328060

9/24/15
Period 4
Syndicated Columnist Project: Part One
Putins Gambit, Obamas Puzzlement
Once again, President Obama and his foreign policy team are stumped. Why is
Vladimir Putin pouring troops and weaponry into Syria? After all, as Secretary of
State John Kerry has thrice told his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, it is only
making things worse.
But worse for whom? For the additional thousands of civilians who will die or flee
as a result of the inevitably intensified fighting. True, and Im sure Lavrov is as
moved by their plight as by the 8,000 killed in Russias splendid little Ukrainian
adventure.
Kerry and Obama are serially surprised because they cannot fathom the hard men in
the Kremlin. Yet Putins objectives in Syria are blindingly obvious:
1. To assert Russias influence in the Middle East and make it the dominant outside
power. Putins highest ambition is to avenge and reverse Russias humiliating loss of
superpower status a quarter-century ago. Understanding this does not come easily to
an American president who for seven years has been assiduously curating Americas
decline abroad.
2. To sustain Russias major and long-standing Arab ally. Ever since Anwar Sadat
kicked the Soviets out of Egypt in 1972, Syrias Assads have been Russias principal
asset in the Middle East.

By Charles Krauthammer; Sept 17

Opens with rhetorical question
Sarcasm
Tone is evident (critical of Obama Administration)

Repeated use of rhetorical questions followed by answers builds sense of

superiority, judgement
Sarcasm (moved by their plight, splendid little adventure)

Mocking Administrations asserted naivety and spinelessness

Tone codified
Main Point: Obama Administration is not effectively handling Russian
Involvement in Syria

Organizational Shift

Numbered list emphasizes credibility (Ethos)

Sweeping Generalization (Assiduously curating Americas Decline)

Logical Historical Assertion

Supposed Command of Past is ethical argument

Heavy use of facts intended both to provide background and credibility

Precise verb choice creates outrage toward administration (given short

shrift, shafted, abandoned.)

Again, rhetorical question

Boxing metaphor emphasizes competition between US and Russia

Allusion to Crimea Seizure intended by evoke anger, fear toward Russia

Logical Argument against administration policy ($500 million for five
fighters)
Does not source facts

3. To expand the reach of Russias own military. It has a naval base at Tartus, its only
such outside of Russia. It has an airfield near Latakia, now being expanded with an
infusion of battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, howitzers and housing for 1,500
strongly suggesting ground forces to follow.
4. To push out the Americans. For Putin, geopolitics is a zero-sum game: Russia up,
America down. He is demonstrating whom you can rely on in this very tough
neighborhood. Obama has given short shrift to the Kurds, shafted U.S. allies with
the Iran deal and abandoned the Anbar Sunnis who helped us win the surge.
Meanwhile, Putin risks putting Russian boots on the ground to rescue his Syrian
allies.
Obama says Bashar al-Assad has to go, draws a red line on chemical weapons
and does nothing. Russia acts on behalf of a desperate ally. Whom do you want in
your corner?
5. To re-legitimize post-Crimea Russia by making it indispensable in Syria. Its a
neat two-cushion shot. At the United Nations next week, Putin will offer Russia as a
core member of a new anti-Islamic State coalition. Obamas Potemkin war with
its phantom local troops (our $500 million training program has yielded five
fighters so far) and flaccid air campaign is flailing badly. What Putin is proposing
is that Russia, Iran and Hezbollah spearhead the anti-jihadist fight.

