Review of Rereading America

RWS 600, October 7, 2013

“Checkers” – Richard M. Nixon

“Checkers” speech is one of famous speeches in America. It is also well-known for very emotional speaking through the TV by the former president, Richard M. Nixon. Although “Checkers” is such a persuasive speech, there can be several informal fallacies in it. In the middle of speech, Nixon said that “I’ll have to start early. I was born in 1913. Our family was one of modest circumstances, . . . She continued to teach school.” Despite the fact that the main subject is on illegal political funds, he switched the topic by telling his personal and family history. This is a kind of “red herring” fallacies because it misleads or detracts from the actual issues. Of course, he probably wanted to show his truthful character through his personal story. However, it is clearly a fallacy in logical aspects. A “red herring” fallacy can be found in the paragraph stating a little cocker spaniel dog, “Checkers.” He turned a topic by speaking a story about receiving a dog as a gift as follows: “One other thing I probably should tell you, . . . We did get something, a gift, after the election. . . . It was a little cocker spaniel dog in a crate that he’d sent all the way from Texas, . . . And our little girl Tricia, the six year old, named it “Checkers.” And you know, the kids, like all kids, love the dog, and I just want to say this, right now, that regardless of what they say about it, we’re gonna keep it.” In this paragraph, I found a “false pity” fallacy. He did not refute his fraud in logical way. On the other hand, he just said that what he just received is only a dog and his little daughter loved the dog to name it. This is a typical “false pity” as well as a kind of emotional persuasive strategy. He also quoted Abraham Lincoln’s word to argue that a man of modest means can run for President as follows: “But I also feel that it’s essential in this country of ours that a man of modest means can also run for President, because, you know, remember Abraham Lincoln, you remember what he said: ‘God must have loved the common people – he made so many of them.’” This can be an example of “false authority” because he developed his argument by relying on the respected person’s statement. In addition, “tu quoque” can be found in the text: “And as far as Mr. Sparkman is concerned, I would suggest the same thing. . . . I would suggest that under the circumstances both Mr. Sparkman and Mr. Stevenson should come before the American people, as I have, and make a complete financial statement as to their financial history,” He argued that the opposite party should speak its innocence same as he did. He did not have to ask the opposite party to tell the truth. Instead, it is just enough for him to talk about himself.

Against school – John Taylor Gatto

Gatto committed “hasty generalization” in explaining why schooling is not really necessary, stating, “Do we really need school? . . . Don’t hide behind reading, writing, and arithmetic as a rationale, because 2 million happy homeschoolers have surely put that banal justification to rest. Even if they hadn’t, a considerable number of well-known Americans never went through the twelve-year wringer our kids currently go through, and they turned out all right. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln? Someone taught them, to be sure, but they were not products of a school system, and not one of them was ever “graduated” from a secondary school.” He just showed a few examples as the evidence of unnecessary schooling. His argument is not convincing because he asserted that schooling is not necessary to all with just a few true examples. Also, “band wagon” can be found in the aforementioned quote. He implicitly expressed that schooling is not necessary by mentioning 2 million happy homeschoolers. In other word, homeschooling is ok because many people get homeschooling. That is a typical “band wagon.”

“Two ways a woman can get hurt”: advertising and violence – Jean Kilbourne

An “unwarranted slippery slope” can be discovered in the paragraph 18 as follows: “Ads don’t directly cause violence, of course. But the violent images contribute to the state of terror. And objectification and disconnection create a climate in which there is widespread and increasing violence. Turning a human being into a thing, an object, is almost always the first step toward justifying violence against that person. . . . The person becomes an object and violence is inevitable. This step is already taken with women. The violence, the abuse, is partly the chilling but logical result of the objectification.” The violent images in Ads lead to objectification and disconnection. Objectification, turning a human being into a thing, is the first step for justifying violence against that person. The person is mainly a woman. Therefore, violence to women is inevitable. According to the author’s logic, violence certainly happens to women because of advertising. This is insufficiently steep slope because violence to women can be due to complicated causes.

Deconstructing America – Patrick J. Buchanan

In the paragraph 24, Buchanan suggested that a nation based on democracy, diversity, and equality is unlikely to thrive or even to survive on the basis of the fact that no great republic or empire – not Persia, Rome, Islam, Spain, France, Britain, Russia, China, the United States – ever arouse because it embraced democracy, diversity, and equality. This shows a typical “hasty generalization.” The aforementioned examples are just a few cases and they are not all about. He also wondered if America can survive having embraced the three values by stating that “The real question is not whether the values the queen celebrated at Jamestown created America – they had nothing to do with it – but whether America can survive having embraced them. . . .” This can be regarded as a “band wagon” because he thought that America should do just same as other republic or empire did.