Outside Reading Set #5: Editorial

3/21/11

“A Can-Do Nation”

Bill Bradley

Editorial

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1604984,00.html

“Why are we still addicted to oil? Why do 47 million Americans lack health insurance?” By opening his editorial with weighty rhetorical questions, Bill Bradley immediately begins to craft a strong voice. Within the questions themselves, he uses specific statistics to appeal emotionally to readers. “47 million” becomes a rallying point for him. By including these convincing details, Bradley effectively stirs a reaction in readers; they cannot help but be drawn into his argument. To further shape his voice and argument, Bradley cites the opposite viewpoint: “It’s a ‘can’t do’ story—as in ‘We can’t save Social Security’ or ‘We can’t cure our oil addiction.’” With conviction, however, he completely cuts it down: “Historically…We have been open, generous, expansive, forward looking, creative, egalitarian, and optimistic. And that’s who we still are today. All we need is a new story about what is possible—and the political courage to honor our best selves.”

Throughout his article, Bradley repeatedly employs parallel structure. This syntactical device lends more authority and musicality to his voice. Instead of a loosely structured opinion essay, he presents a powerful, packed, speech-like piece. First, Bradley insists on facing the truth: “No lying. No fudging the numbers. Just the truth about our current moment—which means facing up to the consequences…” Starting these three sentences with an unusual construction gives them more punch and creates a more confident voice. “Certainly, we can regain the world’s respect. Certainly, we can achieve balanced economic growth and assure all our citizens health care for their families, a good education for their children and security in their old age.” Placing such an extreme word at the beginning of the sentence lends “certainty” to the statement itself. Through parallel structure and strategic arrangement of key words in sentences, Bradley crafts a thoroughly impassioned, opinionated voice.

To further contribute to his argument, Bradley effectively evokes the connotations of certain imagery. Most importantly, he describes the American flag to illustrate the importance of unity: “As Americans, we are not red or blue; we are red, white and blue.” Because most people link patriotism strongly with those three colors, Bradley cleverly introduces this concept without directly mentioning the word. To point out America’s future hope, Bradley alludes to an image of its successful past: “One look at the iconic Apollo image of Earth from space is all it takes to realize that our continuing welfare is a global proposition and each of us is responsible for it.” Bradley’s use of imagery to promote concepts, especially broad ones such as non-partisanship and determination for the future, add to the strength of his voice.

The engaging nature of this piece is its biggest strength. Bradley’s oratory style captivates me as a reader and poses a thoroughly convincing argument. On the other hand, this may also be a weakness of the piece. Bradley is so caught up with big statements about cooperation and unity that he fails to address the nuances of how to achieve those goals. Readers feel empowered after reading this article, but Bradley provides almost no details on how to practically apply all of his grandiose statements. Precisely due to the oratorical nature of this piece, the voice is not appropriate for the AP exam. The AP exam requires a formal and logically structured piece. Bradley’s voice creates a less organized speech which has more emotional than logical merit.