I decided to take a look at our President's approval rating seeing as we have had this president for almost 100 days. The articles I found were vastly more against him than for him as can be expected due to how he handles certain situations. However, I wanted to see if there was a common theme or at least if the articles covered the same reasons for them being dissatisfied with the president.
The first source I went to was from an Op-Ed written by a Charles M. Blow. Charles called his article the 100 Days of Horror. Judging from this I could already tell Charles severely disapproved of our president, but I always prefer to hear the reasoning behind. He points to trump constantly lying and providing "alternative facts" as his main source of frustration with the president, but then goes into more detail about contradicting things that the president said as opposed to what he did. So go through them quickly, he points out how trump said he would be great for women and then goes and decreases funding for planned parenthood. He said that he will support the LGBT community and that people should be able to use the bathroom they are most comfortable with, but then goes and passes the law that revokes the power of the federal government over the protection of teens. He then goes into a topic I haven't heard any news about, African Americans and their struggle with Trump. I could easily assume that Trump wouldn't be a friend to any minority no matter what, but then Charles brings up promises of laws and the judicial system as a whole being more fair for everyone, and then Trump's Justice Department came up with a Voter ID in Texas that so far has been called racially discriminatory by two judges in the state. So, as we can see here, Charles is focusing on promises that were broken or outright not upheld by the president and how he built his campaign isn't turning out how he is running his presidency. He is taking an approach that shows people who aren't aware of the promises Trump made just how contradictory he is truly being.
The next article I took a look at was titled How America is Losing the Credibility War. This Op-Ed was written by Anthony J. Blinken. To summarize, Anthony covers a decent amount of what Charles tackled, but with a bit more focus. Anthony is mainly concerned with the credibility of the President of the United States. not just trump in particular, but in the position as a whole. He looks at how Trump presents alternative facts or puts out tweets about information that might not even be true. He focuses on how trump is misinformed and says that he often falls for conspiracy level misinformation, but then how he also then goes and misinforms the citizens of the US, and more dangerously, misinforms the rest of the world. He talks about how if Trump continues to misinform North Korea with threats that he may scare them into firing first and starting a war. He also goes into that his decreasing credibility is making things more complicated when it comes to trying to shed light on situations such as the chemical weapons used on citizens in Syria. due to trump not being a reliable source in the past, when he presents facts such as this it sounds like its another "alternative fact" from the president. It makes other peoples jobs harder to then justify the missile strike nad provide enough facts to satisfy the public. Anthony looks back to Kennedy and how, even though people may not have agreed with his politics, that they did respect and believe him because of the credibility he established for himself. Anthony also looks back to Obama and how he was such a great counter to Putin because Obama had more credibility than Putin and that credibility allowed him to have good relationships with foreign countries.
Charles looks at broken promises and why Trump is a poor president because of them, and Blinken looks at the broken promises and rash acts Trump has commited and says that these actions show that he isn't credible as a president and in turn is damaging the position of the president and the country as a whole. Both are against trump, but they do their arguing in slightly different ways,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/opinion/100-days-of-horror.html?ref=opinion
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/opinion/how-america-is-losing-the-credibility-war.html?ref=opinion
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Friday, March 24, 2017
A Different Look at Trump's Transgender Policy
Last time I wrote about two different OP ED writers. Ria Mar whose writings found her way into the New York Times and an unnamed gentleman who wrote for the Washington Examiner. Lets take another look at these two arguments and delve a bit deeper. Sadly, last time we took a look at them through a very shallow way and just looked at what they were using and not the perspective they were taking and how they were persuading their audiences. Lets start by diving into Ria's article once more.
Ria takes her argument from the point of view that the government is discriminating against transgender students. Students that, until recently, were protected by the government and made to feel as normal students for once, and now without the support and protection from the government now feel confused and as if the government views them as different. By taking this approach she manages to belittle the argument that its not the governments job to decide on laws like that and instead relies on making sure that the readers are emotionally effected by her statistics and the way she describes how transgender students feel. By making her perspective one of emotions she makes it so that the arguments against her must be made through emotions as well or they wont hold up well if not at all. By appealing to her audience of the left with emotions she can make them upset but at the same time make them angry with Trump and the right and instead of being the argument herself she makes her audience the argument, or rather the force to go against any argument made against her claims.
The Washington Examiner gentleman on the other hand takes the perspective not of emotion but of where government has its power and whether or not the federal government has the power to make such laws or whether the local governments should instead have the power. By taking this perspective and argument tone of legal possibilities he can dismiss any claims made by emotion, or rather can ignore or try to belittle claims of emotion by instead using laws that were made hundreds of years ago and logic as well backing those laws. Both people argue from a very specific perspective where they know that their side would have the upper hand. If the right fought in the field of emotions they would lose and vice versa, so instead of trying to fight on another sides ground they stick to the argument that works best and sounds best for their side and once they strengthen their side they can attack the opposition with that same perspective where their opposition has little to no grounds. It is essentially a battle that takes place in emotions, pathos, or an argument that takes place in laws, logos.
Both sides appeal only to their side already, but in doing so they "rally the troops" to make sure that they have support whenever an argument is made against them.
