Rhetorical Analysis

Friedman’s use of ethos, logos, and most importantly pathos in his Sep. 26 article “The

New Sputnik” makes for a very convincing argument but the kairos makes one wonder what

Friedman’s hope is for action coming at such a time when a green energy has taken a back seat

to health care reform. (This is an okay thesis but I could probably have made the opening a little

more specific)

Friedman is one of the foremost authorities on climate change and green energy. As a

politer prize winning columnist for the New York Times he has built a reputation on making

complex economic and environmental discussion simple (but not simplified) for the common

reader. (I should have found a source for this maybe for more logos) Coming from anyone else

this article wouldn’t be as convincing but with his clout and prestige more readers are likely to

be swayed.

As always, Friedman backs up with argument with sound logos. With such information

as the opening in China of the largest solar energy facility in the world, the money going into

clean energy in Wuxi city, as well as China’s overtaking the US in wind energy, Friedman is

able to show concretely just how much more progress China is making than the US. This is

some really convincing stuff. (That’s a terrible ending line)

But what makes this article really persuasive is the pathos of comparing the challenge of

green energy innovation to the space race. By harkening back to a time when nationalism, pride,

and public safety were on the line with the launching of Sputnik, Friendman is able to tap into

those same emotions of pride, hope and fear by showing how if the US doesn’t step up now

China will be poised to become the next superpower leaving America in the B section of
yesterday’s news. (that was kind of funny) This is a highly effective technique and one which

stirs the reader to action.

What is interesting however is the timing of the article, the kairotic moment in which it

appeared. September was still the heat of the health care debate and climate control and green

energy were not a big issue. Sure Friedman has appeared at a time when going green is gaining

momentum but why print this article in September and not early spring when such an issue will

likely be before congress? Setting aside the simple explanation (A biweekly column deadline),

one wonders if Friedman is trying to keep such green concerns on the public’s mind even when

such issues aren’t on the floor in congress. This way once the topic is back in discussion he

won’t have as much ground to make up in terms of getting the public on board with what will no

doubt be controversial policies to create new jobs.

Thus, as you can see, Friedman makes a terribly convincing argument backed with facts,

emotional pulls and the weight of his figure to keep green energy and innovation in the national

conversation even when health care is dominating the debate. (Could have pushed further with

this conclusion)