James L’Angelle
University of Nevada, Reno
K. Miller , Professor
22 November 2020
Essay 002: Reflection on Argument Experiments
Introduction:
Rhetoric as a skill dates all the way back to the dawn of if not civilization, at least, civilized man. Since then, any number of methods have been created from traditionalist, to modernist, to revisionist. How and where they can be employed is part and parcel to that very art of discourse, that rhetoric. A skilled orator, a debater, an influencer, can get even the most formidable foe to agree, through logic, charm, even by virtue of outright deception. Some of the methods are cited below in particular circumstances, or for the sake of this essay, as “experiments.” As each is explored, invented, then where it stands in the spectrum of traditionalist, modernist or revisionist, will also be analyzed.
Part One: Experiment in Invitational Rhetoric-- In the essay written by Sonja K. Foss and Cindy L. Griffin and published in the Communications Monograph in 1995, the groundwork for analysis is based on one of the first paragraphs;
“The traditional conception of rhetoric, in summary, is characterized by efforts to change others and thus to gain control over them.” (Foss, Griffin, 3-4)
The authors then note this traditionalist approach is “a rhetoric of patriarchy.” They introduce the non-patriarchal, or feminist, position on rhetoric as “equality, immanent value and self-determination.” Whether this new stance is modernist or revisionist can ultimately be applied to the example in which it is found. In the experiment for Part One, it will be noted that the requirement, according to the rubric, is “explore these and related concerns by trying out IR strategies with family members, friends, co-workers, and/or strangers.” Access to the first three was limited for the experiment, the method chosen was to interact with “strangers.”
The Foss, Griffin proposal was written 25 years ago, the internet in its kernel stages of development. Today it is an ideal platform to engage an audience and invite it to participate in the discussion. One innovative method is to write a post on a blog and link it to a social media page with high traffic where reader response can be found in comments. This was the basic format of the experiment. The blog chosen is a personal one titled Eyeless on Campus at Google. the blog posts there were copied and pasted to the Facebook page of the same title and boosted with a number of variables in order to draw the right crowd for review. It can also be tailored to fit any audience, which comes into a special ad category requiring a complicated process of self-identity before the ad can be approved. For instance, a blog post with the topoi of employment, housing, credit, politics and elections all fall into the special ad category and require an extensive self-identification process. Others do not, such as a review of a favorite film or suggestions for a getaway summer vacation. In order to get a good response sampling, two such posts in the special ad category were chosen for analysis with respect to invitational rhetoric.
There was mention in the lecture of the usefulness of comments in rhetorical discourse. Some responded that they lacked substance, others suggested the comment sections and like buttons on social media pages show very little of the true position of the respondent. The statements were made with little or no evidence to substantiate them. This experiment challenges that position. Two blog posts that were linked to the Facebook page and boosted showed strong reader response through comments.
The first was published on September 1, 2020 titled, #KENOSHA 53143-- Suspending Disbelief &--MYTH OF “FAR-LEFT” and drew 467 blog post visits. The second, published 3 days later, was titled, #SOLDIERS-- "Suckers," "Losers," "Misfits" & -- SUICIDAL DRUNKS and drew 169 website visits. Note that these are just the visits tabulated at Google analytics, there may have been many more as the audience tends to visit on mobile phones in stealth mode. Note also that the ad didn’t run the full course of the approved duration due to responses and new material being subject to approval. Blog posting and advertising is fluid and needs to keep up with the news to remain relevant for the sake of responses. #KENOSHA 53143 drew 216 likes, 169 comments and 20 shares. #SOLDIERS drew 117 likes, 42 comments and 2 shares. Content of the first blog post, #KENOSHA 53143, related to unrest following deaths of protesters but was in fact, a criticism that there wasn’t much difference between the “far left” and the “far right,” noting a 1985 article published in the British Journal of Political Science by Herbert McCloskey and Dennis Chong. The blog post included the famous Che Guevara poster that has been an iconic symbol of the Left since the Cuban Revolution of the mid-20th century.
Vaughn Trapp commented;
“Trump 2020....The One World Order is NOT your friend.”
Frank Chase commented;
“The prospect of four more years of President Trump is a lot scarier than an old poster of Che Guevara.” One commenter included a Trump-Pence 2020 banner in the response;
Mike Hastings responded;
“I'm so glad that I learned to recognize and resist this attempt to indoctrinated us during SERE training at USAF Survival School!! This is one of the lamest I've seen!!”
