: 1990, ‹Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification’, in S. Benhabib, F. Dallmayr (Eds.), The Communicative Ethics Controversy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 60–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin C. L.: 1970, Fallacies, Methuen, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitler, A.: 1985, ‹Address to the Nazi Party’, in Great Speeches, Vol. 1 [videorecording with subtitles] (E. Roehling, narrator; R. Cook, executive producer), Alliance Video for Great Speeches, Greenwood, IN. (Original speech presented 1934)

  • Horwich P.: 1990, Truth, Basil Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang Y.: 2006, Pragmatics, Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson S.: 1996, ‹Fallacies and Heuristics’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard (Eds.), Analysis and Evaluation: Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol. II, SicSat, Amsterdam, pp. 257–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs S.: 1999, ‹Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics’, in F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth ISSA Conference on Argumentation, SicSat, Amsterdam, pp. 397–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs S.: 2000, ‹Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics’, Argumentation, 14, 261–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs S.: 2002, ‹Messages, Functional Contexts, and Categories of Fallacy: Some Dialectical and Rhetorical Considerations’, in F.H. van Eemeren, P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 119–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs S.: 2003, ‹Two Conceptions of Openness in Argumentation Theory’, in F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 147–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs S.: 2005, ‹Finding Available Means to Put Things Right’, in P. Riley (Ed.), Engaging Argument: Selected Papers from the 2005 NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, National Communication Association, Washington, DC, pp. 416–425

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs S., S. Jackson: 1982, ‹Conversational Argument: A Discourse Analytic Approach’, in J. R. Cox, C.A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 205–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs S., S. Jackson: 2006, ‹Derailments of Argumentation: It Takes Two to Tango’, in P. Houtlosser, A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering Pragma-Dialectics, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 121–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson K. H.: 1992, Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction, and Democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson K. H.: 1996, Packaging the Presidency: A History and Criticism of Presidential Campaign Advertising, 3rd Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R. H.: 2000, Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R. H., J. A. Blair: 1983, Logical Self-Defense. McGraw-Hill, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffeld F. J.: 1998, ‹Rhetorical Invention and the Speaker’s Selection of Arguments’, in J. F. Klumpp (Ed.), Argument in a Time of Change: Definitions, Frameworks, and Critiques. Proceedings of the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, National Communication Association, Annandale, VA, pp. 35–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffeld F. J.: 2002, ‹Pivotal Issues and Norms in Rhetorical Theories of Argumentation’, in F. H. van Eemeren, P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 97–118

    Google Scholar 

  • King, M. L. Jr.: 1985, ‹I Have a Dream’, in Great Speeches, Vol. 1 [videorecording] (E. Roehling, Narrator; R. Cook, Exec. Producer), Alliance Video for Great Speeches, Greenwood, IN. (Original speech presented 1963)

  • McBee, S.: 1964, September 12, ‹Chairmen Clash Over Fairness Pledge’, The Washington Post, Times Herald, p. A2

  • Mead G. H.: 1932, The Philosophy of the Present, Open Court Publishing, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G. H.: 1934, Mind, Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist (ed., with introduction by W. Morris), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

  • Mohr, C.: 1964, March 6, ‹Goldwater Gibes at Faint-Hearted’, The New York Times, p.␣16

  • Mohr, C.: 1964, August 26, ‹Goldwater Asks A-Arms for NATO’, The New York Times, p. A1

  • Morris, J. D.: 1964, September 12, ‹Parties Sign Fair-Play Pledge, Then Wrangle Over Johnson Ad’, The New York Times, p. A1

  • Norris, J. G.: 1964, August 28, ‹Danger of Heavy Nuclear Retaliation Behind Curb on Tactical A-Weapons’, The Washington Post, Times Herald, p. A2

  • O’Keefe B. J.: 1988, ‹The Logic of Message Design: Individual Differences in Reasoning About Communication’, Communication Monographs, 55, 80–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Priaulx, A.: 1964, January 8, ‹Goldwater in New Hampshire Says He’d Support Cuban Exile Invasion’, The Washington Post, Times Herald, p. A2

  • Raymond, J.: 1964, September 12, ‹Behind the Nuclear Weapon Debate’, The New York Times, News Background Editorials, p. E6

  • Robertson, N.: 1964, September 15, ‹Johnson and Goldwater Open Television Campaigns, With Both Planning Big Outlays’, The New York Times, p. 18

  • Stern, L.: 1963, April 8, ‹Goldwater Endorses Attacks by Cuba Exiles on Soviet Ships’, The Washington Post, Times Herald, p. A10

  • ‹The Fear and the Facts’, 1964, September 25, Time, pp. 1–7

  • Toulmin S. E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace K. R.: 1963, ‹The Substance of Rhetoric: Good Reasons’, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 49, 239–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wichelns H. A.: 1925, ‹The Literary Criticism of Oratory’, in A. M. Drummond (ed.), Studies in Rhetoric and Public Speaking in Honor of James Albert Winans, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp. 181–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Willard C. A.: 1990, ‹Authority’, Informal Logic, 12, 11–22

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Speech Communication, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA

    Scott Jacobs

Authors
  1. Scott Jacobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott Jacobs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jacobs, S. Nonfallacious Rhetorical Strategies: Lyndon Johnson’s Daisy Ad. Argumentation 20, 421–442 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9028-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9028-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation