Let's Talk About Rhetoric, Baby: Part 3

In part 2 of this post, I talked about the rhetorical approaches used in an essay in which a religious business owner argued that he was being forced to pay for healthcare he believes is morally wrong. Below, I've excerpted a few paragraphs from an article titled "The 5 Most Absurd, Self-Pitying Gripes of the Christian Right" (note that we're already deep into emotional appeals, just in the title: "absurd," "self-pitying," and "gripes" all encourage the reader to jeer at the subjects of the essay.) Take a look, then I'll dissect it and add some commentary. Feel free to skip down to the fun part if you don't want to read it twice.

*    *   *

The issue: The new HHS regulations requiring insurance plans to cover, without a copay, an assorted list of preventive care, including contraception.

Who the right claims is being hurt: Religious business owners, whose “religious freedom” the right claims includes being able to deny earned benefits to employees, if they disagree with those employees’ personal choices. When Hobby Lobby sued to be exempted from the mandate, the suit cited the family that owns the business’s religious beliefs: “The administrative rule at issue in this case runs roughshod over the Green family’s religious beliefs, and the beliefs of millions of other Americans, by forcing them to provide health insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and devices, as well as related education and counseling.” (“Abortion-inducing” is a bit of right-wing speak that should be translated to “pregnancy prevention.”)

Who is actually being hurt: Everyone who pays into health insurance systems. The reason the Obama administration decided to make copay-free preventive services a benefit is that it maximizes the return on people’s healthcare investment, both in terms of their own health and saving costs down the line by preventing unnecessary health problems in the first place. Childbirth is incredibly expensive, and preventing unwanted childbirth promises to save both the immediate expenses and allow families to better prepare financially for when they do want children.

Again, the “religious freedom” argument being advanced by the right falls apart upon close inspection. Religious freedom is a right held primarily by individuals; having your boss impose his religious beliefs on you by manipulating your compensation is an infringement on your right to work without religious discrimination.

*   *   *

Okay, so were you convinced? Did you pick out the logical, emotional, and authoritative appeals? Below is my analysis; the colors refer to logos (logical), ethos (authoritative), and pathos (emotional) arguments, and my comments are in bold.


The issue: The new HHS regulations requiring insurance plans to cover, without a copay, an assorted list of preventive care, including contraception.

I think the issue at hand is stated pretty neutrally here at the start; just the facts. 

Who the right claims is being hurt: Religious business owners, whose “religious freedom” the right claims includes being able to deny earned benefits to employees, if they disagree with those employees’ personal choices. When Hobby Lobby sued to be exempted from the mandate, the suit cited the family that owns the business’s religious beliefs: “The administrative rule at issue in this case runs roughshod over the Green family’s religious beliefs, and the beliefs of millions of other Americans, by forcing them to provide health insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and devices, as well as related education and counseling.” (“Abortion-inducing” is a bit of right-wing speak that should be translated to “pregnancy prevention.”)

This is a mix of logos and pathos. For the most part, the writer relies on scare quotes (nearly always designed to provoke an emotional response, usually either anger that the person being quoted used such words to describe something, or a feeling of superiority based on the foolishness of the quoted item) and other language designed to rile ("deny earned benefits," "disagree with ... personal choices"), as well as a direct quote pulled to provoke outrage. Note also the "translation" provided at the bottom, intended to anger by claiming that the other side is using obfuscating or inaccurate terminology. (Is this not an exercise of religious freedom? Is there more at stake than a disagreement about employees' personal choices?)


Who is actually being hurt: Everyone who pays into health insurance systems. The reason the Obama administration decided to make copay-free preventive services a benefit is that it maximizes the return on people’s healthcare investment, both in terms of their own health and saving costs down the line by preventing unnecessary health problems in the first place. Childbirth is incredibly expensive, and preventing unwanted childbirth promises to save both the immediate expenses and allow families to better prepare financially for when they do want children.

The initial claim is broad and seems intended to provoke an angry response ("these people are hurting everyone but themselves?!"). The rest of the paragraph advances a logical argument, however, with relatively little inflammatory language. 

Again, the “religious freedom” argument being advanced by the right falls apart upon close inspection. Religious freedom is a right held primarily by individuals; having your boss impose his religious beliefs on you by manipulating your compensation is an infringement on your right to work without religious discrimination.

Finally, some more scare quotes for good measure, followed by a fairly logical argument, though tinged with language designed again to anger: "manipulating your compensation," "infringement on your right." (Do we agree that an employer refusing to pay for things on religious grounds is manipulative and an infringement on the rights of the employee?)

*   *   *

Unlike the essay in the previous post, the argument here makes no appeals to authority; no experts on the matter at hand are called in for their opinion. On the other hand, it does resemble the other essay in its mixture of logical appeal and emotion-stoking; where in the former we were asked to feel kindly towards a Christian businessman, and angry about his being wronged, here we are supposed to be angry at him and his kind for infringing on our rights and using emotional appeals and unclear language.

To sum up: Being truly persuasive requires a mixture of rhetorical techniques, and it is important to listen for these different techniques when one is being persuaded by someone else. Looking for logical arguments amid the emotional and authoritative appeals can be a great way to come to a conclusion, but I think it's actually entirely acceptable to incorporate one's own feelings and trust for a speaker in one's opinion on an issue. It is best, however, to know that that is what one is doing when one does it. Note, finally, that I'm making no arguments about the content of either of these pieces; I trust that readers will be able to do that on their own.