Alludes to Iran and Hezbollah to reinforce message that Administration

policy is bad, referencing the two feared entities

Putins offer is clear: Stop fighting Assad, accept Russia as a major player and
acquiesce to a Russia-Iran-Hezbollah regional hegemony and we will lead the
drive against the Islamic State from in front.
And there is a bonus. The cleverest part of the Putin gambit is its unstated cure
for Europes refugee crisis.
Wracked by guilt and fear, the Europeans have no idea what to do. Putin offers a
way out: No war, no refugees. Stop the Syrian civil war and not only do they stop
flooding into Europe, those already there go back home to Syria.
Putin says, settle the war with my client in place the Assad regime joined by a
few healthy opposition forces and I solve your refugee nightmare.
You almost have to admire the cynicism. After all, whats driving the refugees is the
war and whats driving the war is Iran and Russia. They provide the materiel, the
funds and now, increasingly, the troops that fuel the fighting. The arsonist plays
fireman.
After all, most of the refugees are not fleeing the Islamic State. Its depravity is more
ostentatious, but it is mostly visited upon minorities, Christian and Yazidi and
they have already been largely ethnically cleansed from Islamic State territory. The
European detention camps are overflowing with Syrians fleeing Assads barbarism,
especially his attacks on civilians, using artillery, chlorine gas and nail-filled barrel
bombs.
Putin to the rescue. As with the chemical weapons debacle, he steps in to save the
day. If we acquiesce, Russia becomes an indispensable partner. It begins military and
diplomatic coordination with us. (Weve just agreed to negotiations over Russias
Syrian buildup.) Its post-Ukraine isolation is lifted and, with Iran, it becomes the
regional arbiter.
In the end, the Putin strategy may not work, but its deadly serious and not at all
obscure. The White House can stop scratching its collective head whenever
another Condor transport unloads its tanks and marines at Latakia.

Pathos (fear naturally follows mention of Russia-Iran-Hezbollah

regional hegemony)

Compliments Putin, insults Obama by association

Unsourced fearmongering (Unstated cure, how do you know?)

Builds off common perception of European powers as weak, cowardly

No proof to support claim
Pathos (reader wants to stop migrant flow, sensing lure of Putins
supposed offer)

Healthy?

Again, complimenting Putin at the unstated expense of Obama

Logos
Metaphor of arson in incendiary conflict

Ethnically Cleansed alludes to Bosnian Genocide-Pathos

Horrific examples of war-Pathos, Logos (urge reader to understand why

migrants leave, why Europeans want to stop that flow, how Putin can
capitalize)

Slippery Slope (U.S. doesnt act know, Russia gains power over Middle
East!)

Risks for Russia Minimized

No mention of proof of Putins plan
Military jargon breeds sense of fear
Conclusion Ineffective (what should Obama do then?)

Subject: US Foreign Policy in Syria

Occasion: Russian Deployment in Syria
Audience: Conservatives Purpose: Demonstrate Failure of US policy in the region
Tone: Critical, Fearful
Other Notes:
Little Use of Well-Supported Assertion
No Attempts to Persuade Indicate Like-Minded Audience

The Iran Charade on Capitol Hill

Congress is finally having its say on the Iran deal. It will be an elaborate charade,
however, because, having first gone to the United Nations, President Obama has
largely drained congressional action of relevance. At the Security Council, he
pushed through a resolution ratifying the deal, thus officially committing the United
States as a nation to its implementation in advance of any congressional action.
The resolution abolishes the entire legal framework, built over a decade, underlying
the international sanctions against Iran. A few months from now, they will be gone.

By Charles Krauthammer; Sept 10

-

Starts Weakly (summary of background)

Dense Syntax

The script is already written: The International Atomic Energy Agency, relying on
Irans self-inspection (!) of its most sensitive nuclear facility, will declare Iran in
compliance. The agreement then goes into effect and Irans nuclear program is
officially deemed peaceful.

Presumption of Audience Views: No Sanctions = Bad

(!) to cue outrage

Dramatic Over-Simplification of Iran Nuclear Deal

Logos to build anger (Dont Give Iran $100 billion)

Establishes credibility with command of recent events

No firm claim offered

Ethos (appeal to US constitution for credibility of argument)

Connects to common objection to Iran Deal
Alliteration to emphasize, draw readers attention

Logos
Card-Stacking: Quotes only one poll, one which effectively supports his
claim

To get around the Constitution, Obama negotiated a swindle that requires him to
garner a mere one-third of one house of Congress. Indeed, on Thursday, with just 42
Senate supporters remember, a treaty requires 67 the Democrats filibustered
and prevented, at least for now, the Senate from voting on the deal at all.

