example McCain rhetorical analysis essay
The United States Senate has some arcane rules and customs, but they are there for a reason. According to senator John McCain the norms of the "world's greatest deliberative body" are there to make sure that the work of the Senate is for the American people and not just a self-serving platform to promote narrow interests of individual members. In his 2017 speech to a highly polarized U.S. Senate, McCain uses allusions and personal anecdotes to appeal to the Senate’s sense of cooperation to argue that it should work together and return to its traditional process of debate.
McCain uses allusions to remind the Senate of their duty. Usually when allusions are invoked in a speech it’s to call up a common story that everyone knows. However, in this case McCain doesn’t actually identify the “most revered members of this institution” by name. When he makes allusions to these “giants of American politics” he leaves it up to the senators to make their own associations. McCain says that this is one of the most polarized times in American history, so his choice to not name the heroes ensures that he won’t alienate any of the senators with a hero of his own, that they would instead call to mind their own role models. This emotional appeal would cause the audience to remember not only their own role models but also the traditional process of debate that used to be followed.
Similar to his use of allusions to remind the senators about their duty to the country that they serve, McCain also accomplishes his emotional appeal by citing personal examples. He begins his speech by referencing his previous "career," that of being a U.S. Navy pilot. His brief mention to this previous "profession" would remind his audience of his service to his country and his years as a prisoner of war; this brief anecdote underscores the theme of service to the country that McCain develops through the speech. He uses more anecdotes later in the speech when he recounts the times where he himself was more about winning than doing his best for his constituents, for example when he says, "Sometimes, I’ve let my passion rule my reason." McCain's acknowledgement of his own failures as a senator and his humble attitude to his years as a soldier undoubtedly caused the audience in the Senate to examine their own current behavior.
McCain's combination of allusions and personal anecdotes in the speech served as a reminder to the senators to work for the American people instead of trying to score political points. McCain knew he was speaking to a highly partisan group of politicians and that wouldn't change. He was also realistic that his words alone might not make big changes in his colleagues behavior. His hope was that even if his words didn't change the polarization, at least the senate could return to its former rules and procedures in order to be more effective.
AI Partners I Used
AP English Language and Composition Coach
on the uploaded document.
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
General Document Comments 0
Score (using the AP Lang rhetorical analysis rubric):
- Thesis: 1/1
- Evidence & Commentary: 3/4
- Sophistication: 0–1/1 (borderline, I’d call it a low 1 if generously scored)
You’re analyzing McCain’s 2017 Senate speech, focusing on how he uses allusions and personal anecdotes to urge the Senate to cooperate and return to traditional debate. You want this to land well on the AP Lang rhetorical analysis rubric.
Strengths
- Clear, defensible thesis: McCain uses allusions and anecdotes to appeal to cooperation and tradition.
- You name rhetorical choices and link them to purpose.
Growth moves
- The thesis is a bit list-like. It names devices, but doesn’t yet show a clear “so what” about bravery / sacrifice / institutional integrity or a more complex message.
Think about revising your thesis (don’t write it here yet, just think) so it answers:
- “What deeper claim about the Senate or democratic norms is McCain really making?”
- “How do allusions + anecdotes together push senators toward that claim?”
A possible frame to try in your own words:
- “By [choice 1] and [choice 2], McCain not only [immediate purpose] but also [deeper message about the Senate / democracy].”
Strengths
- You choose real rhetorical moves: unnamed “revered members,” Navy pilot background, admitting his own failures.
- You usually connect choices to audience effect (not alienating senators, prompting self-examination).
Growth moves
Right now you’re more at a solid 2–3 in Evidence & Commentary because:
- Evidence is mostly paraphrased; there are few concrete phrases from the speech.
- Commentary sometimes stays at “this would remind them / cause them to” without unpacking the how/why in the rhetoric.
Consider tightening each body paragraph with a pattern like:
1. Name the move
2. Give a specific moment or phrase
3. Explain how that choice works on this particular audience in this context
4. Link back to your overall purpose/line of reasoning
To help you deepen commentary, try asking yourself:
- For the allusions:
– “What does not naming the ‘giants’ suggest about McCain’s view of partisanship?”
– “How does this move both honor tradition and avoid division at the same time?”
