Late response to Kevin Jennings

Kevin argues in his blog on Ward Churchill that Churchill uses logos to persuade his audience, and doesn't use much pathos at all. I agree that Churchill definitely throws facts at his audience so fast it makes our heads spin, and so much so that I wonder if he's got all his facts right. The interesting thing about Churchill's choice of wording in his logos-driven speech is that he causes a pathos reaction.

For example, let's say Churchill wants to say the president made a mistake. He could choose to say, "President Bush was given information that led him to believe that it would be in our best interests to start bombing." Instead, Churchill says something more to the effect of, "President Bush is an imbecile and should not be allowed out of his own home, much less to meddle in the affairs of other countries - he takes bad information!" Churchill mixes up pathos and logos in such a way that both our brains and our passions are ignited - he uses facts to make assumptions that may or may not be completely accurate. Like the whole "little Eichmann" thing.

All that to say, Churchill is a smart guy, and he'd be fun to go have a cup of coffee with and discuss the world - but he needs more ethos in order to make the claims he makes and have the audience believe him. And he could also learn to watch his mouth a little bit. (I'd still like to have a cup of coffee with him, though!)