To challenge the course of action given by Bill Bennett and President George W. Bush on the war on drugs, Milton Friedman published a letter critiquing their position of more military and increased use of force. While Friedman wrote this in 1989, and the subject matter may not be relevant to the readers or lawmakers of today, the rhetorics of this letter can be analyzed to understand the techniques Friedman uses to convey his argument. By understanding the techniques Friedman uses we can appreciate the rhetorical and persuasion techniques he used to get his message across.

Friedman begins his argument by acknowledging that he shares the intent of Bennett. He identifies where Bennet is correct, and that ultimately they both are working toward the same goal. In the second paragraph, he begins each sentence with, “[y]ou are not mistaken…,” followed by an agreed upon statement. This strategy ensures that Bennet does not feel like his ideas are immediately misunderstood or ignored by Friedman. By acknowledging agreeance with Bennett, Bennett is more likely to listen to Friedman’s claim without feeling like they are enemies on the issue. This strategy makes Bennet more open to listen to Friedman’s argument, making this a strong persuasive technique. He uses this same technique to close his letter, again acknowledging his agreeance with Bennett’s intention. By reminding Bennett at the end of his argument that they are on the same side, Bennett is left feeling more open to discussion and compromise.

When an author indicates some form of authority on a subject, they are persuading the reader to listen to their ideas on the basis that they are knowledgeable about a subject. Friedman establishes his own credibility on the topic of drug legislation by mentioning his previous writings on the issue, going back nearly two decades–in the original article he includes excerpts of his writing to prove his knowledge on the subject. He compares the situation in 1972, during his first writing, with the situation in their present time, 1989. To emphasize his authority, he highlights how the ideas in his 1972 article would have possibly prevented some of the issues they were confronted with in 1989. Additionally, he gives likens Bennett’s intended course of action to the failure of Prohibition in the Twenties. Friedman indicates his knowledge of history that is strong enough to compare past events to modern issues. By establishing himself as a knowledgeable person on the drug crisis, Bennett is more likely to listen to Friedman’s ideas. 

Throughout Friedman’s letter, he uses an appeal to Bennet’s emotions, specifically through word choice. He matches the sentiments of Bennet by including emotionally-charged adjectives throughout the article–words such as “murderous,” to describe the nature of drug lords and the use of “innocent,” in front of victims. This allows Bennett to become engaged emotionally and let his political opinion be swayed by his emotions. He also uses words with specific, negative connotations such as “infested,” and “distorting,” to indicate a malicious nature of the drug war that he likens to a disease or plague. In his ninth paragraph, Friedman creates a contrast between an, “atmosphere of compassion,” that he believes can be created by softening the restrictions on drugs rather than increasing the control of them, and a military state that he believes would come from Bennett’s decided course of action. This strategy brings moral weight to the issue, and encourages Bennett to connect his emotions to the morality of the issue and be persuaded by Friedman.

Additionally, Friedman’s emotional appeal targeted not only Bennet but the public who would be reading the newspaper. Upon hearing the words “murderous” and “tragic,” the public will feel emotionally attached to the story and inclined to agree with Friedman. Friedman also describes stories of families who have been torn apart over the drug crisis. He further outlines both drug users and non-users as victims in the drug war. By doing this he prompts the public reading his article to consider their own family, and identify with those directly affected by the drug war. By creating this emotional connection, the public are persuaded to agree with Friedman, which is important because if Friedman was unable to persuade Bennett, he would still have the opinion of the public that can be used against Bennett and Bush.

In addition to using appeals to his authority and emotion, Friedman combines methods of persuasion to produce a greater rhetorical impact. In his third paragraph, Friedman uses emotionally charged diction to aid an appeal to reason. He lists a series of events that occur from the problem of drug demand that occurs in an illegal environment. This is a straightforward way to appeal to the readers’ reasoning that also allows him to emphasize his ideas with emotionally-charged words. He uses adjectives like, “obscene,” “murderous,” and “starved,” to emphasize the malicious nature of drug trade that both he and Bennett agree on. Additionally,  Friedman uses “honest,” to describe law enforcement officials as a group of victims in the war on drugs. Friedman uses positive and negative emotion-driven words to create polar sides in the story. The use of positive words in contrast to negative words emphasizes the emotion of both sides, and in particular gives the negative words a greater impact. Friedman makes his argument stronger by using emotion words to trigger an emotional and reasonable argument all at once.