American journalist and writer, David Remnick, expressed the country’s deepest concerns on the Presidential Election in his New York Times article, “An American Tragedy.” Published precisely after Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, the compelling article voiced how utterly distraught Remnick felt about the pressing events and mediated what he felt Hillary supporters, immigrants, and all threatened people felt towards Trump. He began his article on a doomful and defeated note addressing his title and main argument: Donald Trump’s election and presidency are an American tragedy. He presented his “revulsion and anxiety” toward the presidency, the “miseries” we could potentially look forward to, and how the course of events …show more content…
Remnick’s introductory sentence argues, “The election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is nothing less than a tragedy for the American republic, a tragedy for the Constitution, and a triumph for the forces, at home and abroad, of nativism, authoritarianism, misogyny, and racism.” In saying this, Remnick addresses that there are compulsory forces, here in America, that abide by these ideals. His argument folds out that because the people and the electorate have elected Trump as president, that the nation will inevitably decline and suffer politically, economically, and socially. Donald Trump becoming president was only made possible because in the same way that Remnick’s voice mediated for the populace of distraught women, Muslims, Hispanics, Jews, and, African-Americans, Trump mediates for white voters with correlating ideals. Trump is the President of the United States because his supporters and voters see in him they 're culminating America; which Remnick points out will inevitably result in
Rick Perlstein argues over whether "Nixonland", a country at war with itself, still resides in the heart of America. The book took a in depth look at Nixon’s political career from the beginning up to the outcome of the 1972 election, as well as how America’s political scene went from perceived consensus in the LBJ era to the bitterly divided right versus left, also known as the red state/blue state split. Perlstein’s argument is that we are still living in Nixonland. “Nixonland” is a study of the consensus, it isn’t just about Nixon, he isn’t the protagonist of Nixonland although it does include his rise and fall; instead, the protagonist of Nixonland is the American voter who found themselves voting Democrat in 1964 and then Republican in 1972 for the same reasons. This book covers the American political and cultural terrain from LBJ’s liberal landslide in 1964, through Nixon’s comeback in 1968, and land...
In chapter one, Fiorina begins with a powerful quote from Pat Buchanan’s 1992 speech at the Republican National Convention, “There is a religious war…a cultural war as critical to the…nation…as the cold war…for this war is for the soul of America” (Fiorina et al. 1). Using several other quotes, he illustrates the belief that the nation is torn between personal morals and extreme conservative notions. He then states his belief that these sentiments are complete nonsense, and exaggerations. There is no culture war according to Fiorina, no war for the soul of America. Describing the culture war as a myth caused by lack of information, misrepresentation of facts by activists, and selective media coverage. He suggests that Americans are essentially bystanders avoiding the cross fire between the left and right wing activists. Furthermore, he contrasts that it is the American choices that are polarized due to politicians, thus creating the appearance of a politically polarized society. Finally, he concludes the first chapter by outlining his argument in the following chapters. Fiorina does an exceptional job hooking the reader with his first chapter, the quotes and various examples of how America is portrayed as polarized are effective in swaying the audience to agree and then he shocks the reader by debunking all previous statements with his personal beliefs and outline for how he plans to prove his argument.
