Churchill Part 2

Churchill was a tough person for me to critique without including bias in my reaction to what he was saying. As we went through the logos, pathos, and ethos elements of rhetoric, I became very aware of just how hard it was for me to be fair in judging his skill as a rhetorician. In terms of logos, he jams tons and tons of quotes and facts into his writing, but I don’t think they did much good in helping his goal of persuading Americans into thinking we need a change in our government. Because he presents the facts in a manner that makes his American audience feel like idiots with no morals, values, or hearts, I think his logos loses some of its effectiveness.

I understand what many are saying about his establishing ethos really well, because of his role in society, being a professor, ex head of ethics, and all, but I don’t entirely agree with this. While his experience in the Vietnam war shows that he probably cares enough about the well being of this country, I don’t think the teacher status gives him any credibility. When people were mentioning this status as giving him leverage in the ethos department, I just kept thinking about some of the professors/heads of departments at our school. If some of the professors at our school had written this, I would have most likely laughed and thought, “What makes you so great that you think people will actually listen to this?” Teachers should be well respected in society, but I don’t think this role makes them experts on how we should handle our government affairs. So I guess his ethos didn’t do much for me and I’d probably give him a low B, the Vietnam status being the redeeming factor in the grade.

As for pathos, I think he did an alright job of establishing it, but it could have been better had he not taken such a bitter, accusing stance. The way he so callously talks of the victims of 9/11 cancels out the sympathy he tries to convey for the Iraqi children. It seemed like one moment we are thinking he is a nice guy feeling sorry for the children, but then he turns into Dr. Evil saying that the 9/11 victims had it coming to them. In my opinion, any pathos he had established and used to effectively persuade his audience is gone at this point. In his later response, he tends to mollify his remarks, and we kind of see where he is coming from better, but basically, he is just saying the same harsh statement but in a nicer way…..isn’t that what one definition of rhetoric was? So maybe he is a good rhetorician……

So I guess I am still a little biased in my critique of Churchill. I think a biased reaction is going to be inevitable in the cases of many because of the harsh approach he took in presenting his beliefs. His defense did not make me like him any better, mainly because he made me so disgusted with his first approach. I am probably way too biased in my reviewing his rhetoric, but honestly, how many Americans that read this are going to say, “Awww…he’s trashing us, but he’s such a good rhetorician that I don’t care!” I’d have to bet on not many.