Accuses Democrats of Impeding Democracy (Pathetic Appeal to natural

support for expedient government)

But Obama two months ago enshrined the deal as international law at the U.N. Why
should we care about the congressional vote? In order to highlight the illegitimacy of
Obamas constitutional runaround and thus make it easier for a future president to
overturn the deal, especially if Iran is found to be cheating.

Rhetorical Question with Answer: Builds Credibility, Superior Tone

Claim At Last Asserted: Treaty is illegitimate because it does not go
through constitution process for approval

Pathos (reader is told illegal deal has been forced onto unwilling US)
Terrorists: Not-So-Glittering Generality
Short Sentence for Emphasis
Trick: Diction indicates deception, deceit (pathos)

Logos
Using sources, Krauthammer asserts that Iran will obtain a nuclear
weapon
Simple syntax, short sentences mid paragraph aid comprehension,
emphasize gravity of situation

Sanctions are lifted. The mullahs receive $100 billion of frozen assets as a signing
bonus. Iran begins reaping the economic bonanza, tripling its oil exports and
welcoming a stampede of foreign companies back into the country.
It is all precooked. Last month, Britains foreign secretary traveled to Tehran with an
impressive delegation of British companies ready to deal. He was late, however. The
Italian and French foreign ministers had already been there, accompanied by their
own hungry businessmen and oil companies. Iran is back in business.
As a matter of constitutional decency, the president should have submitted the deal
to Congress first. And submitted it as a treaty. Which it obviously is. No
international agreement in a generation matches this one in strategic significance and
geopolitical gravity.
Obama did not submit it as a treaty because he knew he could never get the
constitutionally required votes for ratification. Hes not close to getting two-thirds of
the Senate. Hes not close to getting a simple majority. No wonder: In the latest Pew
Research Center poll, the American people oppose the deal by a staggering 28-point
margin.

As of now, however, it is done. Iran will be both unleashed sanctions lifted,

economy booming, with no treaty provisions regarding its growing regional
aggression and support for terrorists and welcomed as a good international citizen
possessing a peaceful nuclear program. An astonishing trick.
Irans legitimation will not have to wait a decade, after which, as the Iranian foreign
minister boasts, the U.N. file on the Iranian nuclear program will be closed, all
restrictions will be dropped and, as Obama himself has admitted, the breakout time
to an Iranian bomb will become essentially zero. On the contrary. The legitimation
happens now. Early next year, Iran will be officially recognized as a peaceful nuclear
nation.
This is a revolution in Irans international standing, yet its consequences have been
largely overlooked. The deal goes beyond merely leaving Irans nuclear
infrastructure intact. Because the deal legitimizes that nuclear program as peaceful
(unless proven otherwise dont hold your breath), it is entitled to international
assistance. Hence the astonishing provision buried in Annex III, Section 10,
committing Western experts to offering the Iranian program our nuclear expertise.

Logs
Potential Consequences Presented

Specifically training courses and workshops. On what? Among other things, on

how to protect against sabotage.
-

Quoting document in question (Ethos)

Wild Speculation
No support for claim

Pathos (US will back Iran over Israel!)

Foil evokes scheming and deceit, in repetition of common motif

Implies Congressional Incompetence

Shame and Revulsion=Not-So-Glittering Generalities=Pathos
Conclusion

Imagine: We are now to protect Iran against, say, the very Stuxnet virus, developed
by the NSA and Israels Unit 8200, that for years disrupted and delayed an Iranian
bomb.
Secretary of State John Kerry has darkly warned Israel to not even think about a
military strike on the nuclear facilities of a regime whose leader said just
Wednesday that Israel will be wiped out within 25 years. The Israelis are now being
told additionally Annex III, Section 10 that if they attempt just a defensive,
nonmilitary cyberattack (a Stuxnet II), the West will help Iran foil it.
Ask those 42 senators if they even know about this provision. And how they can
sign on to such a deal without shame and revulsion.

