Republicans, Zealots, and Our Security

Http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/24kristof.html?ref=opinion#


This article begins with the promise of an outspoken contributor who will put all American controversies in focus and determine which course of action will be eventually self-destructive, detailing the financial and social consequences of an America after each political group has had its fair share of time directing policy. The title and first part of the introduction address the impracticality of worrying about terrorism when internal divisions are proving to be more destructive. However, the author, Nicholas Kristof, goes on to prove his point by citing the political theories of various groups, mainly Republicans, as the eventual source of America's downfall. Although I agree that conservative financial plans could conflict with public interests, I feel that Kristof did not give any real support to his undeveloped claims. In terms of actual controversies that he could have used to strengthen his argument by referring to the negative effects of uncompromising party leaders, and how the lack of direction from unending debate hurts the nation and delays any sort of progress, instead he neglects the actual debate and limits the article's scope to his own opinions. There are a few quotes, but they're lost in the recurring instances of back-and-forth between himself, when he tries to include some fact and flounders when he realizes that it doesn't line up accordingly with his original statements. He never allows his argument to evolve, and for this reason I had trouble taking this article seriously, even though I agreed with what I thought might have been his fundamental point, that current debates about policy seem unprecedented in their lack of solution and any real compromise. I understand that opinion articles might not be the most factually-based and well-formulated, but I wish this has carried some sort of weight and generated some influence, but I was too caught up in this article's ineffectiveness to really understand the problem he was addressing. I'll stick to other sections next time.