- For the anecdotes:
– “Why is it persuasive that he admits focusing on winning? What persona is he crafting?”
– “How does his POW / Navy past change the ethos of his criticism of the Senate?”
– “How could his personal humility sharpen his criticism without sounding purely partisan?”
Aim for less “would cause the audience to” and more:
- “By doing X, McCain positions himself as Y, which allows him to Z with his audience.”
- “This shift from ___ to ___ mirrors the change he wants the Senate to make.”
Strengths
- You gesture toward limitations / impact in your last paragraph (“it didn’t actually do much to change their behavior”). That’s close to an AP sophistication move: thinking about implications and limits.
Growth moves
- Right now, that last paragraph is mostly a quick conclusion. To solidify sophistication, you could:
– Briefly explore the tension between McCain’s hope for tradition and the reality of polarization.
– Reflect on what his speech reveals about the limits of rhetoric in a hyper-partisan institution.
Questions to push that:
- “What does it mean that a highly respected senator makes this appeal and nothing much changes?”
- “What might McCain be suggesting about how institutions remember their ideals but fail to live up to them?”
You don’t need a long paragraph; even 2–3 precise, thoughtful sentences (in your own voice) can earn the point.
Here are three concrete paths you could take next. Pick one to work on first:
1. Sharpen the thesis & line of reasoning
– Recast your thesis so it:
– Names McCain’s deeper message about the Senate/democracy.
– Shows how allusions + anecdotes work together, not just side-by-side.
– Ask yourself: “How would I sum up McCain’s view of what the Senate should be in one sharp, specific phrase?”
2. Deepen one body paragraph’s commentary
– Choose either the allusions or anecdotes paragraph.
– Add:
– One short, quoted phrase from the speech.
– 2–3 sentences that unpack: How does this word/phrase both appeal to emotion and shape McCain’s persona or ethos?
3. Upgrade the conclusion for sophistication
– Keep your point that behavior didn’t change.
– Add a sentence or two explaining what this reveals about:
– The challenge of reforming institutions, or
– The gap between ideals and practice in American politics.
If you paste in just one revised paragraph (thesis, a body paragraph, or the conclusion), I’ll rescore that part against the AP rubric and help you fine-tune the next move.
Choose the *Your Thoughts** button to let me know your reaction to the feedback I’ve provided and how you might revise. Also click Your Thoughts to tell me to focus in on specific paragraphs or criteria. Always follow up by clicking Continue with AI, choose me again and ask me for more feedback.*
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Score (AP Lang rhetorical analysis rubric, updated read):
- Thesis: 1/1
- Evidence & Commentary: 3/4 (solid middle)
- Sophistication: 0–1/1 (still borderline; I’d lean 0.5 if that existed)
You’ve revised your rhetorical analysis of McCain’s speech, keeping focus on allusions and personal anecdotes as appeals to cooperation and tradition. You’re asking how the whole essay now lands on the AP rubric.
What’s working
- Clear, defensible thesis that responds to the prompt and names specific rhetorical choices.
- You give McCain a clear purpose: get the Senate to cooperate and return to traditional debate.
What’s holding it back
- The thesis is still mostly “device list + basic purpose.” The AP rubric rewards when the thesis hints at a deeper message/claim about something (e.g., duty, institutional decay, patriotism, democratic norms).
- Your body paragraphs do support the thesis, but the line of reasoning could be sharper: how do allusions + anecdotes work together as a strategy, not just in separate boxes?
Questions to push your revision thinking:
- If you had to answer: “What is McCain really saying about what the Senate ought to be?” in one phrase, what would it be?
- How could you hint in the thesis that his allusions + stories both honor old ideals and criticize current behavior?
Try drafting (on your own) a version that answers:
“By using ___ and ___, McCain not only ___ but also reveals/suggests that the Senate has become ___ and must ___.”
What’s working
- You correctly pick out real rhetorical moves:
– Vague allusions to “the most revered members” and “giants of American politics.”
– His “previous career” as a Navy pilot.
– His admission of times he cared more about winning than serving constituents.
- You consistently connect those to audience effect (“won’t alienate,” “remind his audience,” “cause the audience to examine their own behavior”).
Why this is around a 3, not yet a 4
- Evidence is mostly summary/paraphrase; you rarely zoom in on a specific word or short phrase from the speech itself.
