Core Text: “The January 6th Insurrection Didn’t Fail, it Just Took Five Years” by John Pavlovitz (as provided)
Recommended Level: Upper secondary (grades 10–12) or introductory college composition/civics
Length: One to two class periods (no fixed timings)

Rationale

This text is a strong example of opinion journalism/political commentary that relies heavily on rhetorical strategy and literary craft (metaphor, repetition, imagery, loaded diction) to persuade. It is instructionally valuable precisely because it is highly positioned: students can practice separating claim vs. evidence, analyzing tone, and identifying how language constructs moral urgency and collective identity (“we”). Because it is politically charged and emotionally intense, it also provides a real-world opportunity to teach civil discourse, interpretive humility, and media literacy.

https://johnpavlovitz.substack.com/p/the-january-6th-insurrection-didnt?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2037902&post_id=183628898&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=2mi2nb&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

---

Learning Goals (What students should be able to do)

By the end of the lesson, students will be able to:

1. Identify and define key literary and rhetorical devices used in the text (e.g., metaphor, imagery, hyperbole, parallelism, loaded diction).
2. Explain how those devices shape tone, meaning, and persuasion.
3. Evaluate the author’s argument by distinguishing statements of fact, inference, and opinion—and noting where evidence is asserted vs. demonstrated.
4. Produce a defensible interpretation of the text’s central message, supported by precise textual references.
5. Engage in structured discussion about controversial material using academic norms (claim–evidence–reasoning, charitable reading, respectful disagreement).

---

Essential Questions

• How does a writer use language to turn political commentary into a persuasive moral argument?
• What is the difference between describing events and interpreting events?
• How do repetition, imagery, and metaphor influence a reader’s emotions and judgment?
• What responsibilities do readers have when a text makes sweeping claims about groups of people?

---

Key Terms

• Extended metaphor: A metaphor sustained across multiple lines/paragraphs (e.g., “cancerous…cult,” “throne,” “keys to the kingdom”).
• Loaded diction: Word choice designed to carry emotional judgment (“vicious,” “snarling,” “mobster,” “dictator”).
• Imagery: Language that appeals to senses and creates vivid pictures (“tear gas and zip ties and nooses…”).
• Hyperbole: Intentional exaggeration for emphasis (“as divided a people as we can be”).
• Parallelism: Similar grammatical structures to build rhythm and force.
• Ethos/Pathos/Logos: Credibility/emotion/reason as persuasive appeals.
• Tone: The writer’s attitude toward subject and audience (here: anguished, accusatory, disillusioned).
• Juxtaposition: Placing contrasting ideas close together to intensify meaning (attempted insurrection vs. electoral victory).
• Collective pronouns: “We/our” to create shared identity and shared responsibility.

---

1) Entry Task: “Expectation vs. Reality” Quickwrite

Prompt (choose one):

• What is a “catalytic moment” in a country’s history? What makes a moment catalytic rather than temporary?
• When writers say “I was wrong,” what effect does that have on your trust in them?

Students write briefly, then share a few responses to surface the concept of turning points and disillusionment.

---

2) First Read: Comprehension and Narrative Arc

Students read once for the “story” of the commentary:

• Where does the author begin emotionally?
• What shift happens between “Five years ago…” and “I was spectacularly wrong”?
• Where does the text land at the end?

---

3) Small Group Task or individual: Rhetorical Device-to-Effect Chart

Complete a chart with at least six examples:

Chart Columns

1. Quotation (short, precise)
2. Device used
3. Immediate effect on reader (emotion, credibility, urgency)
4. Deeper purpose (how it advances the argument)
5. Possible alternative reading (how someone might interpret it differently)

---

4) Skill Extension Option: “Neutral Rewrite” Exercise (Media Literacy)

Students choose one charged paragraph and rewrite it in a straight-news tone:

• Remove loaded descriptors.
• Keep only verifiable statements.
• Add attribution (“The author claims…”).

Then students reflect:

• What changed in emotional impact?
• What changed in perceived credibility?
• Which version is more appropriate for which purpose?

---

Comprehension Test 10 Questions

1. What does the author mean when he says he “honestly thought January 6th, 2021, was going to be a catalytic moment”?
2. Identify two details the author uses to describe the crowd at the Capitol. What kind of picture do these details create?
3. What does the author claim he expected Republican voters to do after January 6th, 2021?
4. Explain the effect of the sentence “I was spectacularly wrong.” Why might the author include this admission?
5. According to the text, what does the author believe happened in the 2024 election that relates to January 6th?
6. The author repeats the idea that January 6th “should have been” something. What does he argue it should have been, and what does he argue it became instead?
7. How does the author characterize the nation’s divisions? List at least three types of divisions he names.
8. What is the author’s attitude toward the people he believes supported the political outcome he criticizes? Use two short quotations to justify your answer.
9. Explain one extended metaphor or recurring image in the piece (for example: disease/cancer, monarchy/throne, or “keys to the kingdom”). What does it suggest about power?
10. What tone does the author end on in the final lines (“Where we go from here is anyone’s guess…”) and what message does that ending leave the reader with?

---

 During Viewing (Structured note-catcher)

Give students a simple two-column organizer:

Column 1: What the segment says (content)

• What happened / what the legacy is
• Specific points raised about division and shifting narratives
• Any statistics or official references mentioned

Column 2: How the segment says it (craft)

• Who is quoted or referenced
• Word choices that signal neutrality vs. judgment
• Moments where the segment emphasizes uncertainty vs. certainty

---

1. Who are the two journalists interviewed in the segment, and what is their connection to January 6? PBS
2. What does the segment identify as the central reason the day still “divides” the country years later? (Answer using a specific idea from the discussion.) PBS
3. According to the segment, how did public or media narratives about January 6 begin to shift after the attack? Describe at least one example of a competing explanation mentioned. PBS
4. Name one concrete factual claim or officially sourced point the segment references (for example, an official finding or a number), and explain how including it affects credibility compared to an opinion essay. PBS
5. What is one key concern raised in the segment about institutions (for example, consequences, enforcement, or extremism), and how does that concern relate to the idea of “legacy”? PBS

---

Essay Questions

1. Rhetorical Analysis Essay:
   The author uses repetition, metaphor, and emotionally charged diction to argue that the events of January 6th continued through later political outcomes. Analyze how at least three rhetorical or literary devices shape the persuasiveness of the argument.Assess how well these choices work and what is gained or lost by using them..

2. Civic Meaning and “Turning Points”:
   The author frames January 6th as a moment that “should have been” a national pivot. Choose a historical or contemporary event you consider a turning point (local, national, or global) and compare how societies respond to crises. What factors determine whether a crisis leads to reform, backlash, or stagnation? Connect your argument back to the author’s framing and assumptions.