Persuasive speech critique and analysis

Speech

Norman Podhoretz's "Is America Exceptional?" is a persuasive speech that hearkens to the emotional appeal of the American mythos. Podhoretz's audience is largely comprised of Americans, for whom the American mythos holds a great deal of sway. Therefore, Podhoretz's main strength is his emotional appeal and his ability to connect with the audience. He does so also by establishing credibility and ethos, referring a little to his personal background and beliefs but mainly by showing that he shares the same optimistic values that cause one to believe that America is indeed exceptional. It is no accident that Podhoretz starts the speech with a line that typically starts fairy tales: "Once upon a time…"

However, the speaker's emotional appeals (pathos) are only one of the reasons why Podhoretz's speech is technically an effective one. "Is America Exceptional?" also relies on credible and logical reasoning (logos). The reasoning methods are particularly effective because the speaker uses specific examples from credible sources, such as Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. The author quotes liberally from those who both agree and disagree with him, which achieves a dual goal of conveying ethos as well as logos. Furthermore, Podhoretz has a great degree of credibility in academic circles. He can rely on his perceived competence and character, but he goes a step farther by finding common ground with his audience.

Because the Podhoretz speech "Is America Exceptional?" uses pathos, ethos, and logos in equal degrees, it comes across as highly effective. The speech is tailored for a sympathetic audience, one who shares the conservative pro-American values that Podhoretz exhibits. Although the speaker begins with some concessions to a liberal part of the audience, he quickly establishes his point-of-view as a conservative.

The speech might be more effective if he did not use inflammatory terms and tones when referring to liberals, though. For example, Podhoretz states, "Judging by what they say and the policies they pursue, modern liberals are not all that concerned about liberty." It is unnecessary to make such generalizations about "liberals." Moreover, it would be helpful if Podhoretz defined exactly what he means by "liberal." It seems that Podhoretz imagines "liberals" to be anyone who finds fault with American exceptionalism, which detracts from his core argument about what exactly makes America exceptional.

Still, Podhoretz's rhetoric creates common ground with a conservative audience. In this way, the speaker retains a high degree of credibility with his target audience. If he aligned himself with a social justice perspective, Podhoretz might isolate himself from conservative members of the audience. Calling the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act "Obamacare" is can be considered derogatory phrase, but using the phrase "Obamacare" helps the speaker to align with a conservative audience. By this point in the speech, Podhoretz does not need to appease any lingering liberals in the audience, and he therefore switches to a nearly fully emotional appeal.

The greatest strength of "Is America Exceptional?" is its speaker's ability to create common ground with his audience and to build upon his credibility as an academic speaker. However, Podhoretz's use of emotional appeals is also strong. The first half of the speech draws from the American mythos. The United States is presented as a magical place where freedom and liberty grows on trees, just like money. It does not matter that Podhoretz's argument is thin; what matters is that he strikes the audience where it counts most -- in the gut.

When Podhoretz uses logical fallacies, including circular arguments (America is exceptional, yes, because America is exceptional!), he does so in a way many audience members can ignore due to their desire to believe in the American Dream. Appealing to the American Dream enables Podhoretz to avoid substantiating the fallacies he presents in the latter half of the speech, and lets him off the hook for inflammatory ad hominem comments like calling Democrats "the party of redistribution." These are logical fallacies that prevent the speech from being truly exceptional.

Podhoretz understands the power of his own credibility as a scholar. As long as he says something that sounds like a fact, statistic, or quote from a dead guy, Podhoretz seems like a credible speaker. Deeper examinations of the content of the speech reveal a litany of factual errors. For example, he states, "To become a full-fledged American, it was only necessary to pledge allegiance to the new Republic and to the principles for which it stood." The speaker does not mention the Chinese Exclusion Act and other institutionalized means of social engineering a white society. Podhoretz's statement reinforces the American mythos, and was true for enough for many immigrant experiences that the statement retains an aura of veracity. This makes the speech more effective to a non-discerning audience who agrees with the speaker, but less effective to a critical thinker.