- Commentary sometimes stops at “this would remind / cause them to feel,” which is explanation, but you could go one step further into how exactly the language builds ethos or frames the Senate’s identity.
- The line of reasoning is there (he builds ethos → pushes for cooperation), but you don’t always make the connection explicit.
To deepen, consider:
- For the allusions paragraph:
– What does it mean rhetorically that he calls them “the world’s greatest deliberative body” and invokes “most revered members” without names?
– How does that phrase subtly flatter them while also shaming them for not living up to that title?
- For the anecdotes paragraph:
– When he refers to his “career” as a pilot, how does that word choice help him redefine public service as something bigger than political winning?
– When he admits his own failures, what persona does that construct? (humble elder, self-aware veteran, non-partisan truth teller?)
A pattern to aim for (in your own words):
1. Name the move.
2. Give 1–2 exact words/phrases.
3. Explain how those words build ethos/pathos for this audience.
4. Link to your larger claim about cooperation/tradition.
What’s promising
- Your conclusion is on the right track: you note that McCain speaks to “a highly partisan group of politicians” and that their partisanship “wouldn’t change,” but he hopes the procedures might.
- That’s almost a tension the rubric likes: ideals vs. reality, hope vs. entrenched polarization.
What’s missing for a clear 1
- You don’t fully name that tension or its implications. The conclusion is more a restatement than a reflection.
- Sophistication on the AP rubric often comes from:
– Showing awareness of limits of the argument (rhetoric vs. structural problems).
– Or showing how McCain’s strategy reveals something about American politics more broadly.
To nudge this up:
- You might add 1–2 sentences (in your own voice) that answer:
– “What does it reveal about the Senate that even a speech from a respected war hero and longtime senator may not change behavior?”
– “What does McCain’s appeal suggest about how institutions cling to their story of themselves even as they drift from that story?”
You don’t need to write a new big paragraph; a brief reflection that names this complexity can make the difference.
Here are three strong next moves. Choose one and revise just that part before we look again:
1. Upgrade your thesis for depth
– Rework it so it:
– Still mentions allusions and anecdotes.
– But also states McCain’s deeper claim about what the Senate has become and what it should be.
– Ask: “How can I show in one sentence that this speech is about more than just ‘cooperation’—it’s about the Senate’s identity?”
2. Deepen one body paragraph’s commentary
– Pick either the allusions or anecdotes paragraph.
– Add:
– One short, exact quote from the speech (just a phrase).
– 2–3 sentences unpacking how that phrase shapes McCain’s ethos and critique simultaneously.
– Goal: move from “this would cause them to remember” to “by calling them X, he positions himself as Y and frames the Senate as Z.”
3. Sharpen the conclusion for sophistication
– Keep your basic point.
– Add a sentence or two that:
– Names the gap between McCain’s vision and the Senate’s reality, and/or
– Comments on what this reveals about the limits of rhetorical appeals in a polarized system.
If you paste in one revised paragraph (thesis, one body paragraph, or conclusion), I’ll rescore that section and help you push it closer to a 4 in Evidence & Commentary and a clear 1 in Sophistication.
Choose the *Your Thoughts button to let me know your reaction to the feedback I’ve provided and how you might revise. Also click Your Thoughts to tell me to focus in on specific paragraphs or criteria. Always follow up by clicking Continue with AI, choose me again and ask me for more feedback.*
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Score (AP Lang rhetorical analysis rubric, this draft):
- Thesis: 1/1
- Evidence & Commentary: 3/4
- Sophistication: 1/1 (now clearly earned)
You revised by:
- Adding a direct quote to body paragraph 3.
- Tweaking the conclusion to feel more “sophisticated.”
You want to know how those changes shifted your score and where to aim next.
Strengths
- Still a clear, defensible thesis that names choices (allusions, anecdotes) and links them to purpose (cooperation, traditional debate).
- The line of reasoning is coherent: allusions → duty; anecdotes → service and humility → self-examination.
Growth moves
- The thesis remains a bit device‑list-y. It does its job for the thesis point, but it doesn’t yet hint at a richer claim about the Senate’s identity or the tension between ideal and reality.
- The intro has a couple of distracting errors (“selve-serving,” “Seante”), which slightly weaken ethos.
