TOW #19 – “I'm a Democrat (and Ex-CIA) but the Spies Plotting against Trump Are out of Control” by Bryan Dean Wright

Written transparently by former CIA officer Bryan Dean Wright, the editorial “I'm a Democrat (and Ex-CIA) but the Spies Plotting against Trump Are out of Control” reflects the perspective that American spies are not following proper legal proceedings. The danger, Wright argues, lies in this invalid assumption of responsibility to investigate Trump’s relationship with Russia. It is evident that American spies must follow the appropriate legal process to truly preserve American democracy; what separates the treason of a CIA officer from that of an executive? Wright defends this argument by describing the “slippery slope of political tribalism,” (Wright) which is the expected reactionary process in America’s bipartisan system that would defeat effective democracy. It is apparent that both conservative and liberal power-seeking spies would disrupt the natural process of shifting executive power, and thus, we must heavily investigate spies to ensure they are working within their legal limits. Whereas the federal government recognizes the importance of investigating the relationship between Trump and Russia, Wright defends his position that this investigation must be carried out on a national level within “the Department of Justice or Congress” (Wright) to preserve American democracy. Written by a former CIA officer, who has assumed the legal responsibilities of this governmental position, this article shares a unique perspective with an immediate appeal to ethos. As an ex-CIA officer, Wright comments to liberal Americans that the proper process for checking the power of the President must be upheld. Furthermore, enforced by the Hatch Act, spies have a responsibility to stay out of governmental affairs unless they are designated specific permission to investigate a case. The Hatch Act reinforces the ideology that no spy – whether liberal or conservative – should assume the power to interfere with the American governmental process. In order to protect democracy, and in order to preserve our American identity, it is essential that Americans understand the risks associated with spies conducting private investigations under the law.

Works Cited

Wright, Bryan Dean. “I'm a Democrat (and Ex-CIA) but the Spies Plotting against Trump Are out of Control.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 18 Feb. 2017, www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/18/im-democrat-and-ex-cia-but-spies-plotting-against-trump-are-out-control.html. Accessed 19 Feb. 2017.

TOW #18 – Burly Tweed Cartoon by Thomas Nast

Thomas Nast's political cartoon portraying Burly Tweed

Thomas Nast’s cartoon featuring Burly Tweed, often portrayed as an overweight politician during the Gilded Age, had a significant impact in lessening Tweed’s power in New York City’s Tweed Ring. Placed in a position of power and control, Tweed manipulated the citizens of New York to fund his personal wealth, a sum of $200 million. Recognizing the apparent flaws of Tweed, Nast portrays him as a large figure with a money bag for a head to speak out against his fraud. Because “[h]onest citizens were cowed into silence [and p]rotesters found their tax assessments raised,” (Kennedy 505) Nast was placed in the difficult position of speaking out against Tweed’s fraud to the citizens of New York City. By using a money bag in place of Tweed’s head, Nast constructs an argument that many politicians, particularly Tweed, abuse their power to overrule the law. Additionally, Nast characterizes tweed by emphasizing his large size, particularly to emphasize his power over the government. Likewise, this portrayal of Tweed does not reflect him well, immediately assisting Nast to accomplish his purpose of showing the wrongdoings of Tweed and have him face prosecution. Tweed stands with his hands in his pockets to further the idea that he is hiding something from the government – an enormous sum of money that drove him to “[employ] bribery, graft, and fraudulent elections” (Kennedy 505). Evidently, Nast is taking a stance against a trend in the Gilded Age in which individuals were able to bypass the law for their own motivations. Furthermore, as speaking out individually against Tweed was proven ineffective by his retaliations, Nast was successful in relaying to the citizens of New York City that Tweed was wrongfully taking money. In drawing a money bag in place of his head and putting his hands in his pockets, Nast communicates nonverbally that change is necessary and that Tweed should face prosecution.

Works Cited

Bovsun, Mara. “How a Series of Political Cartoons by Artist Thomas Nast Helped Send William 'Boss' Tweed to Prison.” NY Daily News, 12 Dec. 2015, www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ink-clink-cartoons-send-boss-tweed-jail-article-1.2463810.

