Outside Reading #2: Editorial

Paul Krugman’s latest editorial for the New York Times, The Hijacked Commission, is a biting critique of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Krugman opens with a stab at so-called bipartisanship; the cochairmen of the commission are from opposing parties, Krugman begins his argument by summarizing the “supposedly bipartisan” panel’s work as the usual “compromise between the center-right and the hard-right.”   Krugman, using reader-inclusive techniques and a well structured argument, goes on to refute all the work of the Commission.

The editorial has all the elements of a tirade without anger and with reason. Krugman uses ‘we’ to include the reader in his view point, so automatically one has a tendency to agree with him. An even more personal ‘you’ is used when Krugman is talking about a crux of his argument, such as tax reform and social security, to show that these issues really affect the reader.  Inquiries a reader are likely to make appear in the form of rhetorical questions.  These are included to lead in to new issues and to bring up counter-arguments, however Krugman neatly swats them down creating a mocking tone; but the conviction of his reasons and evidence does convey serious, truthful and slightly depressing undertones.

Krugman’s voice goes hand-in-hand with the aforementioned tone of mockery. He is eloquent and witty but his editorials are written for a relatively broad audience, therefore his voice seems almost colloquial, connecting to the reader in instances such as “And how is this to be achieved? By ‘establishing a process to regularly evaluate cost growth’ and taking ‘additional steps as needed.’ What does that mean? I have no idea.” Krugman voice draws the reader onto his side very similar to his language techniques. Of the commission he states “it was even worse than the cynics expected.” This adds to his own cynical and mocking tone. He never misses an opportunity to make fun of the power point, pointing out “that the PowerPoint contains nice-looking charts”. He is making a very serious point, however, and he uses his intellect, not mocking to reiterate it.

As a regular columnist Krugman is no stranger to writing a well structured and convincing argument and this week’s is no exception. Krugman opens the editorial by discrediting the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. And continues to refute them in every possible way complete with solid evidence and example that play on the reader’s emotions.

This editorial is an adequate AP essay. Technique is perfect along with structure. He has a strong and opinionated voice but it does not take away from its credibility.