The “Reach” of the post, which was distributed in the special ad category in the United States only, showed 6,076 with 662 post engagements. By age-gender, it was predominately male (probably white) above 50 years old. California, Texas, Florida and New York were the leading “Locations” of the post. There is no tab that shows whether the particular demographic group of age-gender was deliberately targeted or whether women were left out of the Reach.
The reaction was particularly patriarchal, traditionalist, non-invitational by the Foss, Griffin standards, that is if the reach distribution was skewed in favor of the dominant patriarchal market. Translated, a poor, misleading example of invitational rhetoric that cannot be verified by the limited statistics available at Facebook.
#SOLDIERS included an image of Sylvester Stallone in his role of Rambo, wearing his signature field jacket with the US flag logo on it.
Dave Sweed commented;
“I'm a deplorable , misfit , suicidal drunk who clings to my God and Guns and if Trump went on national TV to night and called me that I would still vote for him over the Socialist. As a young kid I remember a man with numbers Tattooed on his forearm when I ask what it was he just smiled and said it was a gift from der Sozialistiche, in German Sozialistiche means Socialist .”
The Reach was 1,837 with 252 post engagements. The largest group was 30 percent male over the age of 65. Of the four in the previous post, Location was predominately Texas. Mike Byrd commented;
“Sounds like what Democrats called soldiers returning from Vietnam as they spit on them.”
Clearly, the forum was no place to test Foss, Griffin’s invitational rhetoric theory. It calls into question on a larger theoretical scale across the board the actual acceptance of modernist-revisionist rhetoric. True, audience response was good, if not a grand display of ethos and personality. Had the ads run longer, male-dominated, patriarchal, related to age would be the components that holds the traditionalist view together. Had the rhetor anticipated this type of response? Had the rhetor crafted the post in order to trigger this ageist, patriarchal reaction? Examination of posts by female responses showed a non-invitational rhetoric response as well, a pro-patriarchal tone. Perhaps it isn’t the best method of experimentation after all.
#SOLDIERS included an image of Sylvester Stallone in his role of Rambo, wearing his signature field jacket with the US flag logo on it.
Dave Sweed commented;
“I'm a deplorable , misfit , suicidal drunk who clings to my God and Guns and if Trump went on national TV to night and called me that I would still vote for him over the Socialist. As a young kid I remember a man with numbers Tattooed on his forearm when I ask what it was he just smiled and said it was a gift from der Sozialistiche, in German Sozialistiche means Socialist .”
The Reach was 1,837 with 252 post engagements. The largest group was 30 percent male over the age of 65. Of the four in the previous post, Location was predominately Texas. Mike Byrd commented;
“Sounds like what Democrats called soldiers returning from Vietnam as they spit on them.”
Clearly, the forum was no place to test Foss, Griffin’s invitational rhetoric theory. It calls into question on a larger theoretical scale across the board the actual acceptance of modernist-revisionist rhetoric. True, audience response was good, if not a grand display of ethos and personality. Had the ads run longer, male-dominated, patriarchal, related to age would be the components that holds the traditionalist view together. Had the rhetor anticipated this type of response? Had the rhetor crafted the post in order to trigger this ageist, patriarchal reaction? Examination of posts by female responses showed a non-invitational rhetoric response as well, a pro-patriarchal tone. Perhaps it isn’t the best method of experimentation after all.
Part Two: Listening for Cultural Logics-- This rubric requires, “engage, an opposing viewpoint on an issue important to you. Use one or more of the 4 moves in Ratcliffe's rhetorical listening method. You’ll need to log your reactions and any shifts in thinking during this period.”
In the first week of November, 2020, the regime in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia accused the breakaway state Tigray of a deliberate assault on a military base within its region. Tigray is just south of Eritrea and is still considered a part of the sovereignty of Ethiopia, the second most populous nation in Africa. The separatist government in Mekele denied the attack allegations but it didn’t stop the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Abiy Ahmed, from sending in his defense forces to neutralize the opposition in his northern command sector. The result is the ongoing civil war with an invasion, a refugee crisis, demands by foreign entities to cease hostilities and, of course, atrocities.
