Rhetorical Analysis of Krauthammer's "Hail Mary vs. Cool Barry"

I've posted my POW for discussion and criticism; feel free to comment. The original article can be found at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/‌wp-dyn/‌content/‌article/‌2008/‌10/‌02/‌AR2008100203043_pf.html

* * *

In a very interesting move, Charles Krauthammer arrives at a conclusion against what he might he desire as a partisan. Rather than John McCain, Krauthammer concludes that Barrack Obama is favored to win the presidency. Yet, it is only an idea that, since his partisan wishes are contrary to his conclusion, he might have arrived at his conclusion logically. It is only that idea that makes his piece appealing at all. His perils come from too few appeals to logic and too many appeals to his own authority.

It is difficult to be definitive in politics. The perpetual concerns with image, message, and perception as well as strong opinions and unshakeable biases tend to taint simple statements of fact; thus facts carry little weight when they relate to politics. In order to pin down an absolute truth, no one can be trusted: with a purely objective spirit, one must set out and uncover the primary sources from which unbiased facts can be derived. Such a task is difficult and cumbersome to attempt, and since it’s dubious that any human could completely separate himself from bias, it would be impossible for one to produce a completely detached analysis of politics. Why bother? Thus, when a columnist or television commentator (James Carville, etc.) tells their audience how they interpret a political event or situation, they don’t make a bottom-up factual and logical argument since they are often constrained by space and time. They have to lean on their authority (journalistic, intellectual), for the most part, to support their arguments; however, appeals to authority may have limited persuasive ability to one who does not put stock in that authority, which with politics is commonly done. Thus, commentators may find themselves only connecting to those who already agree with them.

When Krauthammer analyzes John McCain’s three “Hail Mary” maneuvers, he does not explain his conclusions at all; rather, he states them matter-of-factly. The reader will believe what Krauthammer says based on whether or not they trust him—in other words, Krauthammer is making an appeal to (his own) authority in these arguments. Krauthammer characterizes two of McCain’s maneuvers as a success. On the other hand, Krauthammer states that Obama is very collected in this stage of the election. He also states that Ronald Reagan was similarly “collected” in the 1980 Presidential election. All three of these statements are made unsupported by logic. Pathos, or emotional appeals, appears to be used in limited cases to reinforce the idea, argued through ethos elsewhere, that Barrack Obama is an unsuitable candidate for President. The most concrete example is a subtle attack on Barrack Obama meant to incite the common aversion to Ivy League schools and their graduates: by referring to the biographical film about Barrack Obama that preceded his convention speech as “brazen” and saying that the film “shamelessly skipped from Hawaii grade-schooler to community organizer with not a word about Columbia and Harvard” [Krauthammer, emphasis added], Krauthammer uses insinuating diction to arouse negative feelings stemming from a stereotype.

Krauthammer argues that Obama is a poor candidate for President and inferior, as such, to John McCain. However, McCain has made risky political maneuvers open to criticism, even if they are successful. Obama, on the other hand, has been cautious in his movements. Krauthammer also states that Ronald Reagan, by maintaining an appearance similar to the “cool,” “collected” appearance of Obama, won the 1980 Presidential election. Krauthammer bring this together in a logical argument. McCain is a better candidate than Obama (thus he should win), but McCain appears too risky while Obama appears cool and calm. Since Ronald Reagan won cool and calm, Obama will win. There are some notable logical issues, one in argument and one in proof. Who’s to say that Reagan wasn’t the “better” candidate in 1980? If he did win due to superiority, that would question or nullify any effects of presentation in the predicted outcome. With regards to proof, what authority does Krauthammer posses in order to make appeals to it? He’s a columnist in The Washington Post, but he’s writing about politics, and his political “facts” and statements could easily be tinged with bias. What authority could overcome the nature of ideology?

Krauthammer doesn’t make an appealing argument. If he says McCain was right on the surge, others might say he was reckless, that the surge is not responsible for improved security conditions in Iraq, or that any positive affect McCain has by being right is cancelled out by the fact that he voted for the war in the first place: anything and everything that Krauthammer states, or any political columnist for that matter, can be viewed differently according to different political ideologies. In order for him to make an appealing, convincing argument, he has to go deeper in his premises so that they cannot be disputed so easily. He has to explain why a deciding factor is so decisive after all. He has to stop using below-the-belt pathos attacks and making swipes like a conceding fourth grader: both devalue anything good he has to say. Without explaining himself, there wasn’t much good to say anyway.