Naomi Klein: A rhetorical criticism--ethos, pathos, but no logos

Among my work duties is coaching the university's speech & debate team. One type of presentation my students develop is rhetorical criticism. It identifies the pattern, a so-called communication model, used by a speaker or a writer of a message; it lists the steps that the communicator takes: from getting an audiences attention to 'closing the sale' in conveying a persuasive message. The analysis culminates with a judgment about the effectiveness the communication.

I recently watched author Naomi Klein (The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism) in several discussions on the current economic crisis. She seems to be one of the preeminent critics of free-market ideas (and of Milton Friedman) and a proponent of expanded government intervention. Listening to her I noticed a pattern in the way she communicates her radical socialist ideas to her audience. She employs a five-step model:

1. Legitimate criticism of recent policy failures
2. Stirring an emotional response from the audience
3. Proposing a radical socialist policy idea to the impassioned audience
4. Stating a positive (by anyone's standard) desired outcome

Capitalizing on humans' natural tendency to seek causal relationships, her model effectively implies that it is her radical socialist policy that would lead to the desired positive outcome.

5. Repeating steps 1 through 4 in the same order.

As a communicator, she seems very effective at winning audiences to her side using her communication model. She earns legitimacy (in rhetoric we called that ethos) by starting off as a journalist and making good, critical observations of policy failures. Then she uses emotions (pathos) to suggest that her radical socialist policy ideas would lead to better outcomes than the failed recent policies. What is lacking is the third element of rhetoric--logos--logic.

Two out of three "ain't bad" in swaying a friendly audience's opinion. But the lack of logic means that Ms. Klein's position, while helping her sell books (nothing wrong with that), doesn't make a meaningful contribution to the public debate on future policies. She's merely "preaching to her choir" as most free market proponents do to their friendly audiences.

Why can't we have a serious public discussion and a reasoned debate about how to deal with our crises and challenges?