Michael Stavrakos
CAS 137H, 021
10/10/12
A Time for Choosing: Arguing for the Elevation of America
During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, he was credited with, and is still praised, for his numerous
and lofty accomplishments ranging from ending the Cold War to boosting the American economy
through policies which would eventually be dubbed “Reagonomics”. Before he was even president,
though, he delivered a famous, prerecorded television speech as part of the program “A Rendezvous
With Destiny,” in support of presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. The speech was later referred to as
“A Time for Choosing.” His speech was so powerful that afterward, the Goldwater campaign saw a one
million dollar increase in donations (equitable to seven million dollars today). Goldwater would
eventually lose the election to Lyndon B. Johnson, but this speech is said to be the moment that began
Reagan’s political career.
“A Time for Choosing” centered on the issues which Reagan saw in the American system at the
time. He spoke of how the current state of America set itself up for two directions which they would
take in the future; up or down. His arguments which followed laid out a specific course for America.
These arguments and the presentation of them thereof were powerful because of his extensive
rhetorical appeals in which he established a connection with the audience based around ethical,
pathetic, and logical proofs which recurred throughout the introduction, rising to the main point of his
speech, and off into the proceeding arguments.
His opening statement sets the stage for the dissection of Goldwater’s opponent’s arguments.
He begins with the remark that the other side of the race is trying to convince Americans that they’re
living at the best of times, bringing up a comment from the other side that “we’ve never had it so good.”
Reagan then openly remarks why this is untrue and a dangerous path. He argues that “no nation in
history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income,” and if our nation tries
to survive merely on our current state and past successes, we will fail. From there, the authority of his
arguments is established by citing facts about the nation including a failure to balance the budget 28 out
of 34 straight years and a national debt “one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all
the nations of the world.” By using such staggering and irrefutable numbers in his argument, Reagan is
able to inject not only his authority into the argument, but also the authority and correctness of his
claims.
As the power of his speech begins to rise, Reagan effectively intertwines aspects of pathos into
his argument before reaching the truly main point of the speech. He brings up the Vietnam War, a tough
point for Goldwater’s opponent LBJ, and asks the audience “who among us would like to approach the
wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a
peace that should be maintained.” This pathetic proof cuts deep for the audience, likely of which is
nearly entirely adults with families, both husbands and children. Reagan forces you into a position of
empathy by asking a rhetorical question about which all reasonable people would agree. He follows with
an invocation of the founding fathers, questioning whether we at the time understood the wants of the
founding fathers. He uses this to indirectly make you finish his sentence; of course the audience knows
what was intended by the founding fathers, it’s the opposing party which has gone astray.
The buildup of these ethical and pathetic arguments leads to the main point of his speech, about
which all else is based. Reagan states the upcoming choice in the election in two blunt options. He
disagrees with the view of a left and a right. Rather, Reagan argues that “there's only an up or down:
[up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or
down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.” By putting such a profound statement in such simple terms,
Reagan is proving his point with logic. Obviously the options are loaded in favor of man’s age-old dream,
and considering the orator and the audience, it is reasonable to assume that Reagan makes you
complete his thought since you already view the Republican Party as the greater of the two. Logically,
since Reagan says it, this means that the issues he sees with the nation and the plans Barry Goldwater
has to fix it will lead this nation on a course to prosperity, while the plans of Goldwater’s opponent will
lead the nation into a slow spiral toward totalitarianism. After establishing his authority and building
good emotions with the audience, he is able to make the direct declaration that “regardless of their
sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked
on this downward course.” This statement is backed up legitimately in the eyes of the audience, so
Reagan begins to expand on this topic with the rest of his speech.
Reagan injects numbers of ethical proofs from here such as when he shortly after re-invokes the
founding fathers. He says that "the full power of centralized government -- this was the very thing the
Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government
can't control the economy without controlling people,” and by this he was able to take an already wellestablished authority, the Founding Fathers, and claim their ideas as equivalent to his. He uses their
credibility to boost his point that centralized government has to be shrunk. To increase this credibility,
Reagan brings a concrete example into his argument regarding the government farmers program’s gross
ineffectiveness though it’s been forced upon farmers across the nation. And moreover, the current
politicians in place charged that Barry Goldwater would ruin the farmer of the time, but Reagan uses
more facts to show that in actuality, the programs in place have resulted in a drastic decline in the
American farming sector. The current government had taken steps to introduce these programs and see
to it that they stayed relevant and kept growing, even though, as Reagan states, the farmers voted
overwhelmingly against such programs. Reagan is able to use his knowledge to speak authoritatively on
the topic because his projection of such knowledge makes him appear to be a legitimate source. His
arguments, in turn, gain validity because of the unquestionable nature in which he presents facts and
figures, making it indistinguishable whether they’re truly facts or facts somewhat molded to meet his
needs in the argument. By rattling off a barrage of examples of the government’s ineffectiveness,
Reagan is able to practically force you into agreeing, you begin to see the issues the way he sees them
because the authoritative arguments he presents set themselves up for only logical conclusions.