Kennedy, David M., et al. “The Era of Good Stealings.” The American Pageant, 13th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, 2006, pp. 505–506.

IRB Intro Post #3

To begin the second semester in the school year, I will be reading Heart of a Soldier written by James B. Stewart. As I have previously selected very political IRBs and TOWs, I want to refocus my interpretation to other forms of nonfiction works. Thus, Heart of a Soldier depicts a war hero who risks his own life helping others during the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11. This book is suggested to delve into “war, love and comradeship, danger and heroism,” which are qualities that were not present in my previous IRBs. I hope to gain an even greater appreciation for nonfiction works, as this book will likely make a strong appeal to pathos.

TOW #17 – “The Future Is Now” by Katherine Anne Porter

Following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII, the globe was effectively destabilized and a strong nuclear threat remained even into the 21^st century.  Recognizing the immense danger posed by atomic weaponry, Porter’s 1950 essay “The Future Is Now” took an unclear stance that while atomic warfare is dangerous, it should not be a cause of major concern. Porter, recognizing that she was speaking to Americans following WWII, commanded that “[i]n his pride to explore his universe to its unimaginable limits and to exceed his possible powers, [humans have] at last produced an embarrassing series of engines too powerful for their containers,” (Porter 196) which suggests Porter’s disapproval of atomic warfare. Later, she maintains, “I fail entirely to see why it is more criminal to kill a few thousand persons in one instant than it is to kill the same number slowly over a period of time,” (Porter 198) effectively delivering a counterargument to the destructiveness and damage caused by atomic bombs. Likewise, Porter upholds that “the invention of every new weapon of war has always been greeted with horror and righteous indignation,” (Porter 197) essentially stating that while there is fear surrounding the atomic bomb, we must move forward as a society. Evidently, the threat of nuclear arms is a constant topic of discussion even today in 2017, a clear disruption of global communication and cooperation. Thus, Porter underestimated the impact of this new warfare entirely, as it redefined military balance of power to require these incalculably destructive bombs. She optimistically exclaims, “it may be that what we have is a world not on the verge of flying apart, but an uncreated one … still in shapeless fragments,” (Porter 198) suggesting that atomic bombs will likely not cause global tensions. Still in the early stages of this new type of warfare, Porter did not effectively recognize the long-term impacts that these immediate threats may pose on a global level, invalidating a central position of her argument.

Works Cited

Porter, Katherine Anne. “The Future Is Now.” The Best American Essays of the Century, Edited by Joyce Carol Oates and Robert Atwan, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, 2000, pp. 193–198.

TOW #16 – "Politics" by Aristotle

In his book Politics, Aristotle attempts to define the ideal government within which inhabitants should be ruled. In order to best define the ideal government as applicable to circa 330 BCE, Aristotle effectively employs synecdoche and juxtaposition to demonstrate the advantages of an involved community. Describing the ideal leader, Aristotle states, “For every ruler who has been trained by the law judges well; and it would surely seem strange that a person should see better with two eyes, or hear better with two ears, or act better with two hands or feet, than many with many” (Aristotle 86). Relating to oligarchy, Aristotle essentially states that with the advisement of a council, a government may be more likely to prosper as opposed to under a single individual’s direction. He uses different parts of the body, relating to sight, hearing, and touch, to emphasize that a leader’s actions are subject to one’s own circumstances. Furthermore, he continues this use of synecdoche to suggest that involvement of “many [people]” contributes to a full, balanced government offering multiple perspectives and advantages. Additionally, Aristotle employs juxtaposition to show contrast between oligarchy and democracy; a distinction Aristotle deems relevant to his purpose. “Therefore we should rather say,” he recognizes, “that democracy is the form of government in which the free are rulers, and oligarchy in which the rich; it is only an accident that the free are the many and the rich are the few” (Aristotle 93). Identifying the importance of wealth of a leader, Aristotle composes an argument that a true democracy is one in which all inhabitants, inconsequential to wealth or possession or status, maintain an equal level of participation in governmental affairs. While written before modern developments to political science, this excerpt from Politics appeals to logos, as a government structured around the powerless is truly one of the people. Moreover, via his employment of synecdoche and juxtaposition of rich versus poor, Aristotle proposes a coherent argument to the effectiveness of government, of community.

