Ronald Reagan became president during the Cold War. In this address, he articulates the competing ideologies that had for several decades pitted the Soviet Union against the United States. The Berlin Wall, which cut off West Berlin from East Berlin, became a symbol of the deep divide between Western democratic nations and pro-Soviet governments.
Complete a rhetorical analysis of the speech. How and why is or is the speech not effective? What is the purpose of the text?
What is the author’s point of view in the text?
Does the author fairly represent both sides of the topic?
What point would an opponent of the point of view focus on? This entry should be at least 350 words.
 |
Just Kidding!
|
On June 12, 1987, United States President Ronald Reagan would deliver a speech that would go down in history as one of the most iconic pieces of the modern age. The impact of Reagan’s words can be felt through his continual usage of rhetorical devices to both establish and strengthen his argumentative position. He consistently establishes his own ethos through wishes of goodwill and declarations of moral value and virtue as he remains ever courteous despite the apparent hostility of his objective audience. The imagery he uses when describing the city of Berlin, particularly in the latter half of the speech, serves as a guide for the emotions conjured through the appeal to pathos. Even Reagan’s usage of logos is laid bare. This becomes apparent through his utilization of enthymemes, which can be seen when he says, “…as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind.” Even more obvious are his references to the commonplaces such as his reflection on historical events as a means to look to the future (past fact/future fact, circumstance), invocation of the names of such men as John F. Kennedy and von Weizsacker (authority, testimony), and comparisons between both halves of the German state as well as comparisons between Germany and other parts of the world (difference, comparison). Reagan even makes way for some of the stylistic tropes and schemes such as the colloquialism used each of the three times he speaks German, the anaphora in “…yes to this city, yes to the future, yes to freedom”, and the apostrophe in his famed line, “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Without the combination of all of these devices, it is rather likely that Reagan’s argument would simply fall flat. However, the usage of each of these devices serves to strengthen his position by solidifying his point. While each of these appeals would bear some sort of strength or significance outside of this piece, it is the context which makes it effective. The desperation of the author and all of the voices that he is uplifting in light of the threat of communism makes the piece both relevant and purposeful. Perhaps the author does not consistently represent the opposing point of view, but the antithesis of the argument is still present, if only slightly. This does, however, create a bit of a hole in Reagan’s argument. Nonetheless, after President Reagan’s closing line it becomes rather difficult to argue anything said prior, as the audience is left to be little more than dumbfounded by the gravity of those final words.
ReplyDeleteI like how you used a quote from the speech to show where he used an enthymeme.
DeleteI like how you brought up the topics and subtopics of invention, it makes you think about his thought process a little more.
DeleteDuring the Cold War Ronald Reagan was the U.S president. On June 12, 1987 he delivered a speech to the people of Berlin. He talks about how hey are divided but they are a great people so they shouldn’t be. He talks about a wall that encircles the free sectors of Berlin, but this wall is only part of a huge system that divides the entire continent of Europe. Reagan wants this wall torn down, he doesn’t want this monstrosity to divide the people of Berlin and the rest of Europe. He even at one point in the speech calls the wall a scare. It is ugly and people don’t like to see it much like the scares we have on our bodies today. Reagan uses Ethos, Pathos, and Logos throughout his entire speech. He constantly is trying to appeal to their emotions about the wall and how such a thing effects them physically and emotionally which is pathos. He logically gives reason as to why the wall should be torn down which represents his logos. At the end of his speech Reagan closes with “Thank you and God bless you all” which is one way that he used goodwill and appealed to ethos. The whole point in this speech was so the Berlin Wall would be torn down and the people of the city would no longer be divided. The deconstruction of the wall began on June 13, 1990 and whether it was Reagan’s words or the words of someone else the wall was going down. Reagan in a way was successful even though the wall came down years after his speech. I believe his speech was very effective I think Reagan was able to pierce the minds of his listeners and get them to think. He then threw the clincher which is still famous today, “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall!”
ReplyDeleteI like how you included that Regan ends his speech with “Thank you and God bless you all.” It truly does show how Ronald Regan is a man of goodwill.
DeleteYour emphasis on Reagan's statement regarding the wall as a scar is really important. It shows that you relate to his sentiment of the damage that this divide has had on the city of Berlin as well as the people.
DeleteI like how you acknowledged that he used the quote "Thank you and God bless you all" to use his goodwill and appeal to his ethos.
Delete“Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall!”. This line would go down to be a very famous statement that still makes the secret service shake in their shoes. President Ronald Reagan continues, throughout his speech, to use his rhetoric to establish authority, emotions, and logic, all which he does very well. When your parents are yelling at your little brother to clean his room, they tell him that he will be more organized and have a better week. They also tell him that they are his parents so he has to listen, and that it would make them really happy if he would just do it. After all of this convincing, they are getting tired of messing around, they say “ just do it! What is the problem? I told you to clean it so just do it!” I feel as though that is kind of what the president is trying to get at. He says I am here to talk to you all and that he is here is a good way, ethos. He then talks about how ugly the wall is physically an what it is actually doing, pathos. He then goes on to state the facts that the wall isn’t working and that they should tear it down. Additional to being the us president, president Ronald Reagan established his ethos be being very understanding of different views of the people. While the president is lacking in stats and raw facts, he uses his authority to help him establish his logos. He uses historical examples of countries that have done good by uniting. He talks about japan, Italy an France. By saying these facts, he is trying to convince the people of Berlin that uniting as one is the the only thing that will save them. He also goes the other way by talking about the failures of communist countries. He even says “Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself”. While establishing pathos, is tells the people that he understands how they feel. The president is very kind to the people and talks about how beautiful and historical the city is. I think he did a very good job.
