The “cold war” is a very memorable and significant period in our nation and world’s history. This period marks the race between primarily the Soviet Union and the United States. The “cold war” was very different than most wars because it did not involve direct military contact. Instead, this war was more of an economical, political and scientific race. One of the major accomplishments of this period was the creation of the world’s first artificial satellite by the Soviet Union. Denver Post Columnist David Harsanyi wrote an Op-Ed article on Friday, January 28, 2011 about how President Obama’s State of the Union address sounded much like the messages sent to the American people during the “cold war”.
This article was very sarcastic toward President Obama’s speech and expressed many skeptical ideas and flaws in Obama’s argument. Along with skepticism toward the State of the Union address, Harsanyi also expressed his skeptical opinion on Sputnik. He believed that the Soviet’s effort to out-do the United States resulted in unnecessary spending which had negative effects on the already stagnant, dying economy.
The audience for this article is easily identified. Harsanyi is speaking to the citizens of Denver. Harsanyi begins his argument by describing the situation and identifies exactly what it is that he is analyzing. This post has a very apparent kairos. The State of the Union address is a very important speech made every year by the president of the United States. This speech had just been given days before Harsanyi posted this piece in the Denver Post. The issue is very relevant to Harsanyi’s audience. Citizens of the United States have at least somewhat of an interest in the State of the Union address because it most often pertains to them directly. Harsanyi uses this kairotic moment to convey his opinion on the topic.
Harsanyi begins his post by commenting on Obama’s reference to the “good jobs” when people would show up “at a nearby factory or a business downtown.” Harsanyi thought this was ridiculous. He went on to use a partly logistic, but also a pathetic appeal by sarcastically stating all of the positive aspects of slaving in a plant for 30 years with minimal promotions. This tactic is harsh and to the point. Though he does not always come right out and state his opinion, the sarcasm is so strong that it is possibly more effective than stating his position directly.
The next argument that Harsanyi makes is that Obama’s idea of winning the “19th century back” as Harsanyi put it, is ridiculous and expensive. Obama said in his speech that more railroads should be built for transportation purposes. Harsanyi says, “this fixation with building an extraordinarily expensive, outdated and tax-funded rail system is a great example of why central planning undermines progress”. This counter argument is logical and is something that many citizens can believe to be true. Harsanyi also says, “someone already invented airplanes and cars, which, unlike trains, can be pointed in any direction we want, whenever we want, as often as we want”. This statement lists all the reasons why trains are logically less efficient and more expensive than cars and planes.
Though all of these arguments have a descent amount of evidence and rhetorical appeal, there is no correlation to the title of his column “Who are we in ‘Sputnik moment’?”. This was something that I found to be ineffective in his column. He did not mention anything about sputnik until the last two paragraphs. Bringing up Sputnik was a way for him to connect past events to the events that are happening today. Harsanyi believes that what Obama proposed in his State of the Union address may be similar to the actions made by the soviets in the “cold war”. He says, “The Soviet’s intense effort to erect a façade of accomplishment was achieved by investing in an unnecessary, costly, symbolic, ideology-driven project that did nothing for the aspirations of its citizens or its stagnant, dying economy”. This is a very harsh sentence that uses rhetorical appeal to convince the audience that this is not what anyone wants to happen. This may be effective, but it can also be a bit over the top. The style of Harsanyi’s writing can be fun to read, however, this style can become overbearing. Sarcasm can only go so far. I found this column to be too loaded with sarcasm. I found myself disliking his arguments because of how harsh and sarcastic each issue was. This took away from his message and caused me personally to become less interested in his opinion. He had some solid points, but the way he conveyed his opinion could’ve been more effective.
No comments:
Post a Comment