Criticizing the Critic

What is an open letter? According to Wikipedia, they are letters intended to be read by a wide audience, often published publicly to address a particular person or group of people. Open letters can be scavenged across the internet and serve a purpose in cultivating awareness toward a specific topic. These topics are often argumentative and persuasive in nature, attempting to garner public support in the writers’ favor. I will be criticizing the argumentative/rhetorical nature of an open letter from a critic. In this case, internet blogger and talk show radio host: Matt Walsh. Follow this Huffington Post article link for reference.

Brief Summary: Walsh responds to a reader’s dissatisfaction as a waitress, specifically when customers tip poorly, or not at all. He argues in his open letter that people who can’t afford to leave a gratuity when dining out, shouldn’t be going out at all. He also addresses the principles of people who don’t believe in leaving tips, despite their financial situation.

Rhetorical Situation

Author’s Background: Matt Walsh is a self-proclaimed writer and speaker. He was a talk show radio host, before pursuing blogging solely. He is a devout Catholic, a husband, and a father of twins. He’s most known for his highly opinionated responses to controversial topics.

Target Audience: Walsh titled his article, “An Open Letter to Bad Tippers”, specifically targeting people who tip poorly when eating out. His secondary audience would include his preexisting fan base and readers of Huffington Post. The title, language, and introduction demonstrate like so.

Context: The article was published in 2014, the U.S. economy’s breakout year. Job expansion grew strongest in 2014 since 1999, and the unemployment rate was lowest since 2008.

Argumentative Elements:

Main Argument: Non-tippers are the lowest, most shameless customers and need to start tipping their servers from a moral standpoint.

Claims: 

• A person who thinks they can afford a meal, but not the tip, actually can’t afford to eat out at all.
• People who don’t tip are not civilized or decent members of society, but rather deceitful and manipulative ones.
• Non-tippers are hypocrites who reap the rewards of a tip system, while pretending to protest it.
• Non-tippers are motivated from being “cheapskates” and blame customer service workers to validate this.

Evidence: 

• Anecdote provided by an anonymous reader under the pseudonym “MJ” that expresses the effects a non-tipper has on servers.
• Writer argues hypothetical that people who can’t afford to tip need to hire a financial adviser and learn to manage money smarter.
• Uses personal anecdote to demonstrate that Walsh lived modestly and within his means when he couldn’t tip, by eating home meals.
• Uses faulty analogy between tipping and kind gestures, such as holding the door open for an elderly woman and offering a beverage to a thirsty house guest.
• Argues, “Most of us partake in these conventions because we’re civilized and decent”. Uses appeal to the crowd.
• Engages in ad hominem, “You’re lying. You’re being manipulative”, “They’re hypocrites”, “lowest, most shameless sorts of customers.”
• Slippery slope: If restaurant owners paid servers more, so that tips weren’t customary anymore, then happy hour would be gone and restaurants would close earlier.
• Either/Or Fallacy: you either tip like the rest of civilized society, or you don’t tip and live uncivilized.

Evidence Appeals: 

Logos: Walsh’s appeal to the crowd weakens his argument because he’s using his perspective to generalize the whole and represent himself to include “most of us”. The faulty analogy between holding a door for an elderly woman and offering a beverage are different scenarios compared to tipping. Tipping is generally customary in the U.S. and a means to acknowledge someone who has serviced you. In the previous analogies, a service isn’t being provided. Slippery slope: because people don’t tip, then negative consequences will occur.

Ethos: The author uses his repertoire in blogging to be featured on Huffington Post and talk shows. By introducing the letter directed to him from a reader, it indicates his feedback holds importance and suggests a fan base. He has a platform in which he can garner attention and support for his viewpoints. He’s a father and a husband. His evidence can work in his favor, since his he is trusted and paid by the media for his insights. It can contradict him by representing him as an average person with no substantial merit. He doesn’t outright indicate any evidence of social status or education level, rather letting his reputation speak for him. This isn’t always enough, as reputation is subjective.

Pathos: His hypothetical scenarios are exaggerated and indicate a sarcastic tone. (“The horror!” “My meal was late by like a thousand hours!”) Reflects mockery toward non-tippers. “Now, to speak directly to a certain terrifying subset of this species. These are the lowest, most shameless sorts of customers. Their existence is a constant, chilling reminder that evil exists in the world. They are the non-tippers.” This language is quite descriptive, negative, and biased. It’s meant to make someone who doesn’t tip feel bad about themselves, and motivate them to tip out of fear of societal criticism. The author’s language is consistent to his perspective throughout, however “immature” and “extreme” his language may be.

Definitions: The author utilizes rather simple terminologies, but he is sure to elaborate on his choice of words with examples and reasoning of his own. He does tend to use terms out of their original context to frame his agenda, such as referring to non-tippers as “tyrants” and “egomaniacs”.

Arrangement/Organization

Consistency: The author is a little inconsistent in his argument because his introduction indicates he’s arguing against non-tippers for the sake of receiving justice for those in the service industry. However, his open letter is addressed to non-tippers specifically. His outro demonstrates his motive to compell non-tippers to tip. I think the author loses focus because he starts to go on his own subjective tirade against non-tippers, rather than objectively educate non-tippers to persuade them to tip. However, I don’t think his point was to actually persuade, rather than denounce a group of people. In this case, he was consistent in denouncing non-tippers.

Arrangement: The claims are presented in a way that the author’s message is very clear, however it’s presented in a way that reveals inconsistencies in his reasoning.