Josh Hammer's Annihilation of Andrew Tate
A Rhetorical Analysis of "The Andrew Tate Moral Rot and the Future of the American Right"
By Aryan Mukherjee
Famous internet personality Andrew Tate was recently permitted entry into Miami, Florida and welcomed with open arms by the Republican committee to disseminate right-wing rhetoric. Tate, who is adapting a similar philosophy as that of the U.S. President Donald Trump, is running his own campaign in Great Britain in the hopes of becoming Prime Minister, but many disagree with the choice to let him into our country. Josh Hammer, the host of “The Josh Hammer Show” and an opinion writer at Newsweek, expressed his discontent for the arrival of the Tate Brothers, arguing that the Republican party should not connect their party’s values with them. Through employment of ironic contradictions that weaken the Republican support of Tate, as well as harsh diction to polarize the audience of “true conservatives” against Tate’s philosophies, Hammer effectively conveys his argument throughout the article.
Primarily, Hammer utilizes contradictory logical statements to point out the flaws in the Republican counter view supporting Tate. For example, after disclosing that Tate “urges his largely male audience to treat women as mere sexual objects,” Hammers points out the ludicracy that “any political movement claiming the mantle of ‘family values’ can support such an individual” (page 2). Hammer directly contradicts the Republican sentiment of valuing families, including its female members, with the distasteful treatment of women that Tate exudes in his ideals. Doing so, he convinces his chiefly conservative audience that their support of Tate is ironic, as it goes against the fundamental principles that their party stands for. Moreover, Hammer convinces conservative members who are single to value their mothers, who are the closest female members in their family, consequently touching on an emotional connection and effectively using pathos to sway his audience. Additionally, Hammer divulges how those who support Tate “engage in their own forms of group-based identity politics” (page 4). Once again, Hammer showcases a contradiction between Republican party members’ support of Tate and their party’s ideals, indicating that by fostering the same superiority complex of certain sexes and religions that Tate embodies, conservatives aren’t being resolute in their traditional viewpoint that all humans are created equally under the hand of God. This strengthens his argument by making audience members once again feel conflicted, challenging the deeper understanding of their values and inciting retrospection in their minds that will ultimately lead to their abandoning of Tate if they are loyal to their party. One potential way in which the author could have bolstered his argument, however, would be to connect Tate’s philosophy to the historical past. By pointing out that Tate’s radicalization is similar to the pagan credence of The White Man in early American history that they were superior to people of all other races, Hammer could have strengthened his argument by infusing fear into his audience members’ minds that their support of Tate could be classified as racist, effectively making them more inclined to change their opinion. All in all, Hammer’s rhetorical structure of incorporating logically contradictory statements to weaken positive Tate sentiment effectively dichotomizes Republican sentiment in such a way that the audience is impelled to take his side.
Additionally, Hammer employs caustic and precise diction that strips away at lingering conservative support for Tate. Specifically, he introduces his argument by describing the Tate brothers as “moral monsters [that] have been welcomed to our shores” (page 1). By comparing the brothers to “monsters”, Hammer dehumanizes them in the eyes of the audience, eliminating any sympathy that they may have previously had. To add on, most audience members consider monsters as foul and horrific creatures, the likes of which they would like to get rid of and not associate with whatsoever. Thus, Hammer’s choice of metaphorical diction persuades the audience to get rid of the Tate brothers, invoking fear and distrust of them and aligning the audience better with Hammer’s perspective. This viewpoint is further emphasized when Hammer claims “that Andrew Tate is an abominable human being,... a wretched reprobate” (page 2). With such extreme characterization of Tate, Hammer polarizes the audience and completely degrades Tate’s impression in their mind. This, first and foremost, serves the purpose of shifting those who were uncertain about their allegiance with Tate, exposing such moderates to a sudden wave of negative description that will automatically push their brain away from it. Furthermore, words like “abominable” and “wretched” have an almost fantastical undertone to them, similar to the word “monster” from above. For instance, abominable is typically associated with the “abominable snowman,” a mythical beast from children’s stories, while “wretched” is a word related to the supernatural, or horror. Thus, through this repeated fantastical diction, Hammer portrays the Tate brothers as foreign beasts which must be vanquished or banished effective immediately. This dehumanization once again disintegrates any sympathy that the audience may have had for the Tate brothers, encouraging them to favor Hammer’s argument.
Comments
Post a Comment