Comparing King And Lyndon B.'s Beyond Vietnam

387 Words2 Pages

In the context of assessing the persuasiveness of speeches regarding America's involvement in the Vietnam War, two pivotal addresses stand out: President Lyndon B. Johnson's "Speech on Vietnam" and Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Beyond Vietnam." While both speeches offer distinct perspectives, when considering the context and rhetorical strategies employed, it becomes evident that King's speech is more persuasive in arguing against America's involvement in the conflict. To begin, President Johnson's "Speech on Vietnam" seeks to justify America's military engagement in Vietnam within the framework of Cold War geopolitics. Johnson emphasizes the need to contain the spread of communism in Southeast Asia and defend South Vietnam from aggression, portraying the conflict as vital to safeguarding American interests and global stability. However, Johnson's argument …show more content…

King connects the struggle for civil rights at home with the injustices perpetrated abroad, framing the war as a symptom of deeper issues of poverty, racism, and militarism within American society. By appealing to conscience and morality, King challenges the audience to confront the moral implications of their country's actions and calls for a radical reorientation of national priorities towards peace and social justice. Moreover, King's speech resonates with the growing anti-war sentiment among the American public and taps into broader concerns about the human and financial costs of the conflict. By highlighting the suffering inflicted on both Vietnamese civilians and American soldiers, King underscores the senselessness and futility of the war, effectively swaying hearts and minds towards the anti-war cause. His impassioned plea for a "revolution of values" strikes a chord with audiences, compelling them to reconsider their support for the war