A conspicuous failure of U.S. foreign policy in Syria
LATimes, 24 January 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________
Doyle McManus' article "A conspicuous failure of U.S foreign policy in Syria" addresses the rising tensions in the middle east and the American policies that have merely catalyzed a reaction for destruction. McManus draws from both the present and the past, making note of ambassador Robert S. Ford who accurately predicted where American relationships with Syria would go. Ford stepped down from his position, but left admonishing the actions of Obama and drawing concern towards the problem. Now we are up to our knees in warfare: weekly bomb runs tear up Syrian landscape and the fighting has been greater than ever. McManus then redirects his attention from the failed U.S foreign policy and mentions Obama's deceiving speech: he thought of it more as a success story rather than a failure. McManus follows up his argument with two important clarifications that look down upon the "smarter kind of American leadership:" we are mainly driven by the desire to help others in their countries under overpowered regimes and a new impulse to avoid another war. With this in mind and firmly established, McManus finalizes the piece by mentioning the current state of the war and where its headed.
McManus, to formulate and execute his argument, draws from a multitude of rhetorical strategies and techniques to convince the reader that the U.S foreign policy was, indeed, a failure on our politicians' part. He quotes other reliable sources frequently which attributes heavily towards his own appeal to ethos and logos as an author. We get support from the former U.S ambassador, the president himself, and the Secretary of State, all monumental factors in the progression of our politics. However, McManus uses them in a very interesting way. He structures his article like some sort of essay--one that finds a primary source, draws support from it, and then draws conclusions based on the support. It establishes a certain balance in opinion and fact and makes the piece transition nicely. The structure of the piece is nice and makes certain points easily accessible for the reader but nothing out of what I expect from these pundits.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Monday, January 19, 2015
Doyle McManus on Romney's Return (4:2)
What Another Romney Run Means
LATimes, 16 January 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________
With the arrival of the new year, Doyle McManus found himself both looking back in review and looking forward to the future. In his most recent article, he informs and takes a deeper look into the bubbling pot that is the 2016 presidential election and a rather outstanding candidate. Mitt Romney's shortcoming in the 2012 election branded him a failure in the eyes of the republican party. McManus proposes his recurrence in the 2016 election and explores many different opinions regarding Romney's use of the "second chance." It is here that the articles drifts off into a series of well-said comments, each applying a trait of either ambition or insanity or expressing their ambivalence towards Romney's actions. While the Nation Republican Committee promises a more effective election process, the "drama" surrounding the upcoming election indicates otherwise.
McManus' column capitalizes on several rhetorical strategies to achieve his purpose in an interesting, appealing way to further encapsulate the readers. They undeniably impact both the direction and effect of his argument. His central contention regards Romney's likely recurrence in the 2016 election and the drama it has recently stirred up. To introduce the piece, McManus immediately establishes credibility by recognizing the small, but impacting flaw in his argument: the 2016 presidential candidates are not set in stone yet. This note paired with his use of opinions from well-known sources validate his reliability by demonstrating dedication to the argument at hand. However, while citing and self-awareness seems to be his strong suit, it becomes evident that McManus' metaphorical language really sets him apart from other pundits. From the second line to the end of the article, figurative language appeals to the argument in a way not categorized by the standard rhetorical appeals. It provides simplified reiterations of dense material and creates a more aesthetically-pleasing image of McManus' argument. The "startling gun" and the "[startled] birds" visualizes the convoluted mess of dramatic politics into a language common to the population. As for McManus's framework, there is no apparent structure to the article. It does not follow the standards of any essay or analysis but instead the simple, sometimes digressive train of thought. The way the piece transitions seems more like a child's rambling about some insignificant problem rather than a scholarly assessment of politics (however, this does not detract from his central argument or its efficiency).
