Will Ament
Professor Minbiole
CAS 137H
4 October 2012
A Rhetorical Analysis of the Case for a Third Party in America
In recent years, especially since the last two years of the Bush Administration and continuing through the Obama presidency, the America two party system has come under fire from critics and pundits alike. Their view is that the economic and social problems of this country have only grown worse as Republicans and Democrats put forth lackluster effort and phantom solutions to this great nations issues. One such critic is Matt Miller, an opinion writer for the Washington Post. In an article from September 25, 2011 titled “Why we nee a Third Party”, Miller calls for a third party of misrepresented centrists to put the country on the right path. This essay will analyze the rhetoric at use in the essay along with the audience, context and the propositions of the article.
“So here’s where we are”. With the first line, Miller immediately puts any following claims and statements he makes into the context of the modern day and its political situations. He then goes on to say “Our president calls himself ‘a warrior for the middle class’ because he’s campaigning for a plan that might add 2 million new jobs next year at a time when 25 million Americans who want full-time work can’t find it.” This use of dialectical reasoning to say that the President’s plan for the unemployed of America displays our writer’s first example of logos, or a logical proof. He then follows this statement up with a question: “If that’s war, what would surrender look like”? Here our author uses a tactic that he will continue to utilize throughout the rest of the essay. Miller will cite a fact or make some logical proof and follow up shortly with an emotionally charged statement, an example of pathos. This combination of logical and emotional argument makes Miller’s arguments all the more effective. We are not only compelled to believe his propositions because of the facts he has laid out, but by also evoking our feelings (most notably disgust and anger) we go beyond realizing there is a problem with the American two party system; we are driven to do something about it. After then addressing the Republican side of political ridiculousness Miller states three reasons to why both parties choose to do nothing the first being that parties seek to win elections, not solve problems. This is a dialectical, maybe even contentious, statement since some would probably disagree (especially those that are higher up in one of these political parties) but most would agree with this statement. Miller’s second reason is that the parties are held captive by special interest groups and “ideological litmus tests” which hold both Republicans and Democrats back from combining different ideas, reaching compromises, and sometimes even modernizing their philosophies. Once again this is a logos based argument, more on the rhetorical side of logical argument. The final reason Miller cites is that neither party trusts that the voters will allow them to lay out facts and explain the step that need to be taken to solve this nations problems. He goes on to explain his reasoning by citing issues like healthcare and education. Both parties have solutions that instead of totally solving the problem, bow to special interests or are bound to ideologies. This once again is an example of his logos then pathos style which first legitimizes his argument with facts, then appeals to our emotions to get us to do something about the problem.
A question one might ask while reading this essay is “Who exactly is this guy talking to? Doesn’t he know that these two parties are incredibly powerful and that to vote for anyone else other than a Republican or Democrat would be a waste of a vote”? Miller’s audience is not concerned with either of these questions because anyone who is actually taking heed of his words has probably thought that America needs a third party to set America straight. He knows that no adamant supporter of the Republican party will think “Hey this guy has some good points”. Therefore, he centers on what matters most to his audience: finding a solution to the political problems of America outside of either Republican or Democrat political circles. The audience also ties into the context of Miller’s essay. As America has become increasingly polarized over political issues in the last 5-6 years, the audience of Miller’s opinions has grown. Therefore writing an article calling for a third political party is much more effective now rather than writing it in 2000, after the presidency of Bill Clinton.
Matt Miller has now displayed what is wrong with the American two party system, now it is time that he do what he says that neither party has offered to do: come up with a plan to fix America’s situation. Miller’s solution calls for a third party to be created by
a “far center” group as he puts it. He believes that both parties “are unacceptable and disappointing in their own ways” and that because both parties “act this way because their core constituencies have a stake in a failed status quo” a party with no ties to special interests and solutions based on logic and reason would be the best salve for America’s political ills. This argument’s essence is based in ethos since it looks to do the most virtuous thing possible, which is to serve the people of America and not special interest.