Again, from a revisionist point of view, where content appears to be subject to intent, the Rhetorical Listening theory of Krista Ratcliffe tends to place the rhetor at the mercy of the audience;
“employed in this study, understanding means more than simply listening for a speaker/writer's intent. It also means more than simply listening for our own self-interested readerly intent, which may range from appropriation (employing a text for one's own ends), to Burkean identification (smoothing over differences to achieve common ground), to agreement (affirming only one's own view of reality).” (Ratcliffe, K., 28)
Prime Minister Ahmed, who won the Nobel Peace prize in 2018 for his deal with Eritrea to end hostilities, has shown his two-sided method of ruling the nation. Ratcliffe calls for accountability; “we are indeed all members of the same village, and if for no other reason than that (and there are other reasons), all people necessarily have a stake in each other’s quality of life.” (31)
The telephone lines have been cut, the internet is down, no foreign news media is allowed on the battlefield, the Prime Minister has flatly rejected mediation. Ahmed has broken just about every rule of cultural logics over something that might have been solved at the negotiating table had he let neutral observers an opportunity to sort out the initial transgression and bring to justice those responsible.
Modernist-revisionist rhetoric is only possible where civilized society allows it, otherwise traditional methods of justification reign supreme.
“employed in this study, understanding means more than simply listening for a speaker/writer's intent. It also means more than simply listening for our own self-interested readerly intent, which may range from appropriation (employing a text for one's own ends), to Burkean identification (smoothing over differences to achieve common ground), to agreement (affirming only one's own view of reality).” (Ratcliffe, K., 28)
Prime Minister Ahmed, who won the Nobel Peace prize in 2018 for his deal with Eritrea to end hostilities, has shown his two-sided method of ruling the nation. Ratcliffe calls for accountability; “we are indeed all members of the same village, and if for no other reason than that (and there are other reasons), all people necessarily have a stake in each other’s quality of life.” (31)
The telephone lines have been cut, the internet is down, no foreign news media is allowed on the battlefield, the Prime Minister has flatly rejected mediation. Ahmed has broken just about every rule of cultural logics over something that might have been solved at the negotiating table had he let neutral observers an opportunity to sort out the initial transgression and bring to justice those responsible.
Modernist-revisionist rhetoric is only possible where civilized society allows it, otherwise traditional methods of justification reign supreme.
Part Three: Demagoguery Examples--
Case One: The “Accidental” Demagogue. David Halberstam, in his memoir The Fifties, notes in Chapter Three the rise of one of most famous carnival barkers of the 20th century; “Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican senator from Wisconsin, stepped forward on Thursday, February 9, 1950, to lend his name to a phenomenon that, in fact, already existed. He was the accidental demagogue. On that day he gave a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, as part of the Lincoln Day weekend celebration. “ (Halberstam, 83)
It was McCarthy’s “...I have here in my hand a list of 205…” Communists in the State Department. According to Patricia Roberts-Miller, the traditional method of one becoming a demagogue was following a certain pattern. She proposed another with yet another set of variables. Whether revisionist or modernist, none seem to fit the method employed by Senator McCarthy. Later on, in Chapter Seventeen of The Fifties, Halberstam noted the story of Rosser Reeves, the advertising man who changed the face of election campaigns when he went to work for Dwight Eisenhower in 1952;
“In September, as he sat in the St. Regis Hotel, reading Ike’s clips from newspapers across the country, he concluded Ike was as bad as MacArthur. He was doing a terrible job of packaging and selling himself. He had the advantage of a popular, recognizable name, but he was letting it all slip away, talking in all kinds of directions about too many different things,” (396)
Thus was born the spot ad that would revolutionize political persuasion on television, and give the demagogue a powerful new tool in the quest for power. Ike won the election in ‘52 and broke the stranglehold the Democrats had on the White House since the Depression. Somewhere between the carnival style barking of Joe McCarthy and the 15 second Alka Seltzer blurb was the key to the rise of the modern version of demagoguery that Patricia Roberts-Miller discovered. Was there any difference in McCarthy and Eisenhower? Enough to send one into ruin and the other into the Oval Office. The first acted alone, the second was joined by his Vice-President, Richard M. Nixon of California.