LATimes, 16 January 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________
With the arrival of the new year, Doyle McManus found himself both looking back in review and looking forward to the future. In his most recent article, he informs and takes a deeper look into the bubbling pot that is the 2016 presidential election and a rather outstanding candidate. Mitt Romney's shortcoming in the 2012 election branded him a failure in the eyes of the republican party. McManus proposes his recurrence in the 2016 election and explores many different opinions regarding Romney's use of the "second chance." It is here that the articles drifts off into a series of well-said comments, each applying a trait of either ambition or insanity or expressing their ambivalence towards Romney's actions. While the Nation Republican Committee promises a more effective election process, the "drama" surrounding the upcoming election indicates otherwise.
McManus' column capitalizes on several rhetorical strategies to achieve his purpose in an interesting, appealing way to further encapsulate the readers. They undeniably impact both the direction and effect of his argument. His central contention regards Romney's likely recurrence in the 2016 election and the drama it has recently stirred up. To introduce the piece, McManus immediately establishes credibility by recognizing the small, but impacting flaw in his argument: the 2016 presidential candidates are not set in stone yet. This note paired with his use of opinions from well-known sources validate his reliability by demonstrating dedication to the argument at hand. However, while citing and self-awareness seems to be his strong suit, it becomes evident that McManus' metaphorical language really sets him apart from other pundits. From the second line to the end of the article, figurative language appeals to the argument in a way not categorized by the standard rhetorical appeals. It provides simplified reiterations of dense material and creates a more aesthetically-pleasing image of McManus' argument. The "startling gun" and the "[startled] birds" visualizes the convoluted mess of dramatic politics into a language common to the population. As for McManus's framework, there is no apparent structure to the article. It does not follow the standards of any essay or analysis but instead the simple, sometimes digressive train of thought. The way the piece transitions seems more like a child's rambling about some insignificant problem rather than a scholarly assessment of politics (however, this does not detract from his central argument or its efficiency).
Sunday, January 11, 2015
2014: The Political Year in Review by Doyle McManus (4:1)
Doyle McManus' 2014 hits and misses
LATimes, 26 December 2014
______________________________________________________________________________
McManus, in this post, demonstrates great self-criticism and reflection. He marks moments in the 2014 year where his predictions shifted and political campaigns set the country in a figurative civil war. He starts chronologically--beginning with the end of 2013 and where exactly Obama stood as a president. It is here that McManus acknowledges either end of the spectrum, admitting the failure of Obamacare but displaying faith in the future of Obama's presidency. After his brief analysis of the nation's president, he draws his next argument from elections across the country. McManus inspects the political strength of the senate and its shift from democratic powers to republican powers. Democratic parties lost heavily in Alaska, North Carolina, and a few others, including Louisiana. Following his rather lengthy review of the senate, McManus shifts his gears and moves towards his own predictions over the course of 2014. He makes note of his ability to find out who was running for president very early into the year and even noted the unremitting recurrence of "global chaos" and our willingness to establish it as normal, possibly even exacerbating the problem. Despite these unpleasant realities, McManus makes an effort to end on an optimistic note--revisiting the decrease in unemployment and the end of two wars offers an insight unto where we, as a nation, are headed under Obama's presidency.
Like any other pundit, McManus utilizes many rhetorical strategies to make his central contentions much more believable. In this article in particular, he reviews the 2014 year through a political lens and, in doing so, analyzes his own character. "It's correction time" starts off his article with a small but strong phrase. It quite explicitly states his own ability to self-criticize and attributes credibility to his person. Furthermore, it brings his exigence to the forefront--authors often take years and look at them in review. By beginning near the end of 2013, McManus sets up a strong transition that makes the paper flow seamlessly and click together. He visits the year before briefly to make note of what 2013 prepared for 2014: this is only one of the few clever tricks he uses to structure his paper. However, these strategies are often overshadowed by other effective techniques within his paper. An appeal to logos, in the form of opinions backed by political events, appears more readily to the average reader's eyes. Rhetorical questions often set up and helped execute his arguments. The broad and general questions made elaborating easy but focused. For example, "So how did Obama do? Two out of four" exercises all of the rhetoric mentioned above in two terse phrases. Despite having these opinionated claims, his tone remains humble and grounded but with an air of credibility and reason. "I didn't stay that smart for long, though" summarizes his willingness to accept his faults throughout the year. Self-scrutiny is important to any persuasive argument as it indicates a knowledge of both sides and attributes credibility through this knowledge. He even notes one of his articles in particular where he abused his literary license to populate his audience: "What went wrong? My journalistic bias kicked in. In terms of structure, this piece seems to border informality and formality. It is, as I mentioned before, inflated with opinions. These opinions are occasionally placed in awkward one line paragraphs that dedicate extra attention to the phrase but seem rather inappropriate. While his opinions were both insightful and interesting, they could have just as easily been placed at the start of the following paragraph, which often addressed his opinion and backed it with evidence.
