Cover not available
Part of
Political Argumentation in the United States: Historical and contemporary studies
David Zarefsky
[Argumentation in Context 7] 2014
► pp. 209–220

The self-sealing rhetoric of John Foster Dulles

The self-sealing argument is one that cannot be dislodged, not because it is self-evidently true but because its advocate can reinterpret any statement that might seem to challenge the argument as actually supporting the argument. The argument thereby seals itself against critique, This can happen as a result of a persistent tendency to attribute favorable outcomes to one’s own efforts and unfavorable outcomes to factors beyond one’s control. John Foster Dulles displayed this attributional pattern in his public statements as Secretary of State, as a careful analysis of three case studies suggests: the Soviet “peace offensive” after the death of Stalin, Soviet efforts to achieve disarmament, and a pattern of actions known as “brinkmanship.” The self-sealing argument impedes thoughtful self-evaluation and makes change very difficult.
Published online: 24 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.7.10ch10
References (49)
The Administration’s Middle East Proposal. (1957). Congressional Record, February 11, p. 1856.Google Scholar
Barber, H.W. (1957). The United States in world affairs, 1955. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
Bell, C. (1962). Negotiating from strength: A study in the politics of power. London: Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar
Burke, K. (1937/1961). Attitudes toward history. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Correspondence with the Soviet Union on atomic pool proposal. (1954). Department of State bulletin, 31:478–489.Google Scholar
Creps, E.G. (1980). The conspiracy argument as rhetorical genre. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
deRivera, J.H. (1968). The psychological dimension of foreign policy. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
Donovan, R.J. (1956). Eisenhower: The inside story, New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Dulles, J.F. (1953a). Assessment of Soviet gestures. Department of State bulletin, 28:524.Google Scholar
. (1953b). The first 90 days. Department of State bulletin, 28:607.Google Scholar
. (1953c). Statement by Secretary Dulles. Department of State bulletin, 28:607.Google Scholar
. (1953d). Areas for deeds, not words. Department of State bulletin, 28:706.Google Scholar
. (1953e). Morals and power. Department of State bulletin, 28:896.Google Scholar
. (1953f). The importance of the mutual security program to our national security. Department of State bulletin, 29:92.Google Scholar
. (1953g). A test of Soviet good faith. Department of State bulletin, 29:353.Google Scholar
. (1953h). Easing international tensions: The role of the U.N. Department of State bulletin,29:405.Google Scholar
. (1953i). Soviet note a victory for Western diplomacy. Department of State bulletin, 29:814.Google Scholar
. (1954a). The issues at Geneva. Department of State bulletin, 30:744.Google Scholar
. (1954b). The goal of our foreign policy. Department of State bulletin, 31:890.Google Scholar
. (1954c). Anniversary of “Atoms for Peace” proposal. Department of State bulletin, 31:975.Google Scholar
. (1955a). The peace we seek. Department of State bulletin, 32:123.Google Scholar
. (1955b). An historic week. Department of State bulletin, 32:875.Google Scholar
. (1955c). Cumulative effects of the mutual security program. Department of State bulletin, 32:914.Google Scholar
. (1955d). Entering the second decade. Department of State bulletin, 33:527.Google Scholar
. (1956). Transcript of Secretary Dulles’ news conference [January 11, 1956]. Department of state bulletin, 34:123.Google Scholar
Eisenhower, D.D. (1960a). The chance for peace. Public papers of the Presidents: Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953 (p. 184). Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
. (1960b). Address to the United Nations General Assembly. Public papers of the Presidents: Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960(pp. 813–822). Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Falkowski, L.S. (1979). Predicting flexibility with memory profiles. In Psychological models in international politics (L.S. Falkowski, ed.), pp. 49–69. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Fogelin, R.J. (1982). Understanding arguments: An introduction to informal logic, 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Goodnight, G.T. & Poulakos, J. (1981). Conspiracy rhetoric: From pragmatism to fantasy in public discourse. Western journal of speech communication, 45:299–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harsch, J.C. (1956). John Foster Dulles: A very complicated man. Harper’s, 213:31. September.Google Scholar
Heller, D. & Heller, D. (1960). John Foster Dulles: Soldier for peace. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Holsti, O.R. (1962). The belief system and national images: A case study. Journal of conflict resolution, 6:244–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1970). The “operational code” approach to the study of political leaders: John Foster Dulles’ philosophical and instrumental beliefs. Canadian journal of political science, 3:123–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, E.E. & Davis, K. (1965). From acts to dispositions. In Advances in experimental social psychology (L. Berkowitz, Ed.), 2:220–266. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jones, E.E. & Goethals, G.R. (1972). Order effects in impression formation: Attribution context and the nature of the entity. In Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (E.E. Jones, D.E. Kanouse, H.H. Kelley, R.E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner, ed.), pp. 27–46. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
Kane, T. (1968). The missionary theme in the rhetoric of John Foster Dulles. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Leopold, R.W. (1962). The growth of American foreign policy: A history. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, H.J. (1961). John Foster Dulles. In An uncertain tradition: American Secretaries of State in the twentieth century (N.A. Graebner, ed.), pp. 289–308. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Reagan, R. (1983). Partial text of Reagan’s State of the Union address. Chicago Tribune, sec. 1, p. 13.Google Scholar
Roper, E. (1957). You and your leaders: Their actions and your reactions, 1936–1956. New York:Morrow.Google Scholar
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In Advances in experimental social psychology (L. Berkowitz, ed.), 10:Google Scholar
Shepley, J. (1956). How Dulles averted war. Life, Jamuary 16, pp. 70–72ff.Google Scholar
Stebbins, R.P. (1956). The United States in world affairs, 1954. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
Stebbins, R.P. & McClellan, G.S. (1955). The United States in world affairs, 1953. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
U.S. Views on Soviet disarmament proposal. (1954). Department of State bulletin, 31:619–626.Google Scholar
Wadsworth, J.J. (1955). U.S. views on latest Soviet disarmament proposals. Department of State bulletin, 32:900.Google Scholar
Yurechko, J.J. (1980). The day Stalin died: American plans for exploiting the Soviet succession crisis of 1953. Journal of strategic studies, 3:67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar