Research Article| January 01 2005 “Analyzing How Rhetoric Is Epistemic”: A Reply to Steve Fuller William D. Harpine William D. Harpine Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2005) 38 (1): 82–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/40238202 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation William D. Harpine; “Analyzing How Rhetoric Is Epistemic”: A Reply to Steve Fuller. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2005; 38 (1): 82–88. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/40238202 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2004 The Pennsylvania State University2004The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract The 1896 presidential campaign included, among many other campaign techniques, a large number of songs that praised and condemned the opposing candidates, William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan. The campaign songs, whose likely purpose was to inspire the candidates’ followers, were epideictic in tone and spirit. By presenting a rhetoric that paralleled epideictic speeches, the songs enabled the opposing candidates themselves to uphold a sense of their own decorum. The songs used values as rhetorical devices; however, the songs ‘purpose was to gain a practical political end rather than to uphold moral principles.

Abstract In the summer of 1896 William McKinley, Republican candidate for President, remained at home while his opponent, William Jennings Bryan, conducted a vigorous railroad campaign. Nonetheless, McKinley was not idle as he campaigned effectively from his home in Canton, Ohio. This analysis of McKinley ‘s summer campaign speeches establishes, first, that McKinley ‘s Front Porch campaign, even in its earliest weeks, consisted of a series of artificial events staged for the media, and, second, that this feature of the campaign shaped what McKinley said and how he said it, as McKinley created the impression of identification between the voters and himself.