Rhetorical Analysis of a Speech [ 5 pages double spaced; needed in 17 hours ]

Here’s a sample rhetorical analysis from the Friedman article. Since all texts are framed differently and argued differently, there is no such thing as a “one size fits all” model for writing a rhetorical analysis. Therefore, from an organization standpoint, it would not be advisable to form a specific outline for your essays based on this one.

However, all of the basic elements required in your essay are present here somewhere, and executed in ways you can model your own after. In other words, use the techniques, style and content as a model, but not necessarily the organization.

Rhetorical analysis of Thomas Friedman article “9-11 is over.”

From a technical standpoint, the terrorists of 9-11 took thousands of American lives, destroyed buildings and gave the country a devastating wakeup call that it is not immune to terrorist attacks on its home soil. But according to acclaimed New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, the damages inflicted on 9-11 run much deeper. And with a new presidential election on the horizon, Friedman believes it is imperative that America elect an individual who will not dwell on the past of 9-11, but become the “President of 9-12,” a leader who will restore this country to the warmer, welcoming, gold standard it once was. In his Sept. 30, 2007 column entitled “9-11 is over,” Friedman describes a post 9-11 America that has essentially lost its groove by becoming synonymous with fighting terrorism and distancing itself from the values that made this country great. He makes a persuasive and compelling case for change, using a variety of credible evidence to suggest that America is falling behind other countries in business, education, technology and human rights, in part because of policies obsessed with the War on Terror. Friedman stops short of assigning blame, a decision that could help bolster his credibility among readers who might feel America’s preoccupation with fighting terrorism is appropriate. His admission that he, too, was guilty of the mindset that threw America “off-balance,” adds further credibility to his argument, which elicits in the reader a range of emotion from anger to regret to optimism. Altering another’s political beliefs is not an easy task, especially in this era of divisive politics in America. However, Friedman, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist whose columns appear nationally, might well steer some voters away from a candidate locked into the 9-11 mentality, such as Rudy Giuliani, in favor of one touting “9-12,” a more suitable middle ground between vigilance against terrorism and restoring the values that made America the country it once was, and can be once again. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Creative opening that puts article in context; also names author and publication (in italics). Comment by Master, Steven J.: After first reference, use author’s last name for the remainder of the essay. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Precisely articulates author’s pain point/purpose or argument. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Date and title of article (in quote marks) Comment by Master, Steven J.: Signals that you will assess the rhetoric as effective, in part because it is supported by strong evidence (logos) Comment by Master, Steven J.: References ethos, pointing out that he was guilty of this mindset, too. Comment by Master, Steven J.: References that the article has emotional appeal (pathos). Comment by Master, Steven J.: References background (ethos) that makes him credible. Comment by Master, Steven J.: The student further signals that rhetoric is effective by bluntly stating that the column might impact Presidential voting.

Friedman’s piece originally appeared in the New York Times, a liberal-leaning newspaper yet still one of the most respected and widely circulated in the world. Friedman is a syndicated columnist, meaning this column likely appeared in other newspapers across the country. This would give him a large, diverse audience representing the voting public he is clearly trying to persuade. A reader will notice the author’s prompt efforts to position himself as part of his audience through his use of the word “we” near the outset of the article. The effort appears genuine and could help rehabilitate any ethos Friedman might have surrendered (especially among loyal Republicans) by starting his essay with an Onion newspaper satire critical of President Bush and presidential hopeful Giuliani, New York’s 9-11 mayor. The satire, which shows Giuliani announcing his candidacy to replace Bush as the “President of 9-11,” serves to illustrate Friedman’s primary claim, that America is obsessed with 9-11. “Like all good satire,” Friedman writes, “the story made me laugh and cry, because it reflected something so true – how much, since 9-11, we’ve become ‘The United States of Fighting Terrorism.’ … We don’t need another President of 9-11. We need a President of 9-12.” Comment by Master, Steven J.: Publication/audience. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Ethos. Showing how this is important because the opening reference to satire might offend Bush supporters. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Made me laugh and cry. Ethos. Showing author’s values, that he cares about image and American freedom. Cares about the topic. It is important to him, because it’s a big part of who we are as a nation.

Despite his esteemed reputation as a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Friedman walks a tight-rope in this essay, even among those Democrats and Independents likely to support his argument. Given the emotions and tragedy associated with 9-11, it’s tricky business to imply it must be put in the past, and even trickier to boldly state that “9-11 has made us stupid.” Relating American “stupidity” and 9-11 seems to beg for harsh audience response. Yet Friedman deftly maneuvers through this rhetorical minefield through his use of concession and displays of virtue, practical wisdom and compassion. He concedes that our enemies are more dangerous than we thought (practical wisdom), emotionally acknowledges 9-11 victims (pathos), and admits that he, too, was initially part of the “United States of Fighting Terrorism” mindset. “I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day,” he writes. “But our reaction to 9/11 — mine included — has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again.” This concession is likely to resonate with some readers, who experienced the same reaction, and might soften the reaction among those readers inclined to believe our priorities aren’t quite as “out of balance” as Friedman indicates. The audience might also respect the decorum Friedman shows by “honoring and weeping for” the 9-11 victims. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Establishes what a delicate, tricky topic this is to address, and how he must deftly maintain his ethos even after a provocative comment like “9-11 has made us stupid.” Comment by Master, Steven J.: He manages by using elements of ethos and …. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Concession. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Example of author establishing ethos. Comment by Master, Steven J.: ANALYSIS of ethos. Explains how/why this line will resonate with readers and help his ethos.