He attempts to shock his reader into believing America is falling apart by comparing the diverse cultures that are active in it today. At one point in the essay, Buchanan writes “Our population is down to 67 percent European, and falling; 14.5 percent Hispanic and rising rapidly, 13 percent black and holding, and 4.5 percent Asian and rising” (599). The usage of “Our” in the sense of talking about Americans is a viewpoint that excludes anyone who is not white from being a true American. In addition, Buchanan is segregating the population by the color of their skin and creating an ethnic hierarchy. By only including white people in the definition of an American, Buchanan is showing an ethnocentric trait that Fredrickson analysed in his own essay. Fredrickson describes this changing viewpoint in American society when he examines the acceptance of all white people and the differences between colored people growing “more striking and salient than ever” (567). In general, Buchanan does not recognize the differences between white people, focusing primarily on the differences between white and non-white people. The correlation between the statistics he presents and the color of people’s skin undoubtedly prove Buchanan’s take on skin color and their ability to be American. This trait within Buchanan’s writing, coupled with the non-acceptance of colored people, has a strong presence throughout his essay, ultimately weakening his
Meacham discusses the upcoming elections to show the reader the power is in their own hands. Throughout the article he explains the President’s intentions in their election. He concludes the presidential talk stating, ”… both men will talk about the American Dream, but no single politician can restore the faith of our fathers and mothers. That 's up to all of us.” The President elected cannot restore America himself; the people must also place themselves in the best circumstance for
A president has to have character, right? I mean, if the leader of the free world has no substance, nothing special about him, then how do we as citizens know that he is capable as far as foreign policies go. How do we know that we can trust him to make wise decisions? How do we know that he will tell us the truth? This concept is exactly what fictional president Andrew Shepherd successfully conveys in his “Address to the Press on Bob Rumson and the Crime Bill.” In the movie, The American President, Andrew Shepherd becomes romantically involved with crime bill lobbyist Sydney Ellen Wade. Many characters, including Bob Rumson, believe that the relationship between Shepherd and Wade is hindering the advancement of the country. They believe that this relationship shows lack of character, and it is made apparent to Shepherd through the side comments and actions of those opposing him. In the closing scenes of the movie, Shepherd is found defending himself and his character through the form of a rhetorical speech. He convincingly uses pathos to appeal to his audience’s sense of nationality and pride.
Carmichael views America as a system that refuses to acknowledge the issue of race in an honest fashion. Because the holders of the country’s power, Whites, have no sense of urgency in the matter, it is comfortable taking its time in addressing such “inconvenient” problems. When the current power structure leaves those at the top of it in a particularly comfortable state, the desire to make changes that would only allow for others to have equal chance to take such a seat is unlikely.
Contextual analysis is made up of three basic components; intended audience, setting and most importantly purpose. Authors often times consider and work each contextual piece into the construction of their given argument. An argument is not powerful if audience preference is not a main concern, if the setting isn’t taken into consideration, or if the purpose is not relevant to the current situation. On January 28th, 1986 the shuttle challenger exploded 73 seconds into its take off. President Ronald Reagan wrote a critical speech to address the tragedy that had struck our nation that day. It is highly evident in his address that kept audience, setting, and purpose in mind. He comforts a worried public using calm tone and simple yet effective diction to convince the American nation that it’s necessary to go on and continue the space program and ultimately the scientific revolution.
As one of the presidents during the Progressive Era, Theodore Roosevelt led the United States of America through a series of dramatic changes that interrupted the lives and ideologies that Americans during the time were more than familiarized with. Industrialization, women’s suffrage, the sexual revolution, imperialism, and “muckraking” journalism were just a few of the controversial, yet significant characteristics of this era. However, perhaps one of the largest and most vital influences during this time period came from the outside. Immigration was an issue that Roosevelt himself addressed rather perceptibly in his paper entitled “True Americanism,” which first appeared in a magazine called The Forum in April, 1894. However, it is not the idea of immigration that vexed Roosevelt; rather it was his concern and fear of the possibility that the increase in immigration of foreign people and cultures would culminate the concept of American patriotism, or “Americanism” as a whole. This paper will analyze the different elements of Roosevelt’s “True Americanism” by exploring the historical context of the document, highlighting Americanism as Roosevelt explicates it, observing the rhetoric used throughout the document, and discerning Roosevelt’s intended audience.
Stephanie Coontz’s, David Brook’s, and Margaret Atwood all discuss American cultural myths in their respective essays “The Way We Wish We Were,” “One Nation, Slightly Divisible,” and “A Letter to America.” All three authors elaborate on specific cultural myths, whether it is about an ideal family, an ideal lifestyle, or an ideal country as a whole. As a result of analyzing the three texts, it is clear that the authors critique Americas image in their own was. As well as elaborate on why the realistic view of the United States is being squelched by major cultural myths.