Case Two: The “Intentional” Demagogue. “ In early May, 1952,” Halberstam wrote in The Fifties, “Nixon was invited to speak at the annual fundraiser in New York.” (367) Halberstam noted in the earlier chapters how Nixon was a powerful anti-Communist advocate responsible for squeezing a guilty verdict out of the elusive Alger Hiss, a rather “accidental” spy, convicted on perjury more than his actual espionage activities. Up through the ranks gradually until he was selected to become Ike’s running mate, Nixon was the epitome of the likeable demagogue, a fierce debater and eventually cutting his teeth from setbacks during the ‘52 campaign. Faced with some illegal slush fund activities, Nixon learned how to be hard, to be deceptive, to use television in his rise to power. Just before the election, the candidate went national to clear his name;
“He knew exactly how he wanted to portray himself: as the ordinary American, like so many other veterans back from World War Two, just starting out in life, more than a little modest about his service to his country.” (417)
According to Halberstam, Nixon’s wife went on the air with him, “She was his only prop.” The thirty minute speech cleared him and Nixon stayed on the ticket all the way to victory. But some suggested that;
“There was something more than a little unsavory about the entire episode: the self pity, the willingness to use wife, children, and dog.” (420)
Senator McCarthy never could be found guilty of those kinds of charges. He was a drinker, an alcoholic, certainly not a Quaker. He didn’t have to tell the truth, he had a persona that made everyone believe everything he said about the Communists whether it was true or not. Nixon had to painstakingly call out Hiss on his Party connections; McCarthy had only to produce a laundry ticket out of his coat pocket to persuade the audience, the difference between the “intentional” and “accidental” demagogue.
Patricia Roberts-Miller, in her book, Demagoguery and Democracy, notes some of the basic premises of traditional identification of the political despot, in particular playing the partisan card, inclusion, fairness, polarity, to name a few. That never bothered Senator McCarthy, his persona carried him throughout his career right up until the end. In Chapter Two, Roberts-Miller defines the traditional definition of the demagogue;
“Is what the person saying obviously false? Is the person bad? Is the person appealing to populist notions? Is the person being manipulative?” (Roberts-Miller, epub, 21) McCarthy was guilty on all four counts but it didn’t seem to bother him or his audience. Not any more than a carnie barker would talk a customer into getting on the rickety roller coaster that just flew off the tracks yesterday. Nixon was more careful, a skilled debater and a polished congressman who had won legitimate trophies as a senator. His style was worlds apart from McCarthy’s. It is inconclusive following a close reading if Roberts-Miller mentions either McCarthy or Nixon in Demagoguery and Democracy. Perhaps because it is easier to define her revisionist method using extreme cases instead of shades, of variations, of degrees, as in the case of the two politicians McCarthy and Nixon.
In Chapter Three, Roberts-Miller introduces her own dynamics of the demagogue; “polarizes a complicated political situation into us...and them; those who are with us and those who are against us; situation of the in-group; Truth is easy to perceive and convey; fallacy; not necessarily emotional or vehement.” (epub, 35)
Roberts-Miller does in fact refer to the role of tradition in demagoguery;
“Equating ‘what I think of as traditional’ with ‘what has a long history’ is one of the ways that demagoguery often relies on a ‘universalized nostalgia’.” (epub, 47) Roberts-Miller cites Max Weber’s leadership powers of “traditional, legal and charismatic.” (epub, 59) Roberts-Miller’s proposals in Chapter Eight on how to prevent or stop demagoguery does not completely address the complicated variations and nature of the rhetorical aberration. With respect to her proposal of “shaming media outlets,” in both cases of McCarthy and Nixon, the news followed the senators around, inventing and reinventing their persona, elevating them to the superhuman leaders she mentions in Chapter Four. (epub, 59) Even then, the media was by traditional standards of demagoguery just following the rules, especially the one of populist notions. There appears a clash of ideals between traditional and modernist-revisionist of “obviously false” and “truth is easy to perceive.” The threat of Communism was indeed real in The Fifties, according to David Halberstam, even if McCarthy invented lies to condemn it. Nixon didn’t have to prove Hiss was a spy, only that he was lying to Congress.Those were traditional methods that worked for the demagogue. Roberts-Miller insists “these are entirely the wrong questions to ask.”
Part Four: Reflection--- Faced today with ever increasing and even more subtle means to persuade the individual that there is only one right way to do things, the role of rhetoric should be even more important in everyday life. From misinformation on the internet to shaming groups because of their lifestyles or ethnic backgrounds, the word “commonplace” is becoming less and less common in discourse. Having explored the various techniques that can be employed through situational experiments, there doesn’t appear to be any solid evidence that rhetoric, no matter what shape or form it takes, offers a safe haven for agreement.
