Rhetorical Analysis Of The Smug Style In American Liberalism

Rhetorical Analysis

American liberalism has deviated from its core values and constituents hence metamorphosing into a toxic disdainful movement. Emmett Rensin in his article in Vox dubbed “The Smug Style in American Liberalism” captures these observations perfectly. He notes that through the condescending notion of knowing has alienated the contemporary liberals from their core values that were deemed progressive in the past. The movement is currently cloaked as the “monopoly on reason” and has a “defensive sneer toward any person or movement outside its consensus” (Rensin). The article infuses rhetorical strategies that are critical in advancing the author’s core message to his target audience.

In his article, Emmett Rensin starts by plotting the historical grounds for the smug liberalism that has pervaded the mainstream media and in policy. He projects that the smug liberalism

is indeed a psychological reaction towards the shift observed in the American political landscape. The working class which was the core group of the Democratic Party ideals and principles has continued to abandon the party. The sharp declines are noted to have been precipitated by the “shift in liberalism’s intellectual center of gravity” rather than the “union halls and little magazines “that it was once fleshed from (Rensin). With the elite, educated and the professional the party’s decision-making apparatus, the party has become a shell of its former self. It is this disdainful stance taken by many liberals which has seen the majority of the working class and less educated gravitating towards the center and left. Rensin argues that the liberals to recapture their former core supporters must focus on addressing a common cause with “a larger section of the American working class” (Rensin).
The author, Emmett Rensin is a leftist political commentator and essayist and the Los Angeles Review of Books contributing editor. With a vast knowledge of the American politics, Rensin puts up a spirited argument against the smug liberals. He incorporates historical statistics on the voting patterns of the American working class from 1948 to 2012 citing a diminishing core voting block that the Democratic Party has failed to engage constructively. Through the use of percentages and demographic representation, the author boosts the article’s credibility in addressing the subject matter. He also alludes to other articles to cement his assertions. By introducing comments from Kelvin Williamson, Richard Hofstadter, and other pundits, Rensin sets out to validate his arguments against possible accusations of bias.
He incorporates emotional appeals in his article by using emotionally-charged imagery, phrases, and diction to express the sorry-state of the liberalism agenda in the United States.

By using the story of Kim Davis the clerk that refused to issue marriage certificates to gay couples in Kentucky County, Rensin shows the brutal side of the disdainful liberals. He cites that the smug liberals enjoyed “mocking her appearance, openly celebrating the incarceration of an ideological opponent.” With phrases such as “hateful bigot,” “dumb hicks,” “rubes” are thrown in the article to highlight the condescending tones adopted by the liberals in the recent years against those that they deem conservative or less open to the liberal agenda (Rensin). He even incorporates George Bush’s encounter with the smug liberals that underestimated his Presidential ambitions and tenure as the President. With reference to the Daily Show’s rants, the article continues to show how the liberals have continued to make fun of the “dumb hicks” as “private entertainment of elites blowing off some steam”

(Rensin).
In conclusion, the article by Emmet Rensin employs rhetorical strategies in effectively persuading the readers of how toxic smug liberalism has become. The readers get to see the metamorphosing of the Democratic Party into an elitist outfit that has fallen out with its traditional core-the working class. The author’s use of statistics, external sources, diction, and sarcasm make the reader conclude that America’s problems are more than ideological. Rensin couldn’t have driven his argument home better. He exhaustively highlights the ills of the smug liberalism in the American socio-politico discourse.