0 Comments
The Paradox of Pope Francis’s Power
In The Paradox of Pope Francis’s Power, an opinion article by David Ignatius, David tries to make the the argument that there is more than one type of power and that soft power is not only very real but quite desirable and exhibited by Pope Francis. David juxtaposes the visitation of Pope Francis and Chinese President Xi Jinping to the United States recently, making reference to “ the kind of intangible but world-changing influence that matters most now” written about by Harvard professor Joseph Nye. David makes Pope Francis and President Xi out to be total opposites as Big Daddy Xi “ruthlessly consolidates control of the Communist Party machinery, Xi misses the soft touch” where as Pope Francis“is strong because he is humble. His message resonates in a complex world because it is simple. He disdains the trappings of power, the pomp and fanfare, and thereby enhances his real power.”. However he strayed for a little too long when talking about Obama and Putin as a means of explaining why soft power is as valuable as if not more than hard power as they in his eyes “seem to crave the authenticity that the religious leader commands so effortlessly”. He left various links of articles elaborating of his main ideas but the average viewer will possibly not take the time to view these therefore weakening his argument. Might be the day I uploaded it but it was the day it was started :(
Can Donald Trump buy a foreign policy? David Ignatius, in an opinion article written soon after the CNN Republican presidential debate, in response to Trump’s lack of diplomacy experience, or successful diplomatic experience. Believing Trump to has no potential in successfully leading america when dealing with foreign leaders in a safe and professional environment to resolve issues after witnessing what he says with his fellow american when dealing with conflict, for example the Carly Fiorina incident in which he said "I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not s'posed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?" as well as various other offensive remarks spoken freely by Trump seem to prove such in David’s eyes. Trump admitted during the debate that “We don’t get along with China. … We get along with nobody...”and how he wants to to use “the finest team that anybody has put together...” to “… solve a lot of problems” and although David notes this as important the true purpose of this article was not just to poke fun at Trump’s total lack of capability but also review the past failures of this country in foreign policy, Iraq, and the current struggles the next president will have deal with such as the Syrian refugees. David’s true goal was to address “The jumbled GOP message on foreign policy...because it underlined that there is no quick fix to the serious problems the United States has encountered abroad over the past 15 years.” and how “This Republican field wants to “keep the country safe,”…without going to war again.” in order share his concerns and opinions about GOP and the future of America. Why should we care about preserving the past or protecting our future?
In this article by Ignatius he once again opens with a question a method I have learned since losing half of this article the first go round does count as a rhetorical device as it is a method of persuasion and seduction as it asks the reader to explore the question for themselves and consider their answers or at the very least be quite curious as to what David’s is. I’ll have you know now I was one of the many who fell prey to this trick, when it was posed before me i felt the answer was obvious but here I was reading a carefully crafted argument and even my own lengthy notes on the article telling me something I already believed going into the article “When we feel a revulsion at the destruction of the past or a threat to the future, what we are really affirming is human survival”. However he did this with style and grace and current (for the time, only slightly less relevant now) real world examples. He made reference to the bombing of the Temple of Baal Shamin and the concern of other nations, the US specifically which is a good move on his part as he was reporting world news in an American paper so catering to the audience is simply the best choice of action. Losing a piece of history is very hard, and of course being the young country we are, empathy kicked into high gear and told us we should share their pain instead of, now i’m paraphrasing here “belonging to the cult of self interest that occasionally seems like an article of the Bill of Rights”. Not that there is anything wrong with self interest he clarifies, he goes through a long spiel of rhetorical questions to explain that taking care of yourself and your own is human nature and worrying about the future is apart of human nature as most people do consider great and great great grandchildren they may never meet one of their own. Clearly this article was meant to appeal to logos and pathos, I mean how could it not when it brings both the future of our country our planet and our children into the conversation. But is the really more important the topic itself? I think not, but the point of this entry was to explain why it does that and I believe Mr. Ignatius does this in order to create an emotional connection with the audience as he guides them along his trail of his logical but opinionated take on selfishness so that they not only side with him but become inclined to return to his particular style of writing with it’s casual word choice and topical conversation in a more formal setting than any random joe with an opinion column. Trump’s surge makes the case for Joe Biden
I chose a very opinionated article of David’s to showcase tone and although it would have been nice to have a traditional dramatic piece or something from a romantic comedy to create some sort of contrast worthwhile but this will certainly do for it’s given purpose as it will be relatively easy to find the author's attitude towards the men he writes about in Trump’s surge makes the case for Joe Biden as Mr. Ignatius is an opinion columnist. David expresses that he feels as though Donald trump is poseur in every way when it comes to his campaign, that he Joe Biden is everything he pretends to be “a garrulous, blunt, down-to-earth guy who loves politics and people and tells it like it is, sometimes to a fault”. Clearly expressing affection when he recalls Biden and seeing Trump as a faulty copy. David calls Biden the “real deal” and “a throwback to a different campaign era” where as when referring to Trump and his policies he speaks of “blarney and braggadocio” and how his clear his weaknesses are when compared to someone like Biden. Phrases such as “flaunting his billionaire lifestyle” “reality-TV star” and “navigating four of his companies through bankruptcy” are found when he refers to Trump so negatively and he hails Biden as a saint who has hopefully learned from his mistakes as he drones on about his “moral center” “great personal tragedies” and his qualities that remind him of Matt Damon’s character in Saving Private Ryan. There is no need to hide your bias as an opinion columnist and he makes sure to express his personal feelings to the audience in the simplest way possible, through his word choice. His precise diction and but semi casual style and passionate speech give you all he wants you to see, it creates the perfect tone for the reader in this clearly persuasive article. Is Donald Trump an American Putin?
David Ignatius Guess who "He promises to restore his country’s greatness, without offering a specific plan. He uses crude, vulgar expressions that make him sound like an ordinary guy, even though he’s a billionaire. He’s a narcissist who craves media attention. And for all his obvious shortcomings, he’s very popular" (lines 1-4). If you haven't guessed by now, or read the articles title |
David IgnatiusI am a columnist for the Washington Post , a Harvard Kennedy School fellow and author of nine espionage thrillers. ArchivesCategories |