Subject: Iran Nuclear Deal

Occasion: Seeming Inevitability of Iran Deal Taking Effect
Audience: Opponents of Deal
Purpose: Denounce deal as illegitimate, describe its potential ramifications
Tone: Critical, Accusatory
Other Notes:
Word Choice creates sense of illegality and treachery on the part of Obama
Seems to console opponents of deal that while it may take effect, it is still illegal
Alternates between well-sourced claims and blatant speculation
Encourages Reader to Imagine Nuclear Iran, even if not described in the piece
Short Sentences Used for Emphasis

Why Clinton Remains Inevitable, Almost

Unless shes indicted, Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination.

By Charles Krauthammer; Sept 3

Claim Immediately Stated
Concise Diction clearly illustrates point

That kind of sentence is rarely written about a major presidential candidate. But I
dont see a realistic third alternative (except for one long-shot, below).

First Person Builds Personal Connection (Ethos)

Clinton is now hostage to the various investigations the FBI, Congress, the courts
of her e-mails. The issue has already damaged her seriously by highlighting once
again her congenital inability to speak truthfully. When the scandal broke in
March, she said unequivocally that she did not e-mail any classified material to
anyone. Thats now been shown to be unequivocally false. After all, the inspector
general of the intelligence community referred her e-mails to the Justice Department
precisely because they contain classified material.

Analogy of hostage (seems contrary to view of Hillary not as victim, but

liar)
Personal Attack on Clinton, then reasonably supported
Repetition builds Logos (unequivocally, unequivocally false)

Concession/Acknowledgement of Clinton Defense

Rhetorical question creates air of superiority

Logos
Clear and Well-Founded Attack on Clintons honesty and integrity
Sweeping Generalization (Everyone knows that)

The fallback every Clinton defense has a fallback is that she did not mishandle
any material marked classified. But thats absurd. Who could even have been in a
position to mark classified something she composed and sent on her own private email system?
Moreover, whats prohibited is mishandling classified information, not just
documents . For example, any information learned from confidential conversations
with foreign leaders is automatically classified. Everyone in national security knows

that. Reuters has already found 17 e-mails sent by Clinton containing such born
classified information. And the State Department has already identified 188 e-mails
on her server that contain classified information.
The truth-shaving never stops. Take a minor matter: her communications with Sidney
Blumenthal. She originally insisted that these were just unsolicited e-mails from an
old friend. Mondays document release showed that they were very much solicited
(Keep em coming when you can) and in large volume 306 e-mails, according to
the New York Times Peter Baker, more than with any other person, apparently,
outside the State Department.
The parallel scandal looming over Clinton is possible corruption involving
contributions to the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state. There are
relatively few references to the foundation in the e-mails she has released. Remember,
she erased 32,000 e-mails she deemed not work-related. Clinton needs to be asked a
straightforward question: In sorting your private from public e-mails, were those
related to the Clinton Foundation considered work-related or were they considered
private and thus deleted?
We are unlikely to get a straight answer from Clinton. In fact, we may never get the
real answer. So Clinton marches on regardless. Who is to stop her?

Diction (Truth-Shaving) creates more objective, less partisan tone

Unsourced quote (implies readers previous knowledge)

Little Background on Foundation Scandal

Looming evokes image of storm brewing
Jargon-heavy preceding sentences aid reader comprehension of Clintons
bureaucratic defense

Organization Shift

Concession to viability of Sanders

Reasonable logical argument against said viability

Pathos (socialism, scary!)