The Foss, Griffin method, though idealistic and certainly feasible, will only work if those engaged are willing to treat others with civility and equality. Certainly it might work in a given situation, but to assume from that success that it can be used across the board is a quantum leap that only someone familiar with the difference between special and general relativity can make. Many of the other methods are equally precariously balanced on an accelerated frame of reference. Is it an absolute, then, to be constantly doppler shifting the premises of the rhetorical situation to allow for all of the unknowns in the equation? Such is the convoluted nature of the method. It falls into the category of circular reasoning where tautology ultimately rescues the rhetor from redundancy.
Rhetoric as an algorithm that if repeated enough, adjusted, modernized, revised and theorized, falls victim to its own fallacy of repetition. Even with these inconsistencies and shortcomings, rhetoric is still the most valuable tool in the language toolbox to get to the truth.
Without making all the adjustments for time and space, for kairos to decide if it's worth talking about at all, to be willing to even listen to the other side at all, as proposed from Rogerian to Foss, Griffin logic, is the first most difficult step to take. For the demagogue McCarthy, he stubbornly refused to listen which made it easy for his in-group to follow its superhuman leader blindly. Certainly the threat of Communism in The Fifties was real; the Russians, through the help of spies like Hiss were able to get secrets to the bomb. Nixon rose to the rank of vice-president because of his ability to overlook the evidence in favor of the credibility of the accused. Hiss refused to take a lie-detector test; Nixon used that, not evidence, to exact his guilty verdict. (Halberstam, 21)
Without making all the adjustments for time and space, for kairos to decide if it's worth talking about at all, to be willing to even listen to the other side at all, as proposed from Rogerian to Foss, Griffin logic, is the first most difficult step to take. For the demagogue McCarthy, he stubbornly refused to listen which made it easy for his in-group to follow its superhuman leader blindly. Certainly the threat of Communism in The Fifties was real; the Russians, through the help of spies like Hiss were able to get secrets to the bomb. Nixon rose to the rank of vice-president because of his ability to overlook the evidence in favor of the credibility of the accused. Hiss refused to take a lie-detector test; Nixon used that, not evidence, to exact his guilty verdict. (Halberstam, 21)
Nixon was a demagogue for all of the wrong reasons set forth by Roberts-Miller, he was a demagogue nonetheless.
On the ground in the Horn of Africa today, the Ethiopian army grinds its way toward the breakaway state capital, burning villages in its path, sending tens of thousands of refugees with only the clothes on their backs streaming into overcrowded Sudanese camps. Dialogue between the two warring factions is futile. The Ethiopian defense minister calls it an “internal” affair even though Sudan is now hosting upwards of 100,0000 “ internally displaced persons,” now displaced externally. Neighboring Eritrea has offered the Addis Ababa regime support to crush the common enemy in violation of United Nations mandates involving the use of external forces in an internal dispute. Any number of Chua’s tribalism concepts can be cited in this conflict; “Especially in societies where people fear for their safety or some struggle just to survive, idealistic principles will often ring hollow-and in any case have a hard time competing with appeals to more primordial group passions. Universal brotherhood is incompatible with gross inequality. “ (Chua, 8)
The refugees in many of the African nations, the people themselves, have been struggling to survive their entire lives. There is a gaping chasm of credibility that on the one hand, explores rhetorical situations in an antiseptic democratic environment of how things should be; on the other hand, the brutal reality of demagoguery and despotism that crushes the individual under the tread of a tank. Only the loser seeks out mediation.
Halberstam candidly pointed out the success of Mickey Spillane and his private-detective hero Mike Hammer. Bombarded by critics who criticized Spillane’s tough guy paperback fiction, calling the author “dangerous, paranoid and masochist,” Spilane replied, referring to the literary world and second-rate writers as Losers;
“The guys who didn’t make it, the guys that nobody ever heard of...these articles are usually written by Losers--frustrated writers. And these writers resent success. So naturally they never have anything to say about the Winners.” When asked if it was hard to be a winner, Spillane replied;
“Anybody can be a Winner--all you have to do is make sure you’re not a Loser.” (105) The internet was nothing more than a few Compuserve discussion boards when Foss, Griffin introduced Invitational Rhetoric to the world.
