In this article, Michael Gerson elaborates upon a pattern developing within the republican party to reject candidates who do not fit strictly within the lines of the conservative platform. Their quest for purity, Gerson argues, is damaging to the political process.
Gerson presents facts in such a way that makes the pattern clear. He first shows how prominent GOP candidates have alike supported fiscal policies aimed at environmental protection, standing beside prominent Democrats in their support. But Gerson cites one such candidate, Newt Gingrich, as having said his media appearance with Nancy Pelosi, a Democratic leader, was "the dumbest single thing [he's] done in recent years." Gerson also mentions the attacks on Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Mitt Romney, who each once lead in the polls, for supporting less-conservative policies. The candidates then apologize and realign their views in hope of remaining in the running, which Gerson says promotes "fealty above other, important public virtues such as stable judgment, competence, relevant experience and integrity."
Gerson's diction throughout the article is pejorative. He creates an image of the conservative base as one not to be taken critically, beginning with referring to the current GOP race as a "whack-a-mole" process. The words "heresy," "fealty," and "purity" have undertones of the antiquated attitudes of the medieval era, implying that the conservative conviction obstructs progression of American politics.
Gerson creates one particularly lasting metaphorical image in saying that the right has "created a box of orthodoxy so small that even the most conservative candidates must engage in undignified contortions just to fit." The "undignified contortions" help to reflect Gerson's later statement that "the purest candidates are often not the strongest candidates," allowing him to smoothly assert that successful politics requires compromise and creativity.
Gerson creates one particularly lasting metaphorical image in saying that the right has "created a box of orthodoxy so small that even the most conservative candidates must engage in undignified contortions just to fit." The "undignified contortions" help to reflect Gerson's later statement that "the purest candidates are often not the strongest candidates," allowing him to smoothly assert that successful politics requires compromise and creativity.
Not that much to comment on, good job. Great diction choices. The one thing is that another examination of a particular part of DIDLS would be good. The second paragraph, though illuminating, doesn't seem to focus on one.
ReplyDeleteLike Emily said, the essay held its own. I know you're supposed to comment on the author's use of techniques, but I think a comparison of Republican rigidity and the Tea Party's unwillingness to compromise would be interesting.
ReplyDelete3 out of 4 of the paragraphs begin with 'Gerson,' and this is right in a row. Can you rephrase one of two of the sentences so that the same word isn't the first thing the reader sees? It gets redundant.
Cassidy Murphy
I think that agree with the other's on the analysis of your essay. The one thing I appreciated was your own diction in the introductory paragraph which (maybe I just know you too well) I thought presented a bias in an exteremely subtle way. Maybe you can play "Where's Waldo?" and try to find what I'm talking about.
ReplyDelete