Larrick1
Austin Larrick
ENGL2089
Professor Rita Kumar
8 February 2015
Rhetorical Analysis of Carl Becker’s Ideal Democracy
With the onset of the new history movement in the early 1900’s, what had defined
history for as long as generations could recollect would soon be obsolete. Carl Becker was a
lifelong historian with Cornell University, after his undergraduate and doctorate studies at the
University of Wisconsin and Columbia, respectively. Thanks to the persistent work of
Becker and Columbia colleague James Harvey Robinson, the scientific, sociological,
cultural, and intellectual achievements around the globe became the new Hollywood for
historians everywhere; no longer would past political events remain the simple controlling
purpose of history books.
As one of the most well respected historians in American history, Carl Becker felt
quite strongly for his inculcation of democracy into the eyes and ears of the existing
American government and its citizenry in the first half of the 20th century. According to
Becker’s “Ideal Democracy”, delivered as the first of his three Page-Barbour lectures at the
University of Virginia in 1940, the American Revolution did not only feature independence
as its main objective, it strived to change the conventional foundations of the government
that did not encompass nor concur with the disposition of the public. Thus, Becker heavily
promoted an ideal democracy. A democracy in which the will of the people went not
unheeded, but respected. These were easily understandable by his discourse community, a
Larrick2
war-scarred population all too familiar with the dictatorships and autocratic governments of
the world in that period of time. Carl Becker’s Ideal Democracy is effective in convincing
the audience of his criterion for an Ideal Democracy, while provoking them to ponder and
contrast it to a democracy by politicians who may be more intent on satisfying the interests
of pressure groups and lobbyists than that of their constituents.
Becker uses a very effective ethos-enhancing strategy by establishing a strong
connection between his ideas and the ideas of Thomas Jefferson, seeming to automatically
augment his message’s impact on the University’s students, considering the status and
authority Jefferson himself carried among them as the founder. This is quite evident in
Democracy (147), “For the University of Virginia is inseparably associated with the name of
its famous founder; and no subject, it seemed to me, could be more appropriate for a
historian on this occasion than one which had some connection with the ideas or the activities
of Thomas Jefferson.” This particular quote contributes heavily to Becker’s perceived status
by his audience, contextually establishing himself as parallel with the ideas and stance of
their University’s founder. This is absolutely necessary considering Jefferson’s role in
establishing the American democracy; he is simply ‘setting the stage’ so to speak, en route to
his ultimate goal of convincing his audience of what he believes an Ideal Democracy needs
to consist of, compared to what he perceived it was in that day. This surely had an impact on
how warmly his audience received his ideas.
Becker uses logos to appeal to the logically thinking side of the audience throughout the
body of his speech, simplifying and dissecting the true definition of an Ideal democracy as
opposed to that of self-proclaimed democracies. He does this by comparing the generally
accepted definition of democracy as “Government of the people, by the people, for the
Larrick3
people” to the incredible variety of historically stamped definitions created throughout the
duration of civilizations such as the ancient Greeks and Romans, and commonly known
leaders of the time such as Hitler, Stalin, and Napoleon Bonaparte. Becker also uses formal
and technical language, but reiterates much of the content by reducing it to plainer terms.
This formal use of diction is fundamental due to its construction of powerful thoughtprovoking sentences, and presents the reader with a much more simplified interpretation of
the subject, therefore creating a positive effect on the audience.
“Democracy, like liberty or science or progress, is a word with which we are all so
familiar that we rarely take the trouble to ask what we mean by it… We have only to stretch
the concept to include any form of government supported by a majority of the people, for
whatever reasons and by whatever means of expressing assent, and before we know it the
empire of Napoleon, the Soviet regime of Stalin, and the Fascist systems of Mussolini and
Hitler are all safely in the bag.” (Becker 147-148) At this point in “Ideal Democracy”, the
audience is forced to contrast the differences between the individual governments mentioned
and begin to ponder what they believe a true democracy is. This is Becker masterfully
forming a basis for comparison, using logical points in a dry-language informative lecture
format to ease the audience into his upcoming ideas about the pressure groups that influence
and control the country’s political system and representatives.