Reagan’s use of logical proofs works very effectively and convincingly regarding presenting his
arguments. Throughout the speech, Reagan had the running argument that the larger government gets,
the more it interferes in the lives and freedoms of Americans. Because of the fact that he’s already
established this point with facts and ethical proofs, this condition acts as a premise. This major premise
that big government restricts freedom is followed at one point in the speech with a minor premise that
“no government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size.” Whether this is entirely true or not doesn’t
matter, Reagan’s established credibility with the audience allows him to make these statements. This
leads directly into the next minor premise where he reasons that “so, governments’ programs, once
launched, never disappear.” And finally, using the examples Reagan presented earlier of Goldwater’s
opponent’s plan to expand government with programs and solutions under the title of “Great Society,”
the audience is able to conclude that Goldwater’s opponent wants to reduce their freedom as
Americans. Moreover, the context of this speech and the time during which it was given is very
important. The Cold War was in full effect, communism was spreading from the Soviet Union to nations
like Korea and Vietnam, and our soldiers were in the heart of fighting in Vietnam. They were fighting
with weapons to stop the spread of communism and the loss of freedom, and back home Americans,
too, were fighting to stop the loss of freedom. Americans had to combat this continuous growth of
government and loss of liberty, and, logically, the only way to do so was to vote for Goldwater over his
pro-big-government opponent.
The final, and in some ways most important, technique which Reagan used to gain validity of his
arguments was the emotional appeal. The first striking emotional appeal came early on in the form of an
anecdote, but it set up the standard on which all of Reagan’s arguments were based. He told a story of a
Cuban refugee who had escaped Castro’s reign and was talking to Reagan about it when a colleague
commented that “we don’t know how lucky we are,” to which the refugee immediately replied “’How
lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.’” Reagan concluded this anecdote with the expression that
America is the last stand on earth; there is no other place to escape to. This story was able to lay the
foundation for the majority of arguments thereafter, and it provided the unifying theme that our nation
must be preserved from the politicians on the other side of the fight who wish to expand government
and take away the peoples’ liberties. Opposite from the emotional appeal against opponents, Reagan
uses emotional appeals to boost Goldwater, such as when he declared that “I’ve never known a man in
my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.” The personal commendation
may at that instant not seem potent, but he soon follows it with a description of Goldwater as a
business man who instituted fair business plans long before government had considered it. This included
profit sharing, health and medical insurance for employees, retirement programs, and pensions. Not
only did this battery of advances boost Goldwater, but it also proved the idea Reagan pushed that the
private sector can address these issues without input from the government. The final great emotional
appeal Reagan makes is a declaration that the Soviets believe we will surrender. They believed that “our
surrender will be voluntary, because…from our side he’s heard voices pleading for ‘peace at any price.’”
This was his lasting emotional appeal, because the last thing the audience watching his speech wanted
at that time was to be taken over by communists. This declaration would’ve struck a chord in the minds
of the audience because it propels you to see Goldwater as a warrior for freedom and his opponent as
the gateway to surrender and the loss of freedom.
Reagan’s hard-hitting and moving speech was so effective because of his usage of the classic
rhetorical structures of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. His oratory and writing skills allowed for this speech to
be so convincing as to raise a million dollars nationally for Goldwater’s campaign, and the speech
propelled Reagan forward into his own political career in which, as most know, he would prove to be
revered. Overall, however, what truly makes this speech so impactful is the fact that Reagan rarely
called out Goldwater’s opponent directly, and never by name. Rather, he used the rhetorical appeals to
argue that there are two simple courses to take, and that Goldwater provides the only logical course for
the elevation of the nation. In turn, the audience is able to complete Reagan’s thought in concluding
that if they were to vote for Lyndon B. Johnson, the nation would follow the path toward “the ant heap
of totalitarianism.” This connection was effectively what made his speech so successful. He then ended
the speech with great lasting appeals, most notably the declaration that “Barry Goldwater has faith in
us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions
and determine our own destiny.” He was able to bring the audience together one final time with that
line, and for that reason, Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” speech became one of the top examples of
effective rhetoric.