Lonely Eyes: absence of truly excellent candidates
Joltin minimizes Biden with condescending tone

Logos (poll numbers)

Only cites Quinnipiac, which has history of right-leaning polling

techniques

Allusion to RFK
Allusion does not match scenario (Logical Fallacy?)
Allusion to Lloyd Benson quote in 1988 (You, sir, are no Jack
Kennedy)
Ignores ideological divisions between candidates (Clinton v Biden, Biden
v Sanders)

Yes, Bernie Sanders has risen impressively. But it is inconceivable that he would be
nominated. For one thing, hed be the oldest president by far on Inauguration Day
older than Ronald Reagan, our oldest president, was at his second inaugural.
And there is the matter of Sanders being a self-proclaimed socialist in a country more
allergic to socialism than any in the Western world. Which is why the party is turning
its lonely eyes to joltin Joe Biden.
Biden, who at 72 shares the Democrats gerontocracy problem, is riding a wave of
deserved sympathy. But that melts away quickly when a campaign starts. Even now,
his support stands at only 18 percent in the latest Quinnipiac poll. For him to win, one
has to assume that Sanders disappears and Biden automatically inherits Sanders
constituency.
Thats a fantasy, modeled on 1968 when Bobby Kennedy picked up Eugene
McCarthys anti-Lyndon Johnson constituency. But Joe Biden is no Bobby Kennedy.
And in a recent Iowa poll, Bidens support comes roughly equally from Clinton and
Sanders. Rather than inheriting the anti-Clintonite constituency, he could instead be
splitting it.
There is one long-shot possibility that might upend Clinton: Biden pledges to serve
one term only and chooses Elizabeth Warren as his running mate now. One-term
pledges address the age problem but they are political poison, giving the impression
of impermanence and mere transition. Warren cures that, offering the Democratic base
and the Sanders constituency the vision of a 12-year liberal ascendancy.

Wild Speculation as to viability of Biden

No logical or pathetic backing

Provocative Nondenial paints quote in obvious light

If Krauthammer doubts it, then why did he spend three paragraphs

discussing it?
Incongruent Allusion to General Petraeus (comparing apples to

When asked on Wednesday whether she had discussed such a ticket with Biden,
Warren answered it was a long conversation, a knowing wink in the form of a
provocative nondenial.
I doubt a Biden-Warren ticket will happen, but it remains the only threat to Clinton
outside of some Justice Department prosecutor showing the same zeal in going after

Hillary Clinton as the administration did in going after David Petraeus.

Otherwise the Democrats remain lashed to Clinton. Their only hope is that the
Republicans self-destruct in a blaze of intraparty warfare. Something for which they
are showing an impressive talent.

The Immigration Swamp

This was not a subject that was on anybodys mind until I brought it up at my
announcement. Donald Trump, on immigration, Republican debate, Aug. 6

adulterous generals!)
Associates Clinton with Certain Defeat (no Support)
Off-message Conclusion
Vivid Image (blaze of intraparty warfare)
What was the point of this piece? Loose and Baseless Speculation?

Subject: Campaign for Democratic Nomination for President

Occasion: Continued Success of Clinton in Polls in Face of Multiple Scandals
Audience: Followers of Current Presidential Race
Purpose: Describe Clintons Failings, Speculate as to Other Possibilities
Tone: Dismissive, Critical
Other Notes:
No clear or articulated message, beyond Clinton Will Win
Second half of piece disconnected from first
Heavy on allusions, all of dubious pertinence
No definitive answer offered

By Charles Krauthammer; Sept 3

Opens with well-known quote to establish topic, background

Not on anyones mind? For years, immigration has been the subject of near-constant,
often bitter argument within the GOP. But it is true that Trump has brought the debate
to a new place first, with his announcement speech, about whether Mexican
migrants are really rapists, and now with the somewhat more nuanced Trump plan.

Rhetorical Question with immediate answer establishes critical, superior

tone
Point Clear: Immigration has long been a topic of discussion for the GOP
Concession to Trumps Assertion

Much of it visa tracking, E-Verify, withholding funds from sanctuary cities

predates Trump. Even building the Great Wall is not particularly new. (I, for one, have
been advocating that in this space since 2006.) Dominating the discussion, however,
are his two policy innovations: (a) abolition of birthright citizenship and (b) mass
deportation.

Ethos (I, for onesince 2006)

Some additional background to establish base for argument

Organization Shift

If you are born in the United States, you are an American citizen. So says the 14th
Amendment. Barring some esoteric and radically new jurisprudence, abolition would
require amending the Constitution. Which would take years and great political effort.
And make the GOP anathema to Hispanic Americans for a generation.

