Thesis Proposal-Ashcroft and Friends Versus Washington and the Framers

Ashcroft and Friends Versus Washington and the Framers Thesis Proposal for Rhetorical Analysis

          Of course I hate the topic that she is arguing, but Ms. Robin Morgan does an excellent job of portraying her view on the subject of the founding fathers and their religious beliefs. She uses actual quotes from the founding fathers themselves for evidence to support her claim. Because of this technique, logos is her main rhetoric method.

In the beginning of her paper though, she writes like the whole nation is about to perish from this “theocracy” taking over the government and the United States of America. If it was really that bad, more people would be writing about this problem. She overdramatizes the problem making her credibility diminish. Furthermore, this essay was written in 2004. I think she was motivated to write this piece because George W Bush, a right wing, religious, southerner from the Bible belt was in office. Ms. Morgan is obviously a feminist and atheist, so of course she thinks that the president and the government are trying to enforce religious authority. Because she did not even mention the president or party that was in office, or her party for that matter, she skillfully attacked the government’s regime without actually talking about the party that took office.

At the conclusion, she abruptly cuts it short. After reading tons of quotes from the Founding fathers, she only has one paragraph to sum up her whole essay. The reader was left wanting a little more meat near the end of the paper. Ms. Morgan should have gone in a little more depth with her conclusion, and this undermines her ethos or credibility as a writer.

When the author refers to female citizens and Abigail Adams, she cuts down on the founding fathers because they did not even think of women’s rights. Also, throughtout the essay, she uses rhetoric that has  negative connotation toward the founding fathers. First of all, even though the founding fathers were not perfect, which she mentions, they were still our founding fathers. They were the leaders and makers of our great nation today. They deserve a little more respect than what they received in her paper. Secondly, if she cuts down the founding fathers throughout the paper, how are we supposed to believe any quotes that they may have said? Ms. Morgan destroys the credibility of the founding fathers, but also uses quotes from them to support her paper. What kind of writer would try such a tactic?