Challenging the leader of the Soviet Union, President Ronald Reagan issued a statement on June 12, 1987. He arrived to the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin with a challenge: to tear down the Berlin Wall and rally citizens to oppose the wall and accept democracy, “Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
There was no doubt that Reagan was a world leader and his word was very impactful. With his weighted word as President of the United States, along with moral appeal, he was able to captivate the Germans. His use of humor makes him seem friendly, as if he is not trying to threaten Berliners. In this paper I will review the “Tear Down the Wall” speech, which will entail ethos, logos and pathos. …show more content…
This would make sense why Reagan proposed what he did, as he had strategically promoted ideas. The relationships between the two countries (United States and Germany) were in fact improving. Additionally, being at the Brandenburg Gate, the icon across Europe, allowed him to address both the capitalist and the communist vantage points.
It was clear that Berlin was having previous trouble pertaining to the wall. That being said, this was not considered a rhetorical “invention.” This means that it was not an original idea, and was not previously researched to think of something new. Ronald Reagan was simply pushing for what people already wanted – freedom. He was familiar with the audience and their standpoint. He had angered leaders but had provoked love from the Berliners. He was able to reveal thumos in his arguments (see third paragraph pertaining to pathos.)
He makes a point that there should be a change, and the United States would be a big support of that which was a form of enactment. He presents to his opponent how weak they are, which would otherwise be known as a straw argument. The point has been proven, as it was begging the question. The speechwriter assumes that the position was an argumentation of population. That could also correlate to the appeal to inertia. Ronald Reagan uses guilt by association when referring to the Berlin …show more content…
He never used statistics to back up his claim. Yet, he does use a mass amount of historical references and refers to how great the country once was, “Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. From the Baltic, south, those barriers cut across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers. Farther south, there may be no visible, no obvious wall. But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the same--still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women the will of a totalitarian state.” His wording is powerful and punchy, which made it easier to access audiences.
Less than three years later, the Berlin Wall was torn down due to political changes in Europe; Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev lost his control by 1990, and the Soviet Union fell apart. Many people were affected by the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. The East Germans could now be free to travel west and be free. The country was in full party mode, some say it was thanks to Ronald Reagan for such a powerful piece. His short sentence structure was able to create build up and make it dramatic. The wall may have been concrete and psychically stronger, however, the people were mentally
There was no doubt that Reagan was a world leader and his word was very impactful. With his weighted word as President of the United States, along with moral appeal, he was able to captivate the Germans. His use of humor makes him seem friendly, as if he is not trying to threaten Berliners. In this paper I will review the “Tear Down the Wall” speech, which will entail ethos, logos and pathos. …show more content…
This would make sense why Reagan proposed what he did, as he had strategically promoted ideas. The relationships between the two countries (United States and Germany) were in fact improving. Additionally, being at the Brandenburg Gate, the icon across Europe, allowed him to address both the capitalist and the communist vantage points.
It was clear that Berlin was having previous trouble pertaining to the wall. That being said, this was not considered a rhetorical “invention.” This means that it was not an original idea, and was not previously researched to think of something new. Ronald Reagan was simply pushing for what people already wanted – freedom. He was familiar with the audience and their standpoint. He had angered leaders but had provoked love from the Berliners. He was able to reveal thumos in his arguments (see third paragraph pertaining to pathos.)
He makes a point that there should be a change, and the United States would be a big support of that which was a form of enactment. He presents to his opponent how weak they are, which would otherwise be known as a straw argument. The point has been proven, as it was begging the question. The speechwriter assumes that the position was an argumentation of population. That could also correlate to the appeal to inertia. Ronald Reagan uses guilt by association when referring to the Berlin …show more content…
He never used statistics to back up his claim. Yet, he does use a mass amount of historical references and refers to how great the country once was, “Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. From the Baltic, south, those barriers cut across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers. Farther south, there may be no visible, no obvious wall. But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the same--still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women the will of a totalitarian state.” His wording is powerful and punchy, which made it easier to access audiences.
Less than three years later, the Berlin Wall was torn down due to political changes in Europe; Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev lost his control by 1990, and the Soviet Union fell apart. Many people were affected by the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. The East Germans could now be free to travel west and be free. The country was in full party mode, some say it was thanks to Ronald Reagan for such a powerful piece. His short sentence structure was able to create build up and make it dramatic. The wall may have been concrete and psychically stronger, however, the people were mentally