Whilst browsing articles, I came across a pro-war propaganda piece, written by ND Cochran in April of 1917. He vehemently supports the United States' involvement in the war and asserts that war will bring the people of the nation together in a way that a period of peace simply cannot. Cochran utilizes several rhetorical appeals to encourage the reader to become emotionally invested in the idea that involvement in the war is the most positive path for the nation and its people.
The author encourages the reader to put his or her faith in President Wilson's vision, simply by confidently stating that Wilson has a "clear head and his heart's in the right place."
I think that this particular sentiment was what made the article so amusing to me. As I read over it, I laughed, thinking about how ridiculous it would be for a reader to allow his or her opinion of the war and its purpose to be swayed by ND Cochran's "gut-feeling," or so to speak, about the moral integrity of President Wilson. Then it occurred to me: how many times are most of us swayed by arguments that could generally be regarded as weak (or weak relative to the scope and importance of the subjects they cover), simply because to agree with the author is more convenient or perhaps more comforting than allowing oneself to maintain a potentially problematic opposing view. This, of course, was a mildly disconcerting thought to confront...
Cochran ends the article with a final appeal to the reader--he asks them to consider how current involvement in the war will undoubtedly mean a positive outcome for future generations.
No comments:
Post a Comment