Crisis Leadership and Moral Rhetoric After a Foreign Attack on the Homeland: Zelenskyy, Bush, and Churchill

• Published date: 01 March 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10659129231208461
• Author: Gregg R. Murray,Grantham Sandlin,Raymond Tatalovich
• Date: 01 March 2024
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Political Research Quarterly

2024, Vol. 77(1) 386–400

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10659129231208461

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

Crisis Leadership and Moral Rhetoric After

a Foreign Attack on the Homeland:

Zelenskyy, Bush, and Churchill

Gregg R. Murray

1

, Grantham Sandlin

1

, and Raymond Tatalovich

2

Abstract

What kind of moral rhetoric do national leaders use after their homelands are attacked by foreign forces? Informed by

crisis leadership literature, this study uses Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) to examine the rheto ric of three leaders of

nations before and after attacks by foreign forces: Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and the 2022 Russian invasion, U.S.

President Bush and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and British Prime Minister Churchill and the 1940–41

German bombing campaign. The word-based automated content analysis shows that following the attacks the leaders

substantially shifted their moral rhetoric. They also employed similar moral rhetoric, mainly by using Harm rhetoric,

presumably to condemn the destruction and loss of life suffered by their nations. All three also emphasized Loyalty

rhetoric, presumably as a call to nationalism, and Authority rhetoric, presumably to rally followership. Otherwise, they

gave little attention to Degradation rhetoric, which presumably would demonize the enemy. This study is one of very few

to evaluate political elite rhetoric during crises. It is also one of a small number to assess political elite rhetoric through

the lens of MFT. It demonstrates that MFT can be a useful tool for understanding political elite rhetoric and crisis

management across heterogeneous contexts.

Keywords

moral foundations theory, moral rhetoric, crisis leadership, political elites, political communication

What kind of moral rhetoric do national leaders employ

after their homelands have been attacked by a foreign

power? One assumes that an attack would be viewed

initially as unjust, warranting the use of strong moralistic

language in response both to demonize the enemy and to

unite the citizenry. But this research question is largely

unanswered. Therefore, we analyze and compare the

moral rhetoric of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of

Ukraine before and after Russian military forces invaded

his country on February 24, 2022; U.S. President George

W. Bush before and after the terrorist attacks in the United

States on 9/11/01; and British Prime Minister Winston

Churchill in 1940–41 before and after the German “Blitz”

against England during World War II.

In this study, we assess pre- and post-attack speeches of

these leaders using Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), which

has been used to explain the psychological underpinnings of

moral judgment and behavior. To date, there have been a

limited number of studies of rhetorical leadership employing

MFT to examine the type of morality being advocated by

political, or other, elites to persuade stakeholders and the

general public. Further, we use word-based automated

content analysis, which allows us to quantify the similarities

and differences between the three leaders.

Looking ahead, we begin with a review of literature,

starting with the body of research on MFT and research

regarding elite political rhetoric as viewed through the

lens of MFT. We then review pertinent literature on

leadership and crisis management. After detailing the

context of the three attacks, we discuss our hypotheses,

data sources, and methodology before turning to the re-

sults of our analyses. We conclude with a discussion of

lessons learned and suggestions for future research.

1

Department of Social Sciences, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA

2

Department of Political Science, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL,

USA

Corresponding Author:

Gregg R. Murray, Department of Political Science, Augusta University,

2500 Walton Way, Allgood Hall Suite N225, Augusta, GA 30904, USA.

Email: gmurray@augusta.edu

Data Availability Statement included at the end of the article