Everyone has an opinion on politics, particularly in these times of economic uncertainty. Regardless of a person’s individual politics, there seems to be a columnist or blogger for everyone. In many cases, they also write books, appear on news shows, and generally saturate the political arena with their own two cents.
Columnist, Richard Reeves is not different. His column, which comes from a liberal perspective (as opposed to a conservative, the two major splits in political commentary) is one I have followed since just before the election of President Obama. Liking both his style and approach, I have stayed steady in following his weekly column on Uexpress.com. Reeves politics are much like my own and the tone of rationale pervading his contributions is very appealing.
As a seasoned veteran of political writing (I read his biography), he uses quotes, plain speaking terms, history as well as personal memory to flesh out his opinions.In his March 6, 2009 column, “Which Way is Right For the Right?” Reeve’s addresses the role and reaction of the Republican Party in the recent economic climate. His tools in this column are limited to quotes, logic, and a little humor. Also, as with many of his columns, Reeves uses a particular instance as a springboard for his argument. In this case it was the Political Action Committee convention during the previous week. By basing the column from a specific starting point, providing it with a setting so to speak, Reeves is able to provide not only an ideological perspective but also to tie it into the physical reality.
The name, Conservative Political Action Committee, heavy connotations. While it is certainly not of Reeves own invention, I have no doubt that he realized the effects of this maneuver.Another mainstay of Reeves columns, and a strong support for his own arguments, are quotes. I have not in the few short months I have been reading Reeves encountered a column without a quote. While this is hardly a rarity in journalism, Reeves utilizes the quotes not to argue his point for him but rather to show his point to the reader. He allows, in many cases, for the object of his attention to speak for themselves.
As with any political column, whether liberal, conservative or just somewhere in between, Reeves uses quotes that assist him in showing the proof or discrepancies through the arguments of others.Read also Criminology Case Study.For instance, in the March 6 column, Reeves quotes William Kristol who is the editor of the conservative publication The Weekly Standard. Kristol spoke on the conservatives need to disrupt without alternative many of the policies currently being pushed by President Obama. Reeves quoted Kristol as explaining, “Republicans will be “reduced to the unpleasant role of bystanders or the unattractive status of complainers, as Barack Obama makes history.
” To me, this could and does sound much like a child planning to sabotage the whole party, simply because they were not invited. Reeves’ reasoning for including this quote was just that. As he explains it “looks a lot like self-destructive behavior by elected officials and thinkers of the Right.” With any politically oriented writer, the message is constructed in what is chosen to be included and Reeve’s has a talent for finding just the right tidbit to get his point across.Writing a case study will never be a problem!In this column, Reeves point is not to bash Republicans or further a particular agenda. His point is instead, to show the problem with some conservative policymakers and figureheads in calling for a boycott of the president to pull the rug out from under the Democratic party as a whole.
Reeves advocates logically determining policies not because of party line definitions but actual belief and substance. At present, this is not the case, “laws are such that principled conservatives are essentially forced to fill the shell of Republicanism, as liberals are almost forced to be Democrats. We have pretty much eliminated third parties with laws that are really contracts between the two parties to preserve each other.”Lastly, Reeves columns would not be complete without the touch of wry humor and plain wording he uses to convey his arguments to a wider audience. His humor does not lessen his criticism, in fact in many cases it highlights. Writing on William Kristol’s plans for the Republican Party, he recommends a solution.
Also speaking at the convention was a 13-year-old boy from Minnesota, Jonathan Krohn, who wrote a book on defining conservatism. Noting the excellent speech made by Krohn, Reeves commended the boy for his idealism, which makes for substance in action and belief. Rather than upending the Democratic Party and President Obama by opposing policy measures, Reeves offers another solution, “I another idea for them. Conservatives/Republicans should wait 22 years, until Jonathan Krohn is old enough to run for president.” The subtly of the jab at the conservative base represented by Kristol is brilliant and dual edged.
It implies that the party would be better led by the ideals of a 13 year old boy than the seasoned politicians and lobbyists that make up its present base and underlines through this implication the problems with partisan politics and the power struggle that undermines the workings of the American political system.Works CitedReeves, Richard. “Which Way is Right for the Right? 6 March 2009. Uexpress.com. 23 March 2009 http://www.uexpress.com/richardreeves/?uc_full_date=20090306.