Ria takes her argument from the point of view that the government is discriminating against transgender students. Students that, until recently, were protected by the government and made to feel as normal students for once, and now without the support and protection from the government now feel confused and as if the government views them as different. By taking this approach she manages to belittle the argument that its not the governments job to decide on laws like that and instead relies on making sure that the readers are emotionally effected by her statistics and the way she describes how transgender students feel. By making her perspective one of emotions she makes it so that the arguments against her must be made through emotions as well or they wont hold up well if not at all. By appealing to her audience of the left with emotions she can make them upset but at the same time make them angry with Trump and the right and instead of being the argument herself she makes her audience the argument, or rather the force to go against any argument made against her claims.
The Washington Examiner gentleman on the other hand takes the perspective not of emotion but of where government has its power and whether or not the federal government has the power to make such laws or whether the local governments should instead have the power. By taking this perspective and argument tone of legal possibilities he can dismiss any claims made by emotion, or rather can ignore or try to belittle claims of emotion by instead using laws that were made hundreds of years ago and logic as well backing those laws. Both people argue from a very specific perspective where they know that their side would have the upper hand. If the right fought in the field of emotions they would lose and vice versa, so instead of trying to fight on another sides ground they stick to the argument that works best and sounds best for their side and once they strengthen their side they can attack the opposition with that same perspective where their opposition has little to no grounds. It is essentially a battle that takes place in emotions, pathos, or an argument that takes place in laws, logos.
Both sides appeal only to their side already, but in doing so they "rally the troops" to make sure that they have support whenever an argument is made against them.
Friday, February 24, 2017
Trump's Transgender Policy
Over the past few days we have seen a lot of protesting going on about the recent Trump Administration denouncing Obama's Administrations law about allowing kids in school to use the bathroom of the gender they identify as. Many articles have been written and many people from each side have either supported or denounced Trump's actions behind the law.
Ria Tabacco Mar wrote an OP ED for the New York Times in which she voices her distaste for the passing for such a law. Or rather, the removal of one. The different tactics that she uses are often times Logos and Ethos. she transitions from making sure that you feel the emotions that a Transgender student may feel when trying to just fit in in their school. She also provides plenty of facts that talk about suicide rates and other negative consequences of bathroom inequality. At times it seems as if she is trying to reach the middle audience with sympathy. At others times she seems as though she is trying to reason with the opposite side. However, this argument seems to appeal mostly to people who already agree with her. She often uses "we" when she talks of "we are already in court" and other phrases. Overall she does use facts and seems to cover the entire issue quite well.
On the other hand the opposition is covering the topic as well, although, not as heavily or as often as the left is. In this article, simply written by an unnamed examiner, they use simple logic to bring light to the situation. The retraction of the law doesn't necessarily go against Transgender rights, but simply gives the right to decide to the states. After all, the article says, the states are the ones who pay the taxes for public schools so they should be the ones to decide. This article claims that Trump is simply taking away power from the federal government that it should have never had and give it to the right government. This is a huge example of Logos and this article seems to deal solely in Logos. This is also aimed towards those in the middle ground and those on the left. It simply seeks to explain what is really going on and try to minimize the panic and situation to what they believe is the reality.
In my firm opinion both sides accomplish their goals. Ria manages to fire up her supporters with how she argues, and the other article accomplishes its goal of simply trying to explain what the law actually does and why it does it. It is a defense while Ria's article is an offense. Both cross over to try to reach the middle grounded people and convince them of their side, and both make fair arguments.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/opinion/trump-will-lose-the-fight-over-bathrooms-for-transgender-students.html?mabReward=A7&recp=2
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-leaves-the-school-bathroom/article/2615637
Ria Tabacco Mar wrote an OP ED for the New York Times in which she voices her distaste for the passing for such a law. Or rather, the removal of one. The different tactics that she uses are often times Logos and Ethos. she transitions from making sure that you feel the emotions that a Transgender student may feel when trying to just fit in in their school. She also provides plenty of facts that talk about suicide rates and other negative consequences of bathroom inequality. At times it seems as if she is trying to reach the middle audience with sympathy. At others times she seems as though she is trying to reason with the opposite side. However, this argument seems to appeal mostly to people who already agree with her. She often uses "we" when she talks of "we are already in court" and other phrases. Overall she does use facts and seems to cover the entire issue quite well.
On the other hand the opposition is covering the topic as well, although, not as heavily or as often as the left is. In this article, simply written by an unnamed examiner, they use simple logic to bring light to the situation. The retraction of the law doesn't necessarily go against Transgender rights, but simply gives the right to decide to the states. After all, the article says, the states are the ones who pay the taxes for public schools so they should be the ones to decide. This article claims that Trump is simply taking away power from the federal government that it should have never had and give it to the right government. This is a huge example of Logos and this article seems to deal solely in Logos. This is also aimed towards those in the middle ground and those on the left. It simply seeks to explain what is really going on and try to minimize the panic and situation to what they believe is the reality.
In my firm opinion both sides accomplish their goals. Ria manages to fire up her supporters with how she argues, and the other article accomplishes its goal of simply trying to explain what the law actually does and why it does it. It is a defense while Ria's article is an offense. Both cross over to try to reach the middle grounded people and convince them of their side, and both make fair arguments.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/opinion/trump-will-lose-the-fight-over-bathrooms-for-transgender-students.html?mabReward=A7&recp=2
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-leaves-the-school-bathroom/article/2615637
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)