Offers no concession to opponents of birthright citizenship

Logos (constitution says yes, voters do too)

And for what? Birthright citizenship is a symptom, not a cause. If you regain control
of the border, the number of birthright babies fades to insignificance. The time and
energy it would take to amend the Constitution are far more usefully deployed
securing the border.

Rhetorical Question
Repetition of If statements
Disputes legitimacy of issue

Moreover, the real issue is not the birthright babies themselves, but the chain
migration that follows. It turns one baby into an imported village.

Does not define chain migration

Pathos (imported image build image of untold numbers of immigrants
entering the country)

Chain migration, however, is not a constitutional right. Its a result of statutes and
regulations. These can be readily changed. That should be the focus, not a quixotic
constitutional battle.

Short sentences emphasize main point

Birthright citizenship.

Mass deportation.

Selectively quotes Trump to strip context, credibility

Logos
Potent Images (SWAT teamsdumping them on the other side of the
Rio Grande)

Conservative moniker adds credibility to source among audience

(conservatives)
Logos ($500 billion!!!)
Sarcasm

Pathos (morally obscene)

Short, repetitive sentences demonstrate point clearly
Allieration (Republican, front-runner, required, react)
Subtle reference to prior Logos (fantasy)

Fragment emphasizes connection to previous topic

Repetition, juxtaposition of forced and self create logical electoral
argument

Logical Argument (demonstrates wider effects of comments)

Mild Concession to Trump (right to speak, not much more)

Alliteration (consideration, candidacy, conservatisms) stress key

message of piece

Unusually talented?
Rhetorical Question

Risk of dissenting view illustrated

Ends somewhat effectively on question

Last Sunday, Trump told NBCs Chuck Todd that all illegal immigrants must leave the
country. Although once theyve been kicked out, we will let the good ones back in.
On its own terms, this is crackpot. Wouldnt you save a lot just on Mayflower moving
costs if you chose the good ones first before sending SWAT teams to turf
families out of their homes, loading them on buses and dumping them on the other
side of the Rio Grande?
Less frivolously, it is estimated by the conservative American Action Forum that mass
deportation would take about 20 years and cost about $500 billion for all the police,
judges, lawyers and enforcement agents and bus drivers! needed to expel
11 million people.
This would all be merely ridiculous if it werent morally obscene. Forcibly evict
11 million people from their homes? It cant happen. It shouldnt happen. And, of
course, it wont ever happen. But because its the view of the Republican front-runner,
every other candidate is now required to react. So instead of debating border security,
guest-worker programs and sanctuary cities where Republicans are on firm moral
and political ground they are forced into a debate about a repulsive fantasy.
Which, for the Republican Party, is also political poison. Mitt Romney lost the
Hispanic vote by 44 points and he was advocating only self-deportation. Now the
party is discussing forced deportation.
It is not just Hispanics who will be alienated. Romney lost the Asian vote, too. By 47
points. And many non-minorities will be offended by the idea of rounding up
11 million people, the vast majority of whom are law-abiding members of their
communities.
Donald Trump has every right to advance his ideas. He is not to be begrudged his
masterly showmanship, his relentless candor or his polling success. I strongly oppose
the idea of ostracizing anyone from the GOP or the conservative movement. On
whose authority? Let the people decide.
But that is not to say that he should be exempt from normal scrutiny or from
consideration of the effect of his candidacy on conservatisms future. If you are a
conservative alarmed at the countrys direction and committed to retaking the White
House, you should be concerned about what Trumps ascendancy is doing to the
chances of that happening.
The Democrats presumptive candidate is flailing badly. Republicans have an
unusually talented field with a good chance of winning back the presidency. Do they
really want to be dragged into the swamps right now, on immigration that will
make that prospect electorally impossible?
Yes, I understand. The anger, the frustration, etc., etc., that Trump is channeling. But
how are these alleviated by yelling Im mad as hell and proceeding to elect
Hillary Clinton?

