It's Not a Videogame: After ISIS, can the Democrats be trusted with national security from 2016 to 2020?
http://online.wsj.com/articles/dan-henninger-its-not-a-videogame-1409179337
The Wall Street Journal. 27 August 2014
_________________________________________________________________________________
One of Daniel Henninger's most recent articles brings up the publicized beheading of James Foley, re-framing it as the foundation for the 2016 presidential election. His introduction is composed of many tragedies that line the pixels of our tablets, computers, and phones. Horrors such as Boko Haram's kidnappings and shootings in Russia give reason for his claim about how society and government has altered its views to combat a war-like world. Henninger gives a thorough analysis of reluctance and responsibility within authority despite its alignment. Sure, he says, foreign-policies are normal in the situation, but are severely lacking in effectiveness. Saudi Arabia is even reconsidering its partnership with the United States. Thus, prompting Henninger to ask the real question: can the Democratic party hold true to their responsibility and uphold national security? To answer the question, he takes into account certain democratic authorities that have failed to serve their role in national security in the past. Henninger concludes the piece with a statement that summarizes and answers his central contention.
The main idea is that democrats lack the necessary characteristics to retain a certain responsibility that concerns the nation's security. It is mainly supported through depictions of current events, their effects, and responses. Henninger's use of imagery really sets apart his appeal to pathos as it reinvents worldwide tragedies as something commonplace--two traits that should not go together. His framework, as it has been seen before, resembles that of a essay. To begin the column, worldwide news stirs a sense of interest among the audience. A brief analysis shortly ensues and is finalized by a question, which is then answered, although in the form of a thesis (conclusion).
I couldn't help but nod along to this article and to your analysis of it. The questions posed were complicated and important, but unfortunately seem to be relatively uncommon. Imagery is always (or almost always) a nice touch to writing, too. Nice job.
ReplyDeleteThe structure your pundit uses is different and yet effective, and I like how you analyzed the influence it can have on readers. This topic is very broad but Henninger manages to cover all the bases easily and respectively, creating a scarily beautiful image of crisis around the world. Nice analysis, maybe next time try to combine the summary and analysis into one chronological can combined piece.
ReplyDeleteComment to Author:
ReplyDeleteHenninger, relying on historical evidence that is rather unsupported and almost invalid does not help your argument whatsoever and, in fact, takes away from it. Sure, you list a few names, but the support behind the names, or what you claim, seems lacking. What makes them irresponsible? Why should I not trust them?
I commented on Alex Dumas' blog, Caroline's blog, and Garrett's blog.
Delete