So what is wrong in America, exactly? Much, says Friedman. Using both specific examples and statistical data, he indicates that America’s obsession with fighting terrorism has negatively impacted America’s economy, infrastructure, reputation as a human rights leader and position as the “gold standard” in the business world. Not all of his supporting examples are guaranteed to persuade his audience. Readers are likely to question the relationship he draws between the War on Terror and the bridge collapse in Minneapolis or the shabby condition of New York’s LaGuardia Airport. However, the sum of Friedman ‘s evidence is more impressive than its individual parts, much like the small pieces of circumstantial evidence that lead to an obvious conclusion in a legal trial. Friedman offers compelling statistical and anecdotal evidence to support his claim that America’s stature in the world is slipping in various areas. Quoting Travel Industry Association president Roger Dow, he writes that America is the only country in the world attracting fewer visitors and business travelers on a per-year basis. He cites a travel industry study that attributes the losses to an entry process that has created a “climate of fear and frustration” that is turning away visitors and “hurting America’s image abroad.” A reader will smartly surmise from this quote that post 9-11 policies are damaging out economy, especially in population centers that depend heavily on tourism. In addition, he points out that Microsoft recently opened its newest plant in Canada because of American restrictions on importing quality computer software engineers from abroad. This fact will especially disgust the many readers who have seen their jobs shipped overseas, not to mention hamstrung business leaders who feel limited in their ability to pursue international talent. The author also writes about his visit to the China Clean Car Conference, where the Chinese were touting their 2008 cars that will meet European Union emission standards. “We used to be the Gold Standard,” Friedman writes. “We aren’t anymore.” That is also true in the area of human rights, Friedman argues. He refers to Guantanamo Bay as the “anti Statue of Liberty,” a place where the world thinks we send visitors who don’t give right answers at immigration. It’s fair to question how this example will resonate with mainstream America, as many conservatives and some progressives feel Guantanamo Bay, and all that allegedly occurs there, is an appropriate holding spot for suspected terrorists. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Signals this paragraph will be related to logos. A broad overview sets up the more specific logos examples that will come later. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Student acknowledges there will be some in audience not likely to connect all of the facts in the article to the overall argument. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Student counters that concession by saying that most will, with a broad explanation of why. The specifics to come …. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Logos. Expert testimony and evidence of a problem. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Analysis of how this logos example will resonate with the audience. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Logos. Fact that supports his argument, Comment by Master, Steven J.: Analysis of how this logos will resonate with the audience. Comment by Master, Steven J.: More logos to support argument. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Student analysis that many support Gitmo, and might not take well to this particular point.

The majority of these examples, despite the fact that some lack a concrete link to the post 9-11 policy, are likely to have a dramatic emotional effect on much of Friedman’s audience – a case where the logos (facts) are powerful enough to create an emotional response. The facts and their implications appeal to a shared value of pride, patriotism and humanity, and elicit such feelings as frustration, surprise, even anger, emotions sure to touch even the most hawkish readers. No American wants to believe we are falling behind in important areas such as business, technology and human rights, National polls would seem to indicate this is a receptive audience, given the apparent desire for change among most Americans. But despite the cold facts relayed in this article, overall reaction isn’t likely to be dominated by gloom and doom, due in large part to Friedman’s effective arrangement and touch of humor. His use of the upcoming election as the thematic centerpiece ensures the argument remain deliberative – an argument of choice – rather than a debate over values or a forensic argument looking to attach blame to the impact of past policy decisions. This makes the audience feel it has some control to change these policies and reverse these negative trends. Friedman’s decision to open the article with reference to a satirical essay brings a needed element of lightness to a heavy subject. And his humorous touches (“give me your tired, your poor, your fingerprints”) bring some needed comic relief while also bolstering Friedman’s ethos. Like most successful arguments dealing with choice, Friedman consistently keeps this argument focused on the future – of election a President of 9-12. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Transition to pathos, with acknowledgment that the logos is strong and is likely to influence the audience emotionally as well. This is logos and pathos working together. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Analysis of how and why the evidence presented will resonate with the audience emotionally, based on values. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Pathos. Not everything is gloom and doom. Also uplifting, in part due to writer’s humor and arrangement. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Pathos. Making the article about an deliberative argument means audience will feel good that they have the power to change, Comment by Master, Steven J.: Analysis of how the humor and deliberative construct keeps mood positive (more pathos).

Just who is that candidate? Friedman doesn’t say, which is his last – and perhaps most effective – touch of ethos. Nothing messes up a citizen’s credibility like trying to tell someone else exactly how to vote. However, Friedman gives clues throughout the essay that he truly cares about this issue, such as his admission that he both “laughed and cried” over the satirical piece he cites in the Onion, and his passionate urging that “we need a president who will unite us around a common purpose, not a common enemy.” Once again, the author uses “we” and “us” to establish his solidarity with readers, to show that the readers’ problems are also his problems and that he shares the readers’ values and aspirations. Nonetheless, his argument will not convince everyone. There are those readers who will argue the War on Terror must remain America’s preoccupation, that Friedman’s concerns over perceived shortcomings in tourism, infrastructure, economic might and human rights are either misguided, or simply a necessary casualty of a more important cause. And, yes, some will believe electing a “President of 9-12” is simply Friedman code for electing a Democrat, though he wisely does not mention one Democrat in his article. Instead, he appears to seek a middle ground to which the majority of readers are naturally drawn – an effective and time-honored appeal to ethos. He argues we can have security at home AND the “old America,” and that electing a “President of 9-12” is the first step toward that vitally important goal. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Conclusion … but still analyzing with reference to ethos. Comment by Master, Steven J.: More ethos. Comment by Master, Steven J.: Acknowledgment there will be doubters, critics and naysayers of this touchy argument. Comment by Master, Steven J.: More analysis of how he combats those doubters, with closing line that again signals the effectiveness of the argument.