An Austin American Statesman article published on October 1st, 2019 entitled “Brooks: Yes, Trump is Guilty, but Impeachment is a Mistake” by David Brooks gives some insight into the recent announcement of Trump’s impeachment trial. The author’s intended audience is clearly going to be those that are against Trump and support his impeachment. The title is “Brooks: Yes, Trump is Guilty, but Impeachment is a Mistake,” which shows the audience that Brooks concedes that Trump is guilty, but refutes that impeachment might not be worth it. This beginning technique ultimately draws in an audience that wants to know why they should be against impeachment, since the author shares their perspective that Trump is guilty. In addition, the Austin American Statesman is a local newspaper, which could intrigue many Austinites due to its unique way of looking at this impeachment hearing. In addition, it gives the author credibility as he is not another writer in Washington D.C., but rather someone who lives in Austin and understands the Texan take on things.
Brooks makes the claim that Trump did commit a crime by calling the Ukranian president, which is worthy of impeachment, but impeachment should still not have been enacted. This gives the reader a clear sense of what the author is trying to convey throughout this article through rhetorical appeals and evidence. He makes his values clear to the reader, revealing that this impeachment process against Trump is “completely elitist” because it is right during election season, showing the reader that he values fair trials that are in the best interest of the nation. In addition, he makes a variety of assumptions that reveal what could happen if the impeachment process does go through. These assumptions are well-placed, seeming more like convincing logic for why the reader should support his claim, but ultimately is an assumption regarding the possible future.
While he does insert many of his values and assumptions into this article, he also backs them up with clear evidence and reason, ultimately doing an adroit job of convincing the reader. After stating his main claim, he reminds the audience that “impeachment is a political process, not a legal one,” and that there is no obligation to go through an impeachment trial. He even goes on to insert a personal example, putting himself in the reader’s shoes by describing himself going to Waco, Nantucket, and Kansas City, only ever having one fellow journalist mention the ongoing impeachment proceedings. Throughout the article, the author uses ethos, pathos, and logos to convince the reader of his claim by proving himself to be a credible source through personal connection, having an emotional connection to the readers by sharing his values and beliefs regarding this impeachment trial, and using factual information to convince the reader.
The conclusion is not as strong as the rest of the article, being very brief. However, he does end with “An election can save the country. An inside-the-Beltway political brawl will not.” The author uses this to appeal to both the emotional and logical sense of his audience, realizing that they want to have a great presidential election this year and want this to elevate the country rather than be a political brawl due to this impeachment hearing. This article brings up the political implication of the Democrats gaining power if President Trump is removed from office, which could lead to a political brawl. While we may think that we know everything about this impeachment hearing, we must continue to read articles such as this one that give us a different perspective on the matter at hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment