Political Tone: How Leaders Talk and Why by Roderick P. Hart, Jay P. Childers, Colene J. Lind (review)

How did Bill Clinton’s word choices help him weather the storm of impeachment? Was George W. Bush the rhetorical ideologue critics have suggested? What distinguishes the speaking styles of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin from those of other political figures? In Political Tone, Roderick P. Hart, Jay P. Childers, and Colene J. Lind ambitiously analyze more than a half century of American political discourse to better understand “the tonalities of American politics” (19). The authors use DICTION, a computer program originally developed by Hart, to quantitatively analyze thousands of artifacts—including speeches, debates, political advertisements, and media coverage—from 1948 through 2008. Bridging the gap between social scientific research and critical approaches, the authors “turn words into numbers but use rich textual examples throughout” (24). Their findings offer new insights into partisanship, political institutions, campaigns, and the lexical tendencies of prominent political personalities.

In chapter 1 the authors frame their project by defining tone—for their purposes, “a subset of style” that is grounded in word choice—and distinguishing computerized content analysis from purely critical methodologies (8). The opening chapter includes a brief introduction to DICTION 6.0 and its primary variables. Unfamiliar readers may still wish to consult Hart’s earlier work for a more thorough explication of the program’s dictionaries and functions.

Part 2 of Political Tone explores the “societal forces” influencing tone. In chapter 2 the authors introduce the “Normality Index,” which combines DICTION’s 41 variables into a totalizing measurement of “textual idiosyncrasies” (36). Arguing that “politics is a proletarian activity, constantly in search of the average voter,” the authors find that successful politicians adapt a tone close to the mean across a variety of metrics (31). When applied to other forms of public communication, the Normality Index suggests that all forms of political discourse—from candidates, the press, and citizens—are more “normal” than advertising, song lyrics, or interpersonal dialogue. In chapter 3 the authors narrow their focus by exploring the relationship between tone and partisanship, crafting scores for “R-tone,” “D-tone,” and “Republican-Democratic Differential.” This “admittedly crude” approach utilizes a variety of dictionaries, assuming that words linked to “Reform” and “Community” are the tonal territory of Democrats, while “Restoration” and “Independence” terms are more Republican (65). Analyzing approximately 4,000 speeches between 1948 and 2008, the authors make a compelling argument that, while the political landscape may shift and particular candidates stray across rhetorical borders, mainstream Republicans, Democrats, and independents have distinguishable tonal qualities.

In chapter 4 the authors examine politicians’ use of the “Urgent Tone” and modernity’s influence on temporal and spatial rhetorics. Drawing conclusions about individual politicians, partisan tendencies, and rhetorical shifts over time, they demonstrate how the rhetoric of time has gradually superseded that of place. While George W. Bush, Barry Goldwater, and Hubert Humphrey emphasized place, Barack Obama and Al Gore utilized more temporal language. Additionally, conservatives are more likely to reference the past, liberals the present. In chapter 5 the authors look to the weekly radio addresses of multiple presidents, as well as responses from the current opposition party, to draw broader conclusions regarding the institutionalization of American politics. The authors assert that in the era of a ubiquitous president, such speeches have become less of a “direct political dialectic” and more “the sound of four hands clapping in separate, soundproof rooms” (124).

Part 3 of Political Tone shifts to personal forces influencing politicians. Chapter 6 is a case study of Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. The authors examine a six-month period ending shortly after Clinton’s acquittal by the Senate, accounting for 28 occasions in which Clinton addressed or declined to address the scandal. They argue that Clinton regained his rhetorical footing by finding “ways of reusing the same political vocabularies that had twice elected him to office” (148). In...