A Rhetorical Analysis Of David Sedaris 'Weekend Update'

The infamous 2016 election shined a great light on the undecided voters of America, television shows such as Saturday Night Live taking advantage of the obvious humor behind those who were unable to weigh the “lesser of two evils” out of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. In their segment of Weekend Update in October of 2016, Michael Che interviewed dysfunctional “Cathy Anne,” an undecided voter who, although clearly supporting Clinton more over Trump, had identified as undecided. Just as SNL had taken on the issue of addressing the Americans who simply claimed that they were undecided, David Sedaris, a writer for the liberal New Yorker, had written a piece, prior to the election of 2008 between Barack Obama and John McCain, detailing how undecided

voters already have their decisions made, on some level. Using mockery and condescension to express his opinions on undecided voters through the usage of underlyingly sarcastic tones and comedic situations, as well as personal anecdotes, Sedaris manages to simultaneously entertain and explain his position on the issue.
Sedaris carries a very sarcastic and humorous tone throughout the entirety of his article, leveling with the reader and allowing the audience to delve into his internal thoughts and dialogue.

“I look at these people and can’t quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention?” His rhetorical questioning carries a sense of disbelief, verging on annoyance. A few lines later, Sedaris directly questions the reader, “I mean, really, what’s there to be confused about?” This casual tone truly helps to capture Sedaris’ feelings towards the undecided public, illustrating how he finds them to be obviously ridiculous. There is, however, a shift in tone when David begins to talk about his mother and father fighting over who she did or didn’t vote for. After his mother lied to his father about voting for democratic nominee Humphrey, Sedaris stepped up and decided to tell the truth about who was voted for, ending the anecdote by saying, “He patted me on the shoulder and as my mother turned away I understood that I had chosen the wrong person.” At this point, Sedaris makes it abundantly clear that he finds that undecided voters all truly have decisions made up in their heads, but are too afraid to voice them, such as with his own mother who truly wished to vote for the democratic nominee, and not Nixon as her husband

wanted.
Following this shift, the piece comes back to its original sarcastic and humorous tone, Sedaris starting up with a comedic take on his past self as a pothead. He moved on to conclude his article on a more positive note, agreeing that while undecideds were some of the strangest creatures he’d ever seen, they were most definitely not the most negative and tended to look on the brighter side of things. “‘If it’s all going to be chewed up and swallowed, why not cut to the chase, and go with the platter of shit?’ Ah, though, that’s where the broken glass comes in,” he wrote, ending with a very blunt statement. The syntax here provides evidence as to how Sedaris believed that simply picking no one at all, or someone you do not believe in, would do no good to society and would simply bring “broken glass” into the mix.
In addition to the distinct tone, personal anecdotes and comedic situations were truly able to showcase Sedaris’ perception of the undecided voter.

“The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it besides my seat. ‘Can I interest you in the chicken?’ she asks. ‘Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it.’ To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.” This is a very strong and absolute comparison, making one choice undoubtedly better than the other, just as one candidate would be better than the other. Describing the time that his mother had taken him out to the election polls in order to have him make a decision on a candidate for her, Sedaris makes sure to note her saying, “I don’t have an opinion.” Her general anxiety and need to get out of the polling machine was evident, as she pointed out how they were wasting too much time and that David wasn’t making a decision quickly enough. When she had finally had enough, both David and his mother reached for two different candidates, him going for Nixon while she went for true choice, Humphrey, but David had hit the button quicker than she. This is quite notable and important to Sedaris’ experience with undecided voters, showing how he thought that they were simply, just like his mother, unable to come to terms with their true choice, choosing to stand behind a “child” of sorts. Later, when talking about

voting as a legal adult for the first time, he said that he had identified himself as a “maverick” and someone who was original, implying that he was someone who would be able to make decisions on his own, a direct contrast to his own mother. Although his reasonings for wanting to vote for Jerry Brown, a possible pot smoker, were far reaching, he was confident in his choosings and felt as though his choice was an obvious pick.
David Sedaris takes the time to explain to the audience of this piece, through sarcastic tones, comedic situations, and personal anecdotes, why he feels that the undecided voter is only trying to convince themselves that they are undecided, trying to avoid confronting their true feelings. But simply staying undecided isn’t an option, just as the “platter of shit with pieces of broken glass in it” isn’t. It’ll seem positive and as though you’re doing yourself, and others, a favor by going with such a choice, but it’s quite important to take the broken glass into consideration and realize that it’ll end well for no one.