Fangzhou Chen
Professor Ray
English 1A 1243
08/27/2016
Assignment 1
Rhetorical Analysis of “ Why is‘Compromise’ Now a Dirty Word? ”
When it comes to compromise, what is the first thing that comes out from your mind? Is it an advantage or disadvantage? The answers to this question vary from people to people, regions to regions. People who regard compromise as an advantage, say that compromise helps reach a mutual agreement among conflicting groups. Other people might disagree, arguing that compromise is unfair to those who have already been in the upper position. Deborah Tannen’s article, “ Why is ‘Compromise’ Now a Dirty Word? ”, published on Politico, a famous website for political issues on June 15, 2011, discusses her opinions about compromise from the current political perspective. This text is effective in using pathos to convince readers that why people show no interest in using the word compromise nowadays.
Tannen mentions that compromise was easy to achieve in the past. In order to support her point, she uses former senator Henry Clay’s example (Deborah Tannen, 146). Dated back to the 1800s, when there was a huge conflict between the south and the east, senator Henry Clay made the Missouri Compromise to delay the outbreak of the Civil War for at least ten years (Tannen, 146). For him, mutual agreements always come first when compared to legislation, government, even the whole society (146). His practical opinions are barely heard in the political arena nowadays. Second, the author mentions that compromise is hard to achieve due to the intensive political rights nowadays (145). Most of the political figures nowadays have a negative attitude towards compromise. Some regard compromise as losers while others reject the use of this word (145). She specifically points out the two-party (the Republican Party and the Democratic Party) system (147). The original goal for the two-party system is to balance and check the power. But two parties hardly compromise after senator Henry Clay. Therefore, the senate and the house can’t do their jobs as expected (147). In addition, the news media, such as the newspaper, TV and the radios, tend to magnify the conflict between two parties, which makes the compromise more difficult to achieve (147). When the willingness of compromise fades out, the democracy of this country is in danger (148). This article is organized through comparison and contrast. …show more content…
In terms of explaining why it is hard to compromise nowadays, the author compares the political figures from different time periods. One of them is former senator Henry Clay, also known as “ ‘the great compromiser’ ” (146). Thanks to his “ Missouri Compromise”, the Civil War was postponed (146). However, in today’s politics, “ ‘compromise is the companion of losers’ ” (145). Through the different attitudes towards politics, we are able to indicate why it is hard to compromise. In addition, the author compares the connotations over time (145). The culture of not compromise spread from political arena to our daily life. When compromise represents “sell me out” in non-political settings, we have no wonder why people complain President Barack Obama about his compromise on universal health coverage (145). Tannen’s article uses some logical appeals, especially fact-based logical appeal to persuade readers. Here are two examples. First, the author mentions that “ the two-party system is oppositional by nature” (147). Under our political structure, there are two main parties competing to govern the country. This is a well-known fact. Second, the author mentions the “ Missouri Compromise” (146). This historical event happened in 1850 (146). Therefore, it is also a fact-based logical appeal. Tannen’s article has a lot to deal with the pathos. We can find three examples in her article. First, when the author mentions John Boehner, the word “reject” satisfies pathos very well (145). “Reject” has a strong mood, conveying a sense of refusal (145). By using “reject”, readers know there are no space for the compromise. Second, Tony Perkins’ “ companion of losers” also falls in this category (145). “Losers” is a negative word. When readers think of “losers”, they think of failure. Third, “as we confront crucial issues” utilizes this appeal (145). The word “confront” originates readers’ tension and set an uncomfortable tone for the whole sentence. This article also uses ethos. Two examples come to our attention. First, “I wrote
Professor Ray
English 1A 1243
08/27/2016
Assignment 1
Rhetorical Analysis of “ Why is‘Compromise’ Now a Dirty Word? ”
When it comes to compromise, what is the first thing that comes out from your mind? Is it an advantage or disadvantage? The answers to this question vary from people to people, regions to regions. People who regard compromise as an advantage, say that compromise helps reach a mutual agreement among conflicting groups. Other people might disagree, arguing that compromise is unfair to those who have already been in the upper position. Deborah Tannen’s article, “ Why is ‘Compromise’ Now a Dirty Word? ”, published on Politico, a famous website for political issues on June 15, 2011, discusses her opinions about compromise from the current political perspective. This text is effective in using pathos to convince readers that why people show no interest in using the word compromise nowadays.
Tannen mentions that compromise was easy to achieve in the past. In order to support her point, she uses former senator Henry Clay’s example (Deborah Tannen, 146). Dated back to the 1800s, when there was a huge conflict between the south and the east, senator Henry Clay made the Missouri Compromise to delay the outbreak of the Civil War for at least ten years (Tannen, 146). For him, mutual agreements always come first when compared to legislation, government, even the whole society (146). His practical opinions are barely heard in the political arena nowadays. Second, the author mentions that compromise is hard to achieve due to the intensive political rights nowadays (145). Most of the political figures nowadays have a negative attitude towards compromise. Some regard compromise as losers while others reject the use of this word (145). She specifically points out the two-party (the Republican Party and the Democratic Party) system (147). The original goal for the two-party system is to balance and check the power. But two parties hardly compromise after senator Henry Clay. Therefore, the senate and the house can’t do their jobs as expected (147). In addition, the news media, such as the newspaper, TV and the radios, tend to magnify the conflict between two parties, which makes the compromise more difficult to achieve (147). When the willingness of compromise fades out, the democracy of this country is in danger (148). This article is organized through comparison and contrast. …show more content…
In terms of explaining why it is hard to compromise nowadays, the author compares the political figures from different time periods. One of them is former senator Henry Clay, also known as “ ‘the great compromiser’ ” (146). Thanks to his “ Missouri Compromise”, the Civil War was postponed (146). However, in today’s politics, “ ‘compromise is the companion of losers’ ” (145). Through the different attitudes towards politics, we are able to indicate why it is hard to compromise. In addition, the author compares the connotations over time (145). The culture of not compromise spread from political arena to our daily life. When compromise represents “sell me out” in non-political settings, we have no wonder why people complain President Barack Obama about his compromise on universal health coverage (145). Tannen’s article uses some logical appeals, especially fact-based logical appeal to persuade readers. Here are two examples. First, the author mentions that “ the two-party system is oppositional by nature” (147). Under our political structure, there are two main parties competing to govern the country. This is a well-known fact. Second, the author mentions the “ Missouri Compromise” (146). This historical event happened in 1850 (146). Therefore, it is also a fact-based logical appeal. Tannen’s article has a lot to deal with the pathos. We can find three examples in her article. First, when the author mentions John Boehner, the word “reject” satisfies pathos very well (145). “Reject” has a strong mood, conveying a sense of refusal (145). By using “reject”, readers know there are no space for the compromise. Second, Tony Perkins’ “ companion of losers” also falls in this category (145). “Losers” is a negative word. When readers think of “losers”, they think of failure. Third, “as we confront crucial issues” utilizes this appeal (145). The word “confront” originates readers’ tension and set an uncomfortable tone for the whole sentence. This article also uses ethos. Two examples come to our attention. First, “I wrote