Questions to push your own revision thinking:
- If you had to complete this sentence in your own words:
– “McCain’s speech ultimately argues that the Senate has become ___ and must return to being ___,”
what would you fill in?
- How could you revise the thesis so it suggests that allusions + anecdotes both honor tradition and quietly criticize current behavior?
What improved
- The added quote, “Sometimes, I’ve let my passion rule my reason,” is exactly the kind of specific textual detail the rubric wants.
- You do a nice job linking that quote to ethos and audience effect: his self‑critique invites senators to “examine their own current behavior.”
- Overall, every paragraph uses real choices and ties them to purpose/effect; nothing feels random.
Why this is a solid 3, not yet a 4
- Evidence is still mostly paraphrase and summary, with relatively few zoomed‑in words/phrases from the speech.
- Commentary sometimes stops at “this would remind/cause them to,” which explains the effect but not always the mechanism (“how exactly does this language shape their view of themselves or of the Senate?”).
- The line of reasoning is there, but connections could be made more explicit: how does moving from allusions → to his war service → to his political failures build a progression?
Questions to deepen commentary:
- Allusions paragraph:
– When he calls it “the world’s greatest deliberative body,” how does that phrase both flatter and shame them?
– What tension is he highlighting between that title and their current “highly polarized” state?
- Anecdotes paragraph:
– How does admitting “I’ve let my passion rule my reason” let him criticize everyone’s behavior without sounding like he’s above them?
– How does his identity as a former Navy pilot and POW make his call to duty harder to dismiss?
Aim for a pattern like (in your own words):
- “By [specific phrase], McCain presents himself as [persona], which lets him [criticize / urge / unite] senators by [framing them / appealing to shared values].”
Why I now feel comfortable giving you the point
- Your conclusion now clearly gestures at limitations and implications, which the AP rubric names as a sophistication pathway:
– You acknowledge that McCain knows the Senate is “highly partisan” and that “wouldn’t change.”
– You point out he’s realistic that his “words alone might not make big changes.”
- That’s not just summary; it’s recognizing the gap between his ideal (cooperative, rule‑bound Senate) and the political reality.
- You also hint at a broader idea: even if politics stays polarized, maybe procedures and norms can be a way to protect effectiveness. That’s a more complex understanding of the rhetorical situation, not just “he wants them to get along.”
To push this even further (for future essays):
- You could explicitly name that tension: e.g., that McCain’s speech reveals the limits of rhetoric in reforming a deeply polarized institution, even as it tries to remind that institution of its best self.
- That kind of sentence in your own voice is exactly what often solidifies the sophistication point.
If you want to keep improving this piece (or transfer the learning to the next essay), here are three concrete moves; pick one to work on next:
1. Sharpen the thesis for depth (transferable skill)
– On your own, revise the thesis so it not only lists devices and purpose but hints at a deeper claim about the Senate’s identity or the ideal vs. reality tension.
– Ask yourself: “What’s the bigger story McCain is telling about what the Senate was vs. what it is?” Then fold that into the thesis.
2. Deepen the allusions paragraph (Row B upgrade)
– Add 1–2 short quotations (e.g., “world’s greatest deliberative body,” “most revered members”).
– Then add 2–3 sentences unpacking how those exact words both comfort and challenge the senators.
– Focus on: How does McCain use praise as a form of gentle rebuke?
3. Polish for precision and ethos (small but powerful)
– Clean up typos: “selve‑serving,” “U.S. Seante,” “presonal,” “develoops,” “consituents,” “exmaine,” “senate.”
– Strong mechanics won’t raise your score category by themselves, but they keep you eligible for top Evidence & Commentary and help readers take your analysis seriously.
If you paste in just one revised paragraph (intro, allusions, anecdotes, or conclusion), I’ll rescore that piece against the rubric language and help you push it closer to a 4 in Evidence & Commentary while keeping that sophistication point secure.
Choose the *Your Thoughts button to let me know your reaction to the feedback I’ve provided and how you might revise. Also click Your Thoughts to tell me to focus in on specific paragraphs or criteria. Always follow up by clicking Continue with AI, choose me again and ask me for more feedback.*
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Score focus (Row B – Evidence & Commentary only):
- Evidence & Commentary: 3/4
Only Row B: how you select, use, and explain evidence about McCain’s rhetorical choices (allusions + anecdotes) to support your argument.