Regardless of how the article was executed, I can tell that I will enjoy what Doyle McManus has to offer for the rest of January. His writing is excellent: it is riddled with interesting, opinionated perspectives and I find his tone both apt and appealing.
LATimes, 26 December 2014
______________________________________________________________________________
McManus, in this post, demonstrates great self-criticism and reflection. He marks moments in the 2014 year where his predictions shifted and political campaigns set the country in a figurative civil war. He starts chronologically--beginning with the end of 2013 and where exactly Obama stood as a president. It is here that McManus acknowledges either end of the spectrum, admitting the failure of Obamacare but displaying faith in the future of Obama's presidency. After his brief analysis of the nation's president, he draws his next argument from elections across the country. McManus inspects the political strength of the senate and its shift from democratic powers to republican powers. Democratic parties lost heavily in Alaska, North Carolina, and a few others, including Louisiana. Following his rather lengthy review of the senate, McManus shifts his gears and moves towards his own predictions over the course of 2014. He makes note of his ability to find out who was running for president very early into the year and even noted the unremitting recurrence of "global chaos" and our willingness to establish it as normal, possibly even exacerbating the problem. Despite these unpleasant realities, McManus makes an effort to end on an optimistic note--revisiting the decrease in unemployment and the end of two wars offers an insight unto where we, as a nation, are headed under Obama's presidency.
Like any other pundit, McManus utilizes many rhetorical strategies to make his central contentions much more believable. In this article in particular, he reviews the 2014 year through a political lens and, in doing so, analyzes his own character. "It's correction time" starts off his article with a small but strong phrase. It quite explicitly states his own ability to self-criticize and attributes credibility to his person. Furthermore, it brings his exigence to the forefront--authors often take years and look at them in review. By beginning near the end of 2013, McManus sets up a strong transition that makes the paper flow seamlessly and click together. He visits the year before briefly to make note of what 2013 prepared for 2014: this is only one of the few clever tricks he uses to structure his paper. However, these strategies are often overshadowed by other effective techniques within his paper. An appeal to logos, in the form of opinions backed by political events, appears more readily to the average reader's eyes. Rhetorical questions often set up and helped execute his arguments. The broad and general questions made elaborating easy but focused. For example, "So how did Obama do? Two out of four" exercises all of the rhetoric mentioned above in two terse phrases. Despite having these opinionated claims, his tone remains humble and grounded but with an air of credibility and reason. "I didn't stay that smart for long, though" summarizes his willingness to accept his faults throughout the year. Self-scrutiny is important to any persuasive argument as it indicates a knowledge of both sides and attributes credibility through this knowledge. He even notes one of his articles in particular where he abused his literary license to populate his audience: "What went wrong? My journalistic bias kicked in. In terms of structure, this piece seems to border informality and formality. It is, as I mentioned before, inflated with opinions. These opinions are occasionally placed in awkward one line paragraphs that dedicate extra attention to the phrase but seem rather inappropriate. While his opinions were both insightful and interesting, they could have just as easily been placed at the start of the following paragraph, which often addressed his opinion and backed it with evidence.
Regardless of how the article was executed, I can tell that I will enjoy what Doyle McManus has to offer for the rest of January. His writing is excellent: it is riddled with interesting, opinionated perspectives and I find his tone both apt and appealing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)