Structure and Satire - Building a Persuasive Text

I posted this in a discussion forum for undergraduate students in a course on persuasion to consider, and figured you all might honestly like to read it as well.  The interesting stuff [for you] is toward the end:   

Although we haven't yet hit upon it (and I'm not entirely sure we will), I read an article in The Kansas Free Press, a locally published, independent new-source in Kansas the other day, which had a decidedly satiric objective.  Needless to say, I thought immediately of Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal.  If you haven't already encountered Swift in an English class, I thoroughly recommend reading this piece by clicking the hyperlink above.

Although it doesn't always need to be said, we should all be reminded that Swift was not actually proposing we eat babies.  What he was doing, was utilizing satiric form to generate a persuasive message.  This is not too uncommon among writers, as we find even a bit of it at work in Burke's Definition of Man on page four.  He writes:  "Had that exceptionally brilliant wren been able to conceptualize this discovery in such terms as come easy to symbol systems, we can imagine him giving a dissertation on 'The Use of the Principle of Leverage as an Improved Method for Unesting Birds or Debirding a Nest.'"

The unusual name Burke gives to the wren's dissertation is not just comical in the sense that it is unusual, it is also a satirical poke at great scholars of the past who really did give the most annoying and long-winded titles to essays.  Swift himself utilizes this when choosing chapter titles for A Tale of A Tub.  Section VII is comically called "A Digression in Praise of Digressions."

Leaving the humor of Swift and Burke aside, I would contend that satire plays a very important role in persuasion when appropriately utilized.  Have you ever used it?  Do you think it works best via the peripheral or central route?  Is it audience dependent?  For the project you are developing, would it be an appropriate form?  Why or why not?

For a more practical example, read this article by Ron Parks of The Kansas Free Press: Acceding Humbly to the Wisdom of the Majority.  To help break the ice (and prime you?), I'll tell you that although I know what Parks is up to, I do not think the text works very well in its persuasive intent.  Was it even meant to be persuasive?  What do you think about it?  Could he improve the message?  If you're a member of his "majority" did you feel the message was effective?  Why or why not?  What would you change about its structure if tasked with writing it?

Remember everyone, we're not after the politics of the text; we are after whether or not it has effective persuasive structure  :+)*


*Readers on The Journal are more than welcome to be all about the politics of Parks' work.