Strengths
- You consistently reference the text, not just your opinions.
- You identify real choices: unnamed “revered members,” “giants of American politics,” Navy pilot career, “Sometimes, I’ve let my passion rule my reason.”
Growth moves
- Evidence is mostly paraphrase/summary. To move toward a 4, the AP rubric wants you to lean more on precise words/short phrases and show why those matter.
Try this as you revise (in your own words):
- Pick 1–2 key phrases for each choice and actually quote them.
- Ask: “What connotation does this exact word have?” “What image or role does this phrase create for the senators or for McCain?”
Possible places to zoom in:
- Allusions paragraph: quote “world’s greatest deliberative body,” “most revered members,” or “giants of American politics.”
- Anecdotes paragraph: quote “career,” “profession,” or “Sometimes, I’ve let my passion rule my reason.”
Strengths
- You repeatedly link choices to audience reaction:
– Allusions → “ensures that he won’t alienate any of the senators.”
– Anecdotes → “caused the audience…to examine their own current behavior.”
- You see ethos and pathos at work, even if you don’t name them.
Growth moves
Right now, much of the commentary does:
- “He does X, which would remind/cause senators to Y.”
That’s solid explanation, but to hit a 4, the AP rubric expects more on the how and why:
- How do those exact words shape McCain’s persona?
- How do they frame the Senate’s identity or its failures?
- How do allusions + anecdotes build on each other?
To deepen, try commentary stems like (in your own voice):
- “By calling the Senate ‘_____,’ McCain flatters them but also implies that ______. This double effect pushes them to see themselves as ______ and recognize that ______.”
- “When he admits, ‘Sometimes, I’ve let my passion rule my reason,’ he presents himself as ______ rather than ______. That lets him criticize the Senate’s behavior as a shared failing instead of a partisan attack, making senators more likely to ______.”
- “His shift from honoring unnamed ‘giants’ to confessing his own mistakes mirrors the change he wants: from idolizing past heroes to acting like them in the present.”
Aim to:
1. Name the rhetorical move.
2. Quote a key word/phrase.
3. Explain what that language does (builds ethos, invokes shame/pride, reframes duty).
4. Tie it back to your main claim: cooperation + return to traditional debate.
Strengths
- Your paragraphs are clearly organized:
– Paragraph 2: allusions → duty/tradition.
– Paragraph 3: personal examples → service/humility → self-examination.
- Each choice is linked to McCain’s goal of getting the Senate to work “for the American people instead of trying to score political points.”
Growth moves
To feel like a full 4 in Row B, your progression needs to be a bit clearer and more explicit:
- How does moving from idealized past heroes → to his own military service → to his own Senate failures create a step-by-step pressure on his audience?
Ask yourself:
- In what way do the allusions set a standard?
- How do his military anecdotes define real service?
- How do his confessions show the cost of failing that standard?
Then, make that sequence explicit:
- “First, he ___ to set up ___. Then, by ___, he intensifies this by ___. Finally, when he ___, he leaves senators with ___. This progression…”
Pick one of these and revise just that part:
1. Add precise quotes to one body paragraph
– Choose either the allusions or anecdotes paragraph.
– Insert 1–2 short phrases from the speech and add 2–3 sentences that unpack what those words suggest about the Senate/McCain.
2. Deepen commentary with persona/identity
– In each body paragraph, add a line that answers:
– “What kind of person does this make McCain seem like?”
– “What kind of Senate does this language imply they should be?”
3. Clarify the internal progression
– Add 1–2 sentences (maybe in the second or third body paragraph) that spell out how allusions → war service → Senate failures form a rhetorical sequence, not just separate techniques.
If you paste just one revised body paragraph, I’ll rescore that paragraph’s Evidence & Commentary and help you decide your next strongest revision move.
Choose the *Your Thoughts button to let me know your reaction to the feedback I’ve provided and how you might revise. Also click Your Thoughts to tell me to focus in on specific paragraphs or criteria. Always follow up by clicking Continue with AI, choose me again and ask me for more feedback.*
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The two big ways I improved this essay were to cite more specific evidence like direct quotes. And I also followed the advice about sophistication, thinking about how the two rhetorical choices might work together.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment