Government whistleblowers contest authoritarian power. Yet, critical scholars have only minimally examined whistleblower discourses and hesitate to substantively interrogate the ideology of statism. In Dissent, Discourse, and Democracy: Whistleblowers as Sites of Political Contestation, the author addresses this exigency and critiques government whistleblowing discourses through an Anarchist lens, reifying a pattern of discursive statist behaviors. Upon exposing government malfeasance, whistleblowers and their corresponding symbolic designations endure an erasure of agency via abstraction. Joshua Guitar conceptualizes the totality of abstruction, identifying it both as a rhetorical manifestation of ideology and a method of critical rhetorical inquiry. The author reveals how whistleblowing, a quintessential tool of dissent within democracy, has been systematically constrained within the public forum and weaponized for statist interests. Scholars of political communication and rhetoric will find this book particularly interesting.

Since it was no longer self-evident that "better men" meant "better government," critics of democracy sought new arguments to explain the relationship among politics, ethics, and morality.

In an age when Jon Stewart frequently tops lists of most-trusted newscasters, the films of Michael Moore become a dominant topic of political campaign analysis, and activists adopt ironic, fake personas to attract attention—the satiric register has attained renewed and urgent prominence in political discourse. Amber Day focuses on the parodist news show, the satiric documentary, and ironic activism to examine the techniques of performance across media, highlighting their shared objective of bypassing standard media outlets and the highly choreographed nature of current political debate.

"Analyzes the practice and meanings of democratic decision making through an extended case study of school board meetings in one western U.S. community. Argues that for communication conduct in local governance bodies, reasonable hostility is a more promising ideal than civility"--Provided by publisher.

Dissenters are often portrayed as selfish and disloyal, but Sunstein shows that those who reject pressures imposed by others perform valuable social functions, often at their own expense.

In 1920, socialist leader Eugene V. Debs ran for president while serving a ten-year jail term for speaking against America’s role in World War I. Though many called Debs a traitor, others praised him as a prisoner of conscience, a martyr to the cause of free speech. Nearly a million Americans agreed, voting for a man whom the government had branded an enemy to his country. In a beautifully crafted narrative, Ernest Freeberg shows that the campaign to send Debs from an Atlanta jailhouse to the White House was part of a wider national debate over the right to free speech in wartime. Debs was one of thousands of Americans arrested for speaking his mind during the war, while government censors were silencing dozens of newspapers and magazines. When peace was restored, however, a nationwide protest was unleashed against the government’s repression, demanding amnesty for Debs and his fellow political prisoners. Led by a coalition of the country’s most important intellectuals, writers, and labor leaders, this protest not only liberated Debs, but also launched the American Civil Liberties Union and changed the course of free speech in wartime. The Debs case illuminates our own struggle to define the boundaries of permissible dissent as we continue to balance the right of free speech with the demands of national security. In this memorable story of democracy on trial, Freeberg excavates an extraordinary episode in the history of one of America’s most prized ideals.

Noemi Marin analyzes famous writers from the area as critical intellectuals and exiles in order to explore the role of rhetoric and identity in writers' own experiences during the long history of communism. Along with examinations of discursive relationships among power, culture and resistance in works by George Konrad, Andrei Codrescu, and Siavenka Drakulic before and after the fall of communism, Marin proposes specific dimensions for a rhetoric of exile pertinent to communist Eastern and Central Europe. After the Fall shows how critical works on identity, culture, and communist history by the writers studied aid in reconstituting a rhetoric of dissidence, identity, and legitimation in the public discourse of a changing Europe. The book offers a unique perspective on the complex contexts of political transition, in which competing public discourse on freedom and democracy intersect with totalitarian regimes, unsettled societies, and issues of resistance.