Poverty in America is kind of like education reform in America. They're both widely-debated topics that are more often discussed by the elites of society than by those whom they actually affect. (Elites, in this case, can be defined by people who have the power to influence policy and implement change, but not necessarily big-wigs in DC.) In any case, one should hope to uncover a nugget of truth or advice when reading about controversial issues such as these. Like Zakaria's article in TIME, however, the piece provided no original argument. Actually, I had trouble finding a thesis, other than the sweeping comment that weakly concluded the piece: "...unless the nation reverses directions, more are going to find out [what it's like to live in poverty]."
The author provides a lot of logical evidence by citing various studies, but fails to properly analyze them. Oddly, he seems to have to problem of 'leading' with details rather than with his own ideas. The lack of elaboration about the statistics further weakens the argument. A shallow reminder that Republicans scorn social welfare (a somewhat accurate though overly-simplified statement) is the author's acknowledgment of the counterargument. (But again, there was no argument to counter!)
A deeper problem with the lack of depth in the article has more to do with the audience than with the argument. I felt alienated from the first rhetorical question the author posed. Very fortunately, I don't know what it's like to live below the poverty line, but I do know people who struggle every day. To callously ask, "What is it like to be poor?" and not sufficiently answer the question, I feel, is disrespectful. In other words, the author should have taken the time to include anecdotes of those who actually have experienced what it's like to "be poor." They're not numbers to be described on paper in complicated studies - they're people who need to be helped. Why didn't the author offer possible solutions, instead of berating us with cold facts?
The author provides a lot of logical evidence by citing various studies, but fails to properly analyze them. Oddly, he seems to have to problem of 'leading' with details rather than with his own ideas. The lack of elaboration about the statistics further weakens the argument. A shallow reminder that Republicans scorn social welfare (a somewhat accurate though overly-simplified statement) is the author's acknowledgment of the counterargument. (But again, there was no argument to counter!)
A deeper problem with the lack of depth in the article has more to do with the audience than with the argument. I felt alienated from the first rhetorical question the author posed. Very fortunately, I don't know what it's like to live below the poverty line, but I do know people who struggle every day. To callously ask, "What is it like to be poor?" and not sufficiently answer the question, I feel, is disrespectful. In other words, the author should have taken the time to include anecdotes of those who actually have experienced what it's like to "be poor." They're not numbers to be described on paper in complicated studies - they're people who need to be helped. Why didn't the author offer possible solutions, instead of berating us with cold facts?
No comments:
Post a Comment