Becker further establishes himself and his philosophies through the building of his
pathos. He does exactly that by incorporating certain terms and concepts to define his ideals
that would seem to be emotionally appealing to the audience’s emotions and feelings of
patriotism, such as the freedoms they enjoy most due to being an American citizen. This
emotional appeal is obviously evident when Becker states, “Thus modern liberal-democracy
Larrick4
is associated with an ideology which rests upon something more than the minimum
assumptions essential to any democratic government. It rests upon a philosophy of
universally valid ends and means. Its fundamental assumption is the worth and dignity and
creative capacity of the individual… Ideally considered, means and ends are conjoined in the
concept of freedom: freedom of thought, so that the truth may prevail; freedom of
occupation, so that careers may be open to talent; freedom of self-government, so that no one
may be compelled against his will.” (Becker 158-159) After all of the buildup of Becker’s
ethos and logos to strengthen the interest and impact of his speech on his imminent discourse
community, this is where Becker systematically and completely lays out the guidelines for
what he believes is an ideal democracy.
In an effective attempt to convince the audience of his rationale, the author uses
culturally relevant pathos based on dearly-beloved rights and freedoms to further appeal to
the emotional tie between the audience and himself; almost in a “We are Americans!” type of
bond that associates these emotions with his beliefs and ideas. This also nonchalantly allows
the audience to ponder what it means to be a citizen of America, and evaluate how they feel
about their government and the pressure groups allowed to assert control over certain aspects
of it. Is this truly a government of the people, by the people, for the people? This is exactly
what Becker had intended all along; the only way to inspire learning and change is to open
ones mind to the possibilities of all things in life. In this particular case, his aim was to
inspire his fellow Americans to realize their power as citizens, and to advocate against
outside influences on their government that could affect their rights, freedoms, and way of
life without so much as a vote.
Larrick5
In conclusion, Becker ends his lecture by introducing two different testimonies to support
his vision of an ideal democracy. Becker’s Ideal Democracy encouraged a select view on
American democracy, and in quite a profound manner. In addition, Becker’s ideal democracy
incorporates specific principles and practices for citizens but it is distinct to what is described
as democracy in society today. Given that the speech was given during World War II, Becker
and his discourse community were living in difficult, fearful and unwavering times; therefore
“Ideal Democracy gives an optimistic outlook on the present circumstances. With rhetorical
appeals, Becker is able to establish his authority, and credibility of the speech to the
audience. Carl Becker did an excellent job of integrating well-chosen rhetorical methods into
a formal speech, directed towards his collegiate. This assisted Becker in making Ideal
Democracy an effective speech through the use of a more abridged form of diction directed
at his collegiate discourse community, and rhetorical appeals to positively influence his
audience.
Larrick6
Works Cited
Carl L. Becker,"The Ideal" and "Afterthought on Constitutions" from Modern
Democracy and from Yale Review.
XXVII,+55.1941.
Larrick7
Reflection Questions:
1. How would you explain what rhetoric is?
Using language eloquently as to have a purposeful/influential effect on the discourse
community.
2. Why is it important to know about rhetoric and how what you learned about rhetoric
can you use in your writing?
It is important to know about rhetoric because it will help you understand who the writer’s
intended audience is, why the author wrote the piece, and what exactly the writer is trying to
incorporate in their writing. You may also learn how to use certain rhetorical techniques such
as ethos, pathos, and logos in your own writing.
3. What is a discourse community?
A discourse community is a group of people who can be grouped and labeled as an audience
due in part to similar beliefs, demographics, and/or values. (E.g. Professor Kumar’s discourse
community would be our classroom, as her students.)
4. Why is it important to know about discourse communities and how can you use what
you know about discourse communities in your writing?
It is important to learn about discourse communities because they each have their own
particular type of “language” that is commonly used within, which will either make them
more receptive to your writing, or at least help them understand the point you are trying to
convene towards them. Thus if you take the time to learn the language, you can more
effectively communicate with particular discourse communities and use your understanding
of it in your writing.
Larrick8