Works Cited

Aristotle. Politics. New York, NY, Barnes &Amp; Noble, Inc., 2005.

TOW #15 – “The Optimism of Barack Obama”

Less than a week before the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, the Editorial Board of the New York Times published an article, The Optimism of Barack Obama, regarding the presidency of Barack Obama. Suggesting he is “one of the most popular presidents in recent decades,” (Board 1) the Editorial Board employs strong diction and statistical information to drive his argument to Americans that President Barack Obama was a progressive leader over his two terms in office. Connecting this presidency to President-elect Donald Trump, the board states, “the bigotry that president-elect Donald Trump capitalized on during his run for office [showed that] simply electing a black president would not magically dispel the prejudices that have dogged the country since its inception,” (Board 2) suggesting that while Obama’s presidency itself was progressive, it does not mean the nation has been automatically healed. With these connections, the Editorial Board includes the wording “magically dispel” in order to define what is expected of a president. Furthermore, the Editorial Board includes statistical data to remind Americans of some of President Obama’s accomplishments: “preserving or creating an average of 1.6 million jobs a year for four years” (Board 3) and “[reducing] Americans without insurance to a record low 9.1 percent in 2015” (Board 4). With this data, the Editorial Board produces a strong appeal to logos, logically proving several aspects of Obama’s presidency that defined him as a successful leader that Americans needed. The Editorial Board’s strong diction and use of statistical information assists to evoke emotions of patriotism in Americans, allowing the board to continue extensively on the beneficial impacts Obama has had on the nation. Moreover, given the identified rhetorical devices above, the Editorial Board demonstrated a focused argument to Americans that Obama’s optimism and leadership made him an effective executive to direct the nation.

Works Cited

Board, Editorial. “The Optimism of Barack Obama.” The New York Times, 15 Jan. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/01/14/opinion/sunday/the-optimism-of-barack-obama.html?ref=topics&_r=0, p. 10.

TOW #14 – “Cold War relic, present day threat”

Charles Krauthammer, a writer for the Washington Post and winner of the National Magazine Award for Essays and Criticism in 1984, wrote Cold War relic, present day threat to comment on practical solutions to the large threat North Korea poses to the United States of America. Krauthammer produces an effective argument through his rhetoric, including elements of listing and hyperbole to emphasize his argument. While Krauthammer recognizes that the United States’ “options are stark,” (Krauthammer) he continues to suggest multiple plans of action, including “preemptive attack,” (Krauthammer) shooting the test ICBM, and leveraging China. While he only provides a minimal addition to expand upon each of these possible plans, listing alternative routes shows how United States intervention in North Korea could be effective in deterring the threat they pose. Additionally, Krauthammer employs hyperbole to exaggerate to Americans the need for intervention in the first place. He claims that “[supporting Japan in acquiring nuclear weapons] is a radical step that goes against our general policy of nonproliferation. But the point is to halt proliferation to the infinitely more dangerous regime in North Korea” (Krauthammer). While North Korea poses a very large threat to the United States, Krauthammer employs hyperbole in his rhetoric via phrases like “infinitely more dangerous” to stress the enormous threat that North Korea poses with nuclear weaponry. Furthermore, he discusses the possibility of the United States violating this policy of nonproliferation as a “radical step” (Krauthammer) that can be taken if other plans were proven ineffective. Krauthammer’s editorial takes a very serious tone as it suggests nuclear armaments to counteract North Korea, but his employment of listing and hyperbole contributes to his purpose of describing the importance of United States action in North Korea. While military action is a very complicated and difficult process, Krauthammer proves a convincing argument to all Americans that governmental action can—and should—take place.

Works Cited

Krauthammer, Charles. “Cold War Relic, Present-Day Threat.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 5 Jan. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/cold-war-relic-present-day-threat/2017/01/05/623c720e-d384-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?utm_term=.a660d3b6baad.