Charles Tilly defines social movements as a series of contentious performances, displays and campaigns by which ordinary people made collective claims on others [Tilly, 2004]. For Tilly, social movements are a major vehicle for ordinary people's participation in public politics [Tilly, 2004:3]. Furthermore, Sidney Tarrow defines [Tarrow, 1994] a social movement as collective challenges [to elites, authorities, other groups or cultural codes] by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents and authorities. He specifically distinguishes social movements from political parties and interest groups. "The pretext for this conference is a deceptively simple question. What is the new rhetoric seems straightforward, but it is in fact complex because the two key words are polysemous and overdetermined. New can mean recent, innovative, better, improved, innocent, jejune and a host of other mostly positive adjectives, while rhetoric can mean nearly anything, although its connotations are typically negative: political lies, corporate spin, long lists of Greek and Roman terms for patterns of expression no one knowingly uses, purple prose, boiler-plate arrangement schemas, unimaginative reproductions of traditional topics and themes, emotional appeals offered in the absence of reason, bull***** and so on. Given the malodour of the word rhetoric, it makes sense to want a new rhetoric, in the sense of a practice and theory of discursive activity that effectively distance themselves from old rhetoric, exemplified for the most part, albeit in very different ways, by Plato and Aristotle. The problem for anyone who would posit a new rhetoric is that Plato invented the word and Aristotle so thoroughly described the phenomenon that it is very difficult for anyone to come up with anything that does not echo something from the past, which suggests that ancient rhetorical theory continues to influence rhetorical practice regardless of conscious efforts to the contrary" (Pullman). From there, new rhetorical practices in public policies will redefine social movements.
Along with that, America is depicted as an ardent supporter of 'hard politics,' which means that they consider world power and politics to be defined in militaristic terms. They resort to force to resolve International Disputes quickly. "America's leadership inspired the trust and confidence of a generation of governments and nations around the world because we pursued common actions that reflected common interests with our allies, because we remained committed to global engagement, and because we exercised our power with restraint" (U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East 2007).. We made mistakes. It was imperfect. There were differences with our allies. But despite the imperfections and shortcomings, the United States and its allies contributed to world stability and the spread of freedom and prosperity" (U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East 2007).
Discussions of democratic governance have been a hallmark in the public administration literature. Many scholars argue that bureaucracy and leadership are antithetical to democratic governance in our society (see in particular Iannello, 1992; Gawthrop, 1997). Many of these dichotomous arguments have repeated themselves throughout the history of public dministration, with some scholars offering prescriptions that temper the constricting, negative effects of leadership and bureaucracy in order to preserve the values of democratic governance. Others have suggested that there are adequate checks and balances built into our system of governance to dampen the excesses of either leadership and bureaucracy or democratic values. Important scholars have identified key values such as accountability, responsiveness, equity, efficiency, effectiveness, and the public good which are often grounded in the founding period of the country, specifically in the Constitution. Through this line of thinking, public administrators incorporate democratic values in carrying out the policy mandates of the people, chosen through their elected representatives. Democratic values are absolutely critical to public administration and continued deliberation must occur (Bennett).
The United States Government
It is easy to gather that Americans want a future that has economic prosperity that will be more abundant. This is because the American life consists of material prosperity as much as in civil liberties or political democracy is an old on as the content of the book suggests. However, since the structure of public policy has to be reconstructed, there should be a rhetorical plan.
In the twenty-first century, economic changes were threatening the third American middle class because U.S. corporations started to transfer production jobs and service jobs to low-wage workers. Along with that, in many Third World countries of export-oriented development strategies made the global market for both skilled and unskilled labor to grow bigger. Reducing the cost of such imports as toys from China and shoes from Indonesia, it destroyed the jobs. Unfortunately, every sector from foreign competition, an ever growing number of manufacturing and service jobs were eliminated by technological innovations, which is a trend that will probably prove even more important than public policy over time (Are We Still a Middle Class Nation).
Due to technologically driven increases in productivity, advances in manufacturing and automation have slashed the prices of consumer appliances such as televisions and personal computers. However, productivity growth threatens the middle class and other social classes in three ways due to the poor structure of globalization, which could increase economic growth if reconstructed correctly (Are We Still a Middle Class Nation). As it is stated in the book, a cow in a foreign country makes more money than anyone in the world, which most economists cannot realize as a problem.
Scholars of public policy, for example, often assign social movements a role in the agenda-setting process, although the mechanisms by which this occurs are rarely specified: something outside institutional politics affects the agenda within. Social movement scholars make analogous omissions. Although policy is almost routinely treated as one social movement outcome, the interaction of both substantive and symbolic changes in policy with the development of a challenging movement is undertheorized and understudied. Fundamentally, social movement scholars treat the policy process as a black box within the state, which movements may occasionally shake and upset into action, whereas policy scholars treat movements as undifferentiated and unitary actors who respond (or not) by disruption. But in their areas of central concern, scholars offer a much more nuanced recognition of complexity and contingency (Meyer, 2003).
Political figures provided the institutional frameworks that permitted successive versions of all social classes of America. Even though this has made things grow and flourish, public policy is a major issue concerning economic growth. Modern day political figures want to change the economic growth, however the answer is to create a new rhetorical structure.
Rhetorical genre is more then a mere classification system. The internal dynamic within a genre draws together the relationships among the elements. The constellation is a unique system within a genre that implies options within boundaries. The "rules" in a genre "are not rigid prescriptions, but parameters within which effective symbolic action occurs" (Campbell & Jamieson, 1986, p.296). These parameters structure and create meaning in a given social reality and reveal the "beliefs, attitudes, and values" inherent in that reality (Foss,1989, p.112 Bennett).
The number of workers and their productivity helps determine the health of an economy, which means the United States has experienced steady growth in the labor force and has helped fuel almost constant economic expansion.
Although the United States has experienced some periods of high unemployment and other times when labor was in short supply, immigrants tended to come when jobs were plentiful. They prospered earning far more than they would have in their native lands so that the economy grew fast enough to absorb even more newcomers.
Mobilization can affect policies that enable new actors to be present in the implementation and subsequent renegotiation of policies. Weed (1995), for example, shows how crime victims, by mobilizing for themselves, not only changed criminal justice policy, but ensured their own presence in negotiations for subsequent reforms in criminal justice policy. In other words, they won a place as established actors within the policy domain. Monitoring the implementation of policy affects the success and evaluation of that policy, and the subsequent mobilization by affected persons (Andrews 2001). The absence of mobilization from a recognized constituency can also have an effect on policy (Imig 1995; Sawyers and Meyer 1999). By altering the balance of power within a policy domain, organized interests can change outcomes-or not (Meyer, 2003).
With global competition, American businesses are seeking more flexible organization structures. Excessive hierarchy and division of labor increasingly are thought to inhibit creativity which has caused companies have "flattened" their organizational structures, reduced the number of managers, and delegated more authority to interdisciplinary teams of workers.
The U.S. economy has changed in the population and the labor force have shifted dramatically away from farms to cities, from fields to factories, and, above all. The providers of personal and public services far outnumber producers of agricultural and manufactured goods. From there, statistics also reveal over the last century a sharp long-term trend away from self-employment toward working for others. From there, some policies should be changed due to the practices that occur from the economy change.