The American Presidency is undoubtedly one of the most widely recognized popular icons throughout the world. Although to most foreigners or those who have never resided in the United States or know little of its history, the executive branch of government may seem to be as dull and unyielding as the rest of the American politics, for those few rare individuals who have taken the time to examine and closely scrutinize this office of the American political system and its recent history, quite the opposite will be said. Unlike Congressional or local elections where typically a number of individuals of the same ideological background must be elected in order for a particular issue to be addressed by the government, when it comes to the presidency, one person, although checked by various other divisions of the same government, has the power and responsibility to literally, as history has proven, change the world. The American people, "like all people everywhere, want to have our (political) cake and eat it too. We want a lot of leadership, but we are notoriously lousy followers" (Genovese). In other words the expectations the public has of the executive office are ever-changing since we demand that our leaders keep up with the evolving world around us and them. Throughout the past seventy eventful years alone, the American people's views, perceptions and demands of the Executive Office of American government have evolved simultaneously with the political and social events of that same time period.
American Psycho is a savage account of a wealthy investment banker in the late 80s that commits heinous acts of murder, rape, and torture. Although on the surface, American Psycho seems as though it is just another horror story, it actually has a much deeper message. This story is a harsh critique of a superficial Wall Street society in the late 80s that was rampant with materialism and greed. This is the society in which the main character Patrick Bateman lives–where appearance, material possessions, and status define a person. This superficial existence leaves him hollow and dead inside and turns him into a psychopathic killer. A society such as this, devoid of any morality, inevitably creates psychopaths such as Bateman. The film shows an excellent portrayal of a vacant, nihilistic killer with no feelings or emotions. However, there is something more to the story that the film did not quite capture. The book seems to not only be a satirical take on this society, but a tragedy as well. Recreating the dinner scene with his secretary Jean shows that underneath the surface Patrick Bateman is, indeed, a human being with real feelings and emotions, and that it is a great tragedy that this superficial society has turned him into a monster.
There are many aspects of Theodore Dreiser's An American Tragedy that involve the moral decision versus the immoral decision and God. The main theme that Dreiser maintains throughout the novel is Immorality. Each character in the novel possesses one or more characteristics that show that he or she is partially immoral. When combined, all these elements have a strong message, that there is consequence to straying from God's path.Clyde Griffiths is the perfect example of how a person is led from God's light. At the beginning of the novel, his character is the son of poor missionary parents.
Clinton expresses his idea of the essay with a neutral, objective tone. Indeed, he shows what happened to immigrants as the victims of “suspicion and violence and discrimination” by mentioning the incidents in the history of America such as “No dog or Irish,” “Chinese were barred from entering the country,” “Southern and Eastern European were forced to take literacy tests specifically” (Clinton, par. 6). Using the parallel structure in the paragraph “So great was,” “So profound was,” Clinton wants to emphasize the fact that American government has made ridiculous mistakes about immigrants in the past. Furthermore, the opposite words is used for each incidents in order to create the sarcastic mood and mainly to make fun of the “American with suspicion” (Clinton, par. 6). Next, Clinton uses “we” from time to time so as to appeal the common sense among the readers, especially US citizens. “We must decide,” “We must remember,” “We should treat” is used with the specific action as a proposal to join with the president of the United States to solve the immigrants issue. The author successfully build the strong connection between him and the audience because he makes them more important when they are involving in the national great
Life, it can be beautiful, happy, or sad. Life can be any emotion that you can think of. An American Tragedy, by Theodore Dreiser, puts us through all these emotions in showing us the extremes in happiness, sadness, anger, and many other emotions to show us what real life is like. To do this most accurately, Dreiser bases his two-book story on a true-life tale about a man and what his rage did to his life.
The birth of an American nation began with the establishment of various colonies along the east approximately next to the abundant Atlantic Ocean. The colonies can be divided into 4 units. The colonies that settled in the New World were New England, Chesapeake, Middle Colonies, and the Carolinas. The European immigrants thought themselves as being the first inhabitants of the new nation, but were faced with a reality that Native Americans were already settled in the land. What was to come was years of hardship and war.