Subject: Immigration Policy in GOP Presidential Race

Occasion: Donald Trumps various extreme positions on the issue
Audience: The Republican Presidential Electorate

Purpose: Demonstrate need to avoid radical stances on immigration

Tone: Critical, Concerned
Other Notes:
Limited Ethos
Level of logos unusual for Krauthammer
Well-organized argument with clear message
Heavy on Alliteration

Syndicated Columnist Project: Part Two

Putins Gambit, Obamas Puzzlement- By Charles Krauthammer
Charles Krauthammer must not understand the concept of preaching to the choir. The
futility of lecturing those with whom you are in agreement must never have dawned on the
Pultizer-Prize winner. In Putins Gambit, Obamas Puzzlement, Krauthammer lambasts
President Obama with his usual vitriol, but with hardly a pretense of persuasion behind him.
The article opens with a Krauthammer classic: the patronizing exposition. Dripping with
sarcasm, Krauthammer paints a vivid picture of incompetence and confusion on the part of the
Obama Administration, followed by a point-by-point list that demonstrates Krauthammers own
infallible grasp of the situation. No true persuasive appeal is offered. It isnt needed. The choir
already knows all about it.
Krauthammer hammers the president with every rhetorical technique available. Allusions
to genocide, taunting sports metaphors, and demeaning rhetorical questions lace his column, all
portraying clearly the sheer ineptitude of the Administration. While the rhetoric is sharp and
biting, it hasnt a hint of ethos, pathos, or logos behind it. No one who thought differently would
be convinced. But who cares? The choir already knows all of it.
Given his audience, Krauthammers column is proficient. Those who fear Putin and hate
Obama walk away validated. The wild speculations concluding the article work masterfully to
bring about anger and dread. But it never attempts to win over the other side. No concessions are

made nor arguments launched on the basis of agreed-upon facts. While one side make away
emboldened and encouraged, the same piece leaves anyone of a different mindset left unmoved.
The Immigration Swamp - By Charles Krauthammer
Few columnists can write for a conservative audience with as deft a hand as Charles
Krauthammer. While that deft hand most commonly rails against liberals to inspire a right-wing base,
it is when arguing points within Republican dogma that it expresses its true talent. Krauthammers
columns base their arguments solely on conservative philosophy, and while that foundation usually
creates a rapidly spinning wheel of circular logic, Krauthammer adeptly uses it to fight for the soul of
his party. In The Immigration Swamp, Krauthammer denounces with veracious efficacy the Trump
Immigration Plan, arguing excellently for the hardline immigration stances of Republicans past.
The unique success of this column derives from Krauthammers repetitive structure. The
often rambling rants of Krauthammers writing are replaced with a strong, cohesive format. State
Trump argument, express its inadequacy or irrationality, denounce, rinse, repeat. Conceding
frequently the reasonable basis of Trumps ideas, Krauthammer logically shreds them, explaining the
unimaginable costs of deporting tens of millions of people or the foolishness of amending the
constitution rather than securing the border.
Even on left-wing ears, whose reading pleasure Krauthammer is indifferent to, the arguments
take hold. They appeal so exceptionally to common sense and basic American virtue that it is hard to
disagree. Krauthammers use of syntax and occasional alliteration creates a stinging rhythm in the
column, demonstrating both the flaws in the Trump plan and their incompatibility with electoral and
patriotic logic. Further, the use of second person builds on these rhetorical techniques and enhances
the logical power of the argument, connecting directly to the reader in an educational sort of manner.

Charles Krauthammer can be a chore to read, with his condescending tone often standing in
the way of his message. But in The Immigration Swamp, he sets aside his haughty attitude and
builds an interesting and meaningful column.