The refugees in many of the African nations, the people themselves, have been struggling to survive their entire lives. There is a gaping chasm of credibility that on the one hand, explores rhetorical situations in an antiseptic democratic environment of how things should be; on the other hand, the brutal reality of demagoguery and despotism that crushes the individual under the tread of a tank. Only the loser seeks out mediation.
Halberstam candidly pointed out the success of Mickey Spillane and his private-detective hero Mike Hammer. Bombarded by critics who criticized Spillane’s tough guy paperback fiction, calling the author “dangerous, paranoid and masochist,” Spilane replied, referring to the literary world and second-rate writers as Losers;
“The guys who didn’t make it, the guys that nobody ever heard of...these articles are usually written by Losers--frustrated writers. And these writers resent success. So naturally they never have anything to say about the Winners.” When asked if it was hard to be a winner, Spillane replied;
“Anybody can be a Winner--all you have to do is make sure you’re not a Loser.” (105) The internet was nothing more than a few Compuserve discussion boards when Foss, Griffin introduced Invitational Rhetoric to the world.
A few years prior to that, in 1991, I had hooked up a phone line to a printer and called the Wall Street Journal to subscribe to a newswire they offered at an unreasonable price. It was wired in a Reno garage stuffed full of every known artifact and provided access to by a friend who employed me at his Tahoe resort. The printer had continuous teletype feed paper on it so when a story broke, it automatically typed out the incoming press releases.
Two friends of mine arrived from Berkeley one night, one of them who had graduated with a degree in rhetoric and went on to get his Cal Bar license. We were standing there talking when the phone line rang and the teletype started sending out a string of reports. It
was January 17, Operation Desert Shield was replaced by Operation Desert Storm. The teletype reported that Iraq’s air force had been destroyed on the ground by coalition forces. My friends were absolutely dumbfounded, not from the failed negotiations to get Hussein out of Kuwait. They were amazed at the teletype system I had set up with a thrift shop printer in a garage full of dust, cobwebs and a vintage Mercedes Benz under a tarp.
Rhetoric had failed in Iraq, but my printer succeeded.
References
References
Foss, S., Griffin, C., “Beyond Persuasion, A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric,” Communications Monographs, Volume 62, March 1995.
Blog Posts: #KENOSHA 53143-- Suspending Disbelief &--MYTH OF “FAR-LEFT”,
Eyeless on Campus: #KENOSHA 53143-- Suspending Disbelief &--MYTH OF "FAR-LEFT"--- #SOLDIERS-- "Suckers," "Losers," "Misfits" & -- SUICIDAL DRUNKS
Eyeless on Campus: #SOLDIERS-- "Suckers," "Losers," "Misfits" & -- SUICIDAL DRUNKS
Ratcliffe, K., Rhetorical Listening, 2005, So, Illinois U Press, Web Campus
Reuters Staff, “Ethiopia rejects African mediation, pushes toward rebel-held Tigray capital,” Ethiopia rejects African mediation, pushes toward rebel-held Tigray capital | Reuters
Roberts-Miller, P., Demagoguery and Democracy, The Experiment, 2017, New York. Halberstam, D., The Fifties, Random House, 1993, New York
Chua, A., Political Tribes, (Readings, Web Campus)
Blog Posts: #KENOSHA 53143-- Suspending Disbelief &--MYTH OF “FAR-LEFT”,
Eyeless on Campus: #KENOSHA 53143-- Suspending Disbelief &--MYTH OF "FAR-LEFT"--- #SOLDIERS-- "Suckers," "Losers," "Misfits" & -- SUICIDAL DRUNKS
Eyeless on Campus: #SOLDIERS-- "Suckers," "Losers," "Misfits" & -- SUICIDAL DRUNKS
Ratcliffe, K., Rhetorical Listening, 2005, So, Illinois U Press, Web Campus
Reuters Staff, “Ethiopia rejects African mediation, pushes toward rebel-held Tigray capital,” Ethiopia rejects African mediation, pushes toward rebel-held Tigray capital | Reuters
Roberts-Miller, P., Demagoguery and Democracy, The Experiment, 2017, New York. Halberstam, D., The Fifties, Random House, 1993, New York
Chua, A., Political Tribes, (Readings, Web Campus)