Outside Reading: Editorial

Thomas Friedman, opinionated yet reasonable, clear and to-the-point, and intelligent. In his editorial, Cut Here. Invest There, all his trademark styles and techniques shine through. Friedman opens with a clear stance, a strong backing of the President’s position and an intent to dismantle the GOP’s position with his methodical arguments.
He sets the tone with the biting, almost satirical, statement, “The country, we are told, is now in a better mood, seeing our two parties work together.” He then confirms the direction of the article by saying “I, alas, am not in a better mood.” His voice is blunt and his tone reflects his mood.
Friedman uses bitter language to shape his voice, introducing his grievances by saying, “I’ll be in a better mood when I see our two parties cooperating to do something hard. Borrowing billions more from China to give ourselves more tax cuts does not qualify.” If this sentence came from someone else I would think it was a comedic attempt but it is clear Friedman is serious. This somberness makes the reader afraid. This is what Friedman wants, he, all too often, instills fear and then offers the light, the way out.
Friedman reaches his main point after giving the reader adequate background. Being as clear and as forceful as possible he puts the issue to the reader, “We are leaving an era where to be a mayor, governor, senator or president was, on balance, to give things away to people. And we are entering an era where to be a leader will mean, on balance, to take things away from people.” Friedman’s voice, as an intellect, is definitely elevated; not on the level of Shakespeare or Tennyson, but more elevated than the rest of the NY Times.
Friedman continues his blunt style and with almost comedic voice states, “Everyone knows the first rule of holes: When you’re in one, stop digging. But people often forget the second rule of holes: You can only grow your way out. You can’t borrow your way out.” The way he simply proves his point makes his argument soundproof. Because of this water tight argument, this essay would be perfect as an AP essay. He lays out his claims and then systematically proves them with solid evidence backing them up. In relation to his voice- as usual it is very opinionated but not enough to be detrimental to his writing.
A well written persuasive essay using multiple techniques to create a strong and methodical voice.