Politicians and virtually anyone in a position of speaking with the purpose of swaying an audience utilizes a variety of rhetorical devices in getting their point across. Such rhetoric is aimed at invoking emotions and images concerning the subject that will ultimately aid the speaker. Rhetorical devices can be hidden within the text, however, are often quite intentional. Milton Friedman, an American economist, and Nobel Prize-winner, wrote An Open Letter To Bill Friedman in an effort to decriminalize drugs. Friedman is a conservative individual whose main interest lies within money. For this very reason, he is opposed to further criminalizing drugs, and spending increasingly more sums of money. Friedman strategically uses various rhetorical devices like logos, pathos, ethos, parallelism, and hyperbole to successfully communicate his message and achieve his goal of persuasion.

Friedman begins by establishing direct, strong diction in quoting a powerful man of history, Oliver Cromwell, and agreeing with his words. By doing this, Friedman is using ethos to claim that he is knowledgeable about history and in agreement with a renowned man of the world. Therefore he, himself seems more educated and credible. Friedman goes on to hyperbolize the drug war through the use of negative words in saying, “A whole panoply of repressive measures can only make a bad situation worse”. He utilizes pathos in saying, “The drug war cannot be won by those tactics without undermining the human liberty and individual freedom that you and I cherish.” America is built on the promise of freedom and the mere thought of putting limitations on that liberty is a fearful thought for any citizen, including Bill Bennett. Through Friedman’s grouping of himself with Bennett in saying, “you and I”, he creates the image of the two men being on the same side and sharing the same values, leading Bennett to be more inclined to trust Friedman.

The second paragraph uses parallel structure as every sentence starts with, “You are not mistaken…” and goes on to agree with certain beliefs that Bennett has that contribute to the path he proposed in terms of drugs. By doing this, Bennett feels more inclined to listen to Friedman as he is crediting Bennett’s beliefs, rather than directly attacking him. Friedman strategically begins by acknowledging Bennett’s accuracy before moving on to state the faults and mistakes within his approach.

Friedman’s second paragraph starts off with clear, direct diction and utilizes logos in explaining the expenses that come with Bennett’s proposed tactics for fighting the drug war. Friedman begins by stating, “Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords… illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft, and assault.” His reasoning comes off as logical to the common person, including his main target, Bennett. Friedman’s interests lie within the economy and Bennett’s proposed plan is in direct opposition with Friedman’s political beliefs. Friedman is attempting to persuade his subject through concise, but deeply negative and saddening language like, “Drugs are a tragedy for addicts” in his aim to invoke feelings of sympathy within Bennett. He then continues on using logos by saying, “But criminalizing their use converts the tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike.” His inclusive diction regarding the entire American population also leads Bennett to feel a greater responsibility for making the right decision, which Friedman believes is decriminalizing drugs.

Friedman goes on to reiterate his stance by using language that makes him sound authoritative, reasonable, and factual. He is appealing to Bennett through claiming to be a trustworthy source through the words he uses. Friedman expresses this through his mentioning of other locations like Bolivia and Columbia where narco-terror is prevalent; this horrific image is the result of pathos. He continues on to sound knowledgeable through referencing the year 1972 and acknowledging the truthful fact that, “Alcohol and tobacco cause many more deaths in users than do drugs.” Friedman is strengthening his argument by speaking factually and logically.

The final paragraph of the open letter encompasses Friedman’s use of pathos as he appeals to Bennett’s emotions. Additionally, Friedman uses nationalism in his plea to Bennett as such values align with Bennett’s Republican stance. Friedman’s inclusive and hyperbolic diction continues as he writes, “Every friend of freedom, and I know you are one, must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with causal drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence.” Friedman references Bennett as being a “friend of freedom” along with himself and illustrates the scary picture of “invading the liberty of citizens”, appealing to his American pride and placing him on the same team as himself. The author’s pointed word choice here is aimed at persuading Bennett that his proposed plan will limit the rights and liberties of the American population, as well as himself. Friedman also hyperbolizes his emotions by saying he feels “revolted” and creates horrific imagery of our nation transforming into a world of terror where the slightest evidence can incriminate one to the fullest degree. Friedman’s careful word choice and tone allowed him to successfully communicate his belief of decriminalizing drugs to his main target, Bennett.