Rhetorical Analysis

Rather than looking at the intellectual aspect of an essay or article alone, analyzing the rhetorical merit can aid in understanding the work as a whole.  In other words, understanding the methods the author utilizes to persuade readers is imperative to understanding the true stance of the author and the reactions the author hopes to achieve for the reader’s benefit.  Could it purely be informative, or could there be a healthy hint of emotion as well?  Without understanding the rhetoric that is present, grasping the concept of the work wholly is more difficult.  The rhetorical merit in a particular article from Professor of Economics at The Citadel, Richard Ebeling, speaks on behalf of the conservative economical perspective in an article titled “Why Socialism is Impossible.” It steadily details the importance of capitalism and criticizes the socialist system; however, the purpose of this essay is not to analyze the argument, but rather the methods employed by Ebeling to get those points across in a purposeful and persuading manner.  Basic rhetoric revolves around the four appeals of Kairos, Logos, Pathos, and Ethos.  Ebeling is able to include all four of these appeals all the while maintaining an academic diction primarily aimed at the undergraduate level.  In any analysis, attention to all these rhetorical devices is imperative to absorbing the knowledge presented in the piece.

Kairos, the first appeal and most important in terms of relatability and purpose, is that of timeliness which evidently relies on the ebbs and flows of society.  Literature that is contradictory to the societal narrative will not be successful in reaching the eyes and ears of the globe.  However, the purpose of literature that remains is shaping and persuading the audience.  In terms of this article, the timing comes at a pivotal time in the United States.  In 2004 the patriotism and nationalism that had held the country together in belief after the 2001 attacks had begun to dwindle, and polarization between parties became apparent once again.  For the first time since the mid 90’s, partisan attitudes were extremely intense and divided.  Two of the largest differences, sparking this article, were the democrat’s increasing interest in valuing social net programs and the overarching concern of the financial state of the United States after war with Iraq.  As those services democrats focused more on became federalized and monetary planning centralized, the closer the country edged toward a socialist’s paradise.  This article was written in late 2004 at the end of Bill Clinton’s term as president and around the time of George W. Bush’s election.  Mr. Bush was a conservative from Texas, and this article was most likely published for the purpose of keeping the republican party in the loop with socialism and its arguments.  As one of the major issues of the time that has progressively gotten more intriguing to the left, the discussion has been contributed to countless times since its beginnings with Karl Marx in 1848 Germany publishing “The Communist Manifesto” with Friedrich Engels.

Logos extends beyond the basic simplicity of the logical argument.  The methods in which words are presented also coincides with the appeal.  Firstly, Ebeling relies on inductive reasoning to get his argument through to the reader, that is the use of evidence to prove a point.   Ebeling’s evidence is clear and continues to unravel as he explains.  In of itself, argument is a device as well.  Literature is meant to shape the minds of readers and argument, the use of evidence to back up reasoning, is the most successful method of this.  All of Ebeling’s sources are against the opposite side of the argument, showing potential bias, however a short rebuttal is allotted, providing a evidence for the opposing side of Ebeling’s argument.  Ebeling constantly makes an effort to provide concrete evidence for the argument against socialism: such as “Yet, without such a competitively generated system of market prices, Mises argued, there would be no method for rational economic calculation to determine the least-cost methods of production or the relative profitability of producing alternative goods and services to best satisfy the wants of the consuming public.”  This is one of many key points made in the article that demonstrates the amount of thought required to argue this topic well and with poise.  In order to do so, however, Ebeling must gather the respect of his audience first.

Ethos concerns the development of credibility in an argument.  The interesting thing concerning ethos and online articles is the lack of information immediately available to the reader about the author.  Through background information, readers are able to decipher potential bias, political leaning, and most importantly the audience they primarily aim for.  Although Professor Ebeling never states in his article his own fortunes or achievements, it is possible to use the hyperlink provided to get information on the author himself.  The BB&T Distinguished professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel, the number one public southern college, is also the former president of FEE (Foundation for Economic Education and the source of the article) and has testified for the House of Representatives on the merits of refined monetary policy.  The article is confidently written and Ebeling’s knowledge on the subject is apparent through his meticulous choice of sources and reasoning.  In particular, the referral to two certain individuals, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, shows his education and understanding of the subject because of their earlier and important involvement argument and the continued relevance of their evidence and thought today.  These contributors are well respected in their field, that is free market economy, and are useful in supporting much of Ebeling’s argument.  Both were conservative economic thinkers, much like Ebeling, and further his angle of vision towards a conservative lean on the spectrum.  Ebeling does not directly quote the classical thinkers, but rather paraphrases.  This opens more for Ebeling’s argument because he is able to better align his thoughts to theirs without having to explain what they mean too.

Pathos is the appeal to ethics and morality.  Although Ebeling does not delve into the ethical discussion that is socialism, he acknowledges some of the aspects that concern it such as the willingness to work and the engagement of government in economics as a central planner of commerce.  The article itself is based on an ethical topic, meaning most of the argument made by Ebeling is supported by fact but rooted in the fundamentals of ethics.  A key device relating to pathos, alliteration, is used on more than one occasion.  Alliteration is the use of the same beginning sounds of a letter for more than two words in a row.  An example of this in the article demonstrates: “They pursued personal power and privilege.” Although it does not serve much purpose other than keeping the reader enticed, it remains important to maintain the attentiveness of the reader as this alliteration comes about halfway through the article.  The use of a device such as alliteration causes the reader to take notice of what is being said.  In this context, the quote is emphasizing the possessiveness of the communist regime and the greed it creates.

Finally, diction is held to a high regard in literature and rhetoric.  The choice of words is imperative for choosing the intended audience and who will be able to understand and apply the writing to personal stigma and conversation.  This work targets young academic eyes through slightly more polished word choice with no words needing to be looked up in a dictionary.  It is meant to be understood by whoever wants to read, but with economics education ultimately in mind.  Due to the fact this article is in the public domain and on an educational organization’s website, it should be able to be read from a large population of audiences from varying degrees of status.  Moreover, due to this evidence, time period this article was written, and the title itself, it can be supposed that Ebeling intended the audience to be undergraduate aged republicans looking to learn more about the socialist discussion so that they could defend their beliefs.

Without a doubt, this article from a successful professor is effective in communicating an argument through the four main rhetorical appeals of Kairos, logos, pathos, and ethos as well as utilizing a word choice that can be understood by the intended audience.  The author, Richard M. Ebeling, is well known for his work in monetary policy and the involvement in free market education, as well as Austrian Economics, but never clearly states this in the article.  Ebeling goes into depth on the theoretical economic downfall of the socialist system as well as crediting two important classical economists’ outlook on socialism and its relation to human ethics and how it relates to the overall argument against the proposed system’s imposing presence in United States politics.

Help Received: None; Ryan H. O’Connor 5/4/21

Works Cited

Ebeling, Richard M. “Why Socialism Is Impossible: Richard M. Ebeling.” FEE Freeman Article, Foundation for Economic Education, 1 Oct. 2004, fee.org/articles/why-socialism-is-impossible/.

Ramage, John D., et al. Writing Arguments. Pearson, 2018.