A Rhetorical Analysis Of Rod Sterling's A Most Non-Political Speech

Megan Nash
Professor Scheirer
2/20/23
Rhetorical Analysis Draft

Rod Sterling declares his speech, “A Most Non-Political Speech” at the 1964 “Religious Witness for Human Dignity” Conference. Positioned during a tense period for race relations as the Civil Rights Act was being argued in the U.S. Senate. He discusses race as a basic human right and desires for hope in the fight to equality. Sterling makes the controversial topic of race non-controversial by employing techniques like using an elusive writing style, begging rhetorical questions and the use of repetition.
In the speech, “A Most Non-Political Speech”, Sterling begins by declaring he is not going to go on and talk about conflicting things even if you look for them. He discusses how

By doing this, he can counter many of the arguments that he is aware would be used against his opinion. One example of this is, “You can’t legislate against prejudice? You would rather perhaps accept it as part of the innate personality of the homo sapiens?” (Sterling, A Most Non-Political Speech) Many at the time had little hope to find justice for racial inequality, but by blatantly asking an absurd question like that one he forces his listeners to accept it should not just be accepted as innate. Sterling also uses more emotionally linked questions like “A statement of philosophy from 20th century non-philosophers who would probably melt down the test tubes used to look for the microbes and the bacteria and the virus that caused cancer. Cancer is with us, so why fight it?” (Sterling, A Most Non-Political Speech) It would be assumed that very few would agree not to fight cancer, so Sterling juxtaposes racism to cancer to prove that the same effort shall be put forth to fight the injustice present in the world. He also uses philosophical ideas not of his own, to take away the opportunity for one to assume it is just part of his opinion. The use of rhetorical questions is so effective because it is not a clear right or wrong it gives the audience opportunity to explore the gray area in between in their minds. When speaking on themes of hatred, jealousy and scapegoating, Sterling compares them to, “infectious and contagious viruses that have bled humanity over the years. But because they have been and are, is it necessary that they shall be?” (Sterling, A Most Non-Political Speech) He chooses to focus on the future instead of dwelling on the past, begging the question of should these norms continue. These questions turn a very controversial topic like racism into one that it is up for debate in the minds of every listener or reader. Sterling very