The Indispensable Opposition Rhetorical Analysis


In his essay “The Indispensable Opposition”, Walter Lippmann argues that the role of the opposition is essential to the functioning of democracy. He begins by stating that the opposition is not simply an obstructionist force, but rather serves an important purpose in democracy by voicing dissent and criticism. Without the opposition, Lippmann argues, democracy would degenerate into tyranny.

Lippmann goes on to discuss the importance of freedom of speech in a democracy. He argues that the opposition must be allowed to freely express its views, even if those views are unpopular or offensive. Without this freedom, Lippmann contends, democracy would be nothing more than a sham.

Lippmann addresses the rights of the opposition. He argues that the opposition must be allowed to participate in the democratic process, even if it is not in power. Without this right, Lippmann asserts, democracy would be nothing more than a dictatorship.

In Walter Lippmann’s essay, The Indispensable Opposition, he discusses criticism of society’s failure to support political freedom and the freedom of speech in America. Lippmann employs syntax and appeals to the reader to strengthen his argument. Lippmann emphasizes the fact that most people are unconcerned with their freedoms.

He uses logos by providing statistics and evidence to support his argument that people are apathetic about their rights. In addition, Lippmann uses pathos to connect with the emotion of the readers. He talks about how the government should be run and how people should have more interest in it in order to create a more stable society.

Lastly, Lippmann employs ethos by establishing himself as a credible source through his use of expert knowledge and experience. Overall, Lippmann’s essay is effective in persuading the reader that political freedom is important and that people should be more involved in ensuring its continuation.

Lippmann employs an example from Voltaire to illustrate his point. During his life, Voltaire made many statements that he criticized in his writing, and as a result, he most certainly believed in freedom of speech. His famous remark & I entirely disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it, is said with a tone of sarcasm.

Voltaire is not saying that he will actually defend to the death someone’s right to say something that he or she believes in, but rather that Voltaire himself will be the one speaking out and defending what he or she believes in. This use of irony highlights the importance of freedom of speech and how people should be allowed to voice their opinions without fear of retribution. It also serves as a reminder that even though we may not agree with what someone has to say, we should still respect their right to say it.

Lippmann goes on to explain that the opposition is essential for two reasons. First, the opposition provides a check on those in power and helps to keep them from abusing their power. Second, the opposition forces those in power to justify their actions and to explain their policies to the public. Without the opposition, those in power would be free to act without having to answer to anyone.

The opposition is therefore essential for a healthy democracy. Without the opposition, those in power would be able to act without accountability or transparency. The opposition provides a check on those in power and ensures that they are held accountable for their actions.

Lippmann concludes by saying that the opposition is not just a luxury that we can afford to do without, but it is an essential part of a functioning democracy. He says that the role of the opposition is to challenge those in power and to hold them accountable for their actions. Without the opposition, democracy would not be possible.

He appeals to the reader’s emotions by telling them that they are not standing up and defending their rights as they should. Lippmann tells us in a sarcastic tone that he disapproves of individuals being apathetic about their freedom, claiming that the real reason for freedoms necessitating agreement from the audience is because it is an illusion.

Lippmann tries to make the reader feel bad about themselves and their actions, in order to get them to agree with him. This is an effective way to get people to see his point of view and to also get them to take action.

Lippmann’s use of ethos is shown when he talks about how “the first thing we have to understand is that a constitutional system cannot work at all unless there is a general agreement among the people of the country about the importance of the Constitution.” He is saying that if people do not believe in what the Constitution stands for, then it will not work. He is trying to get the reader to trust him and his opinion by pretending like he is an expert on the subject.

Lippmann’s use of logos is shown when he states facts and statistics throughout the essay to back up his claims. He talks about how “the great opposition movements in history have been led by people who were not afraid to be called names.” He is trying to get the reader to see that people who have fought for their rights in the past have been called names, and they should not be afraid of being called names too.

In his essay, Lippmann employs a variety of syntax to back up his argument. Parallelism is one of them. Throughout his essay, he uses numerous synonyms to keep the reader interested in his broader goal. It’s large, beneficial, and necessary consequences are examples of parallelism. And we are deserving, noble, and selfless individuals.

These words help create a mental image for the reader that is favorable to Lippmann’s claims.

He also uses an example of a court case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, to explain how the press is not always right and can be sued for libel. This helps to show that the press is not infallible and that there should be some level of regulation to ensure that they are not printing false information.

Lippmann’s use of ethos, pathos, and logos allows him to create a well-rounded argument in favor of his thesis. He starts by establishing his credibility on the topic by discussing his experience as a journalist. He then appeals to the emotions of the reader by talking about how the press is essential to a functioning democracy. Lastly, he uses logical reasoning to explain why the press should be regulated in order to prevent false information from being spread.

In conclusion, Lippmann’s article is a well-crafted argument in favor of his thesis that the press is essential to a functioning democracy but should be regulated in order to prevent false information from being spread. His use of rhetoric is effective in persuading the reader to agree with his point of view.

In conclusion, Lippmann argues that the opposition is an essential part of democracy. Without the opposition, democracy would degenerate into tyranny. The opposition must be allowed to freely express its views, even if those views are unpopular or offensive. And finally, the opposition must be allowed to participate in the democratic process, even if it is not in power.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.