Syndicated Columnist Project: Part Three

Few columnists possess the ability to relate politically to an audience as well as Charles
Krauthammer. The Pulitzer-Prize-winning conservative pundit is a master at matching the tone
and spirit of his right wing audience and building off of it to captivate the reader. Although the
direct audience of Krauthammers pieces is clearly holders of views similar to his own,
Krauthammer makes up for this narrow scope through precise manipulation of language. In his
columns, Krauthammer effectively uses rhetorical questions, sarcasm, and alliteration to connect
with his reader.
Krauthammer consistently utilizes rhetorical questions and the emotion they imply to
identify with a likeminded audience. Within columns, Krauthammer uses these questions not
solely to display his own views, but to demonstrate the assumed reactions of his reader to stated
scenarios. In Putins Gambit, Obamas Puzzlement he describes the asserted failures of
American leadership in Syria compared to the brash aggression of Russia, questioning who the
reader would want in their corner (para. 8). Using the common hatred for Administration
foreign policy among his base, Krauthammer echoes the readers presumable reaction to the
situation, creating a political connection and giving an individual slant to the piece. Similarly, in
The Immigration Swamp, Krauthammer describes the threat posed by Donald Trump and other
extreme members of the GOP, questioning why Republicans can sit by yelling Im mad as hell
and proceeding to elect Hillary Clinton? (para. 17). By using a disdain for the presumptive
Democratic nominee among his readership, he mirrors their anger and lends greater credibility

and impact to his words. Beyond the inherently engaging nature of rhetorical questioning,
Krauthammer uses rhetorical questions to voice the opinions of his readers, creating a greater
bond between author and audience.

Just as Krauthammer uses rhetorical questions to reflect the reactions of his readers, he
uses sarcasm to attack that which they despise. Bringing to bear a biting wit, he lambasts the
people and institutions his conservative audience abhors, and by doing so further enhances his
connection to his audience. In Putins Gambit, Obamas Puzzlement Krauthammer mocks the
Obama Administration as being stumped as to why Russia is pouring troops and weaponry
into Syria (para. 1). Later in the column, he ridicules John Kerrys remarks that such actions
only make the situation worse, remarking that Russian Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov is as
concerned with the plight of the Syria people as by the 8,000 killed in Russias splendid little
Ukrainian adventure (para. 2). This stinging derision targets popular Republican foils in Obama
and Kerry, allowing Krauthammer to relate to his audience by assaulting that which they loathe,
making his comments more personal for an ideologically comparable reader.

Krauthammer additionally uses alliteration to build a connection with his audience,

relying on it to stress points important to his audience in order to create a meaningful bond with
them. In The Iran Charade on Capitol Hill, he discusses the strategic significance and
geopolitical gravity of the Iran Deal (para. 6), maximizing the force of attention-garnering
alliterative phrasing to draw a readers eye to an important issue on which Krauthammer and his
audience likely agree. In the same fashion, Krauthammer uses alliteration within the The
Immigration Swamp, describing the need for conservatives alarmed at the countrys direction
and committed to retaking the White House to be highly concerned about what Trumps

ascendancy is doing to the chances of that happening (para. 15). This alliteration emphasizes
particular Republican values and priorities and underscores Krauthammers commitment to
them. The political parallel between author and viewer gives his columns greater significance.

Krauthammers rhetorical prowess enables him to truly bond with his reader. He uses
rhetorical questions to voice the presumed sentiments of his audience, and likewise uses sarcasm
to batter what they despise. Additionally, Krauthammer uses alliteration to stress the importance
of points and arguments important to his target audience. By reflecting the thoughts and views of
his reader, Krauthammer, aided by eloquent diction, sets himself up as a mirror for his audience,
confirming their opinions and validating their world view. This unique attribute of
Krauthammers writing awards him the popularity and notoriety he enjoys.

Works Cited
Krauthammer, Charles. "The Immigration Swamp." Washington Post
[Washington D.C.] 20 Aug. 2015: Print.
Krauthammer, Charles. "The Iran Charade on Capitol Hill." Washington Post
[Washington D.C.] 10 Sept. 2015: Print.

Krauthammer, Charles. "Putin's Gambit, Obama's Puzzlement." Washington Post

[Washington D.C.] 17 Sept. 2015: Print.