ReplyDeleteI like the parallel you made to parents telling their son to clean their room, it helps put it in a simpler way to understand.
DeleteI like that you explained that uniting is something that will save these places, that you gave examples of countries that have United and that communist countries have failed,
DeleteUnity is something so important throughout our world, and an underlying wish in almost everyone on this world. Ronald Reagan knew this when he addressed Mr. Gorbachev about the Berlin Wall. As a master rhetor, Reagan used multiple devices, along with his strong opinion on the situation, to create a very strong and effective argument. This particular argument is for peace, unity, and therefore the destruction of the Berlin Wall. Reagan’s view is that this wall is a “scar of a wall” and that it questions not only the freedom of Germany, but rather the freedom of the world. Throughout the text he continues to use more devices to prove his point of this. For example, he uses other authoritative people, like John F. Kennedy, to show the importance of what he is arguing. The fact he has to come back to address this country for a second time shows he doesn’t find this to be a minor issue. He also talks about the Marshall Plan. Here, he gives an example of how ideas and plans from the United States has once positively affected this country before, bringing Germany out of poverty and into a new light. He leads this idea into saying that a free world prospers much quicker than a restrained one. Throughout these examples within the text, Reagan only supports his own argument, which may hurt him in some small ways. For example, if someone bring up an opposing point not mentioned somewhere in his speech he may not be able to defend it. Although this is possible, it is also not very likely he wouldn’t have an appropriate response since he is such a master rhetor. I feel an opposing view would focus on the section of the speech where Reagan discusses the prosperity of a free world. Although he talks about how poverty in the country negatively affected the west, he never directly brought up an enclosed or enslaved world being less productive than a free one. Although this small flaw can be seen within Ronald Reagan’s speech to Mr. Gorbachev, this piece can be seen as a beautiful rhetorical speech. Although some people worried his most famous line would be too direct, it ended up being the most effect full; “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with one of your last statements. That his line about tearing down the wall was thought to be to direct but if he wants something to be accomplished why not just spit it right out.
DeleteI like how you mentioned him mentioning other important influential people like John F. Kennedy in his speech.
DeleteThe speech by Ronald Reagan on June 12, 1987 was very effective and the outcome of it in future years proved that it was. The speech resulted in the Berlin Wall tumbling down two years after it. “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” (Reagan, Tear Down This Wall) This along with many offers of peace and unity to The Soviet Union from The United States is what lead to the wall being torn down. The purpose of the text was for Ronald Reagan to use his ethos, logos and pathos to convince the General Secretary Gorbachev to tear down The Berlin Wall to bring back the unity of the country as it was once before. Ronald Reagan views both sides fairly to Berlin and To The United States. He acknowledges the good things that came out of what Berlin has done, such as Berlin going from rubble to having the greatest industrial output of any city in Germany. Reagan also states the good things that can come out of becoming a country of freedom with no wall, such as striving to reduce arms on both sides of the problems. Another thing that could come out of the speech was the wiping out of nuclear weapons. Someone who was opposed the getting rid of the Wall would focus more on the problems that occurred when there was no Wall. Problems such as their culture being destroyed, the city in rubble, people in need, and pure devastation. These problems were solved by the Wall, along with some other things, and everything was going right, Berlin was becoming better. They face all of those problems and solved them. Someone opposing the point would ask “What is the point of getting rid of the Wall, if all it has done for us is good?” That is a good point, but it's a selfish point, because Berlin is the only place getting something out of the Wall, if they tore it down, they would have freedom again, but other places would not. Denying the helping hand from The United States would be a very terrible idea.
ReplyDeleteI didnt realize that if the wall was keeping other problems such as nuclear weaponry out of the picture, good point!
DeleteIn 1987,Ronald Regan gave the speech that earned the name “ Tear Down This Wall.” The speech developed the argument over communism within and around Berlin. The Berlin Wall separated Berlin into two, and many people disagreed with this. Ronald Regan presented goodwill when he said the line “Tear down this wall!” The line was intended for the Communist Party leader the of the Soviet Union. As a result, the wall was torn years later. Regan told the audience that the world is changing and if Berlin wants to continue it must adapt to the change. He establishes his goodwill when he complements the people of Berlin on their beautiful culture and landscape. This speech is very effective because Regan uses pathos very often to appeal to the audience and the people effected by communism. Ronald Regan is a very intelligent man, considering he was the president of the United States. In the speech he realizes the issues to the people that are effected. He wants what is right which makes him as a great rhetor. Regan represents both sides throughout the speech but he mostly defends to the minority which is the people who are effected the most by the wall. He says that Berlin will perish if it doesn’t not work as a whole which I also agree with. Ronald Regan uses logos when he speaks of how Berlin will flourish if it tears down the wall. Regan said peace and prosperity will thrive along with liberalization when the Wall is destroyed. Ronald Regan was a man with power allowing him to make a huge statement with the Berlin Wall. Who would not agree with him? He is the highest man of power in the most developed country in the world. That develops his ethos or authority. The main purpose in the speech is that there is corruption within Europe and if it is not settled then Berlin will fall. Regan not only cares for his own country but other European countries. He realizes that people are being effected through this communism and strives to solve it.
ReplyDeleteYou made a good point when you said, "...but he mostly defends to the minority which is the people who are effected the most by the wall." You really accentuate his focus on the people left hurt and divided by this phenomenon. It is also serves as a good show of his arete, eunoia, and phronesis.
Delete