Mercedes Pierce

Columnist Profile

AP Lang

March 10, 2020

Resetting Our Compass for Right and Wrong

The United States is slowly but surely losing its moral compass. Our laws are unjust, our

politicians lack integrity and Americans are dangerously hypocritical. Are you worried that the

American public has lost their sense for right and wrong? You’re not alone. Miami Herald

columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. is right by your side, fighting for the maintenance of morals and

justice through his simultaneously blunt and reflective writing. He examines our society’s moral

shortcomings through the lens of a variety of current events, including everything from the

coronavirus to the Super Bowl halftime show. Fueled by his experience as an African American

man, Pitts speaks to his similarly left-leaning readers to expose the injustice and hypocrisy of our

society. While his criticism of people in power and the American public is often harsh, Pitts’ end

goal is not to ridicule the subject. He is simply imploring us to second guess our country's morals

and to live by the same high moral code as he does.

Pitts employs rhetorical questions in his writing, creating an opportunity for his own

self-reflection while subconsciously forcing his readers to think critically about the issue. He

often chooses to construct his argument as a collection of questions rather than a direct claim. By

doing this, Pitts forces readers to connect the dots on their own which in turn makes readers think

more deeply about his argument. When Pitts condemns Republican criticism of the “overly

sexual” Super Bowl halftime show, he asks, “Why is it that conservatives only ever see a moral

dimension, cause for moral indignation, in the evocation of this most natural and common of

human activities?” (“No, Rev. Graham, JLo’s Backside Isn’t the Outrage. The Outrage is that
You Think It Is”). By posing this question, Pitts is able to make the reader think critically about

the hypocrisy and moral shortcomings of the situation. If you are thinking deeply about moral

issues that he presentes, Pitts has won. He has achieved his goal of making the reader evaluate

the morals of themselves and those around them. Along with forcing critical thought on the

reader, Pitts’ rhetorical questions serve as a tool to reflect on his own thoughts and experiences.

He ponders, “As an artist, are you allowed to draw from outside your racial or cultural box?”

(“Who Gets to Tell What Stories?”), reflecting on his own duty as an author while

simultaneously presenting an argument in favor of creative freedom. Rhetorical questions allow

him to inject his thought process into his writing which means that his articles are sometimes

self-serving.

Personal experience also plays a large role in Pitts’ writing. He often connects his

article’s argument to events in his own life, showing the reader that he has a stake in the issue.

For example, Pitts establishes his credibility as an author by compare his own experience with

that of author Jeanine Cummins (“Who Gets to Tell What Stories?”) and he uses first person to

depict his mourning following the death of Kobe Bryant ​(“‘I wanted to see what came next in

Kobe’s life. It wasn’t supposed to be this’”). By infusing his writing with personal

anecdotes, Pitts shows that he has a right to his opinion and a sense of trust is built

between himself and the readers. Without the trust that Pitts has built, readers would not

be compelled to take his opinions to heart. Not only do his personal experiences create

trust, but Pitts deliberately makes himself more relatable to the reader in order to tap into
their emotions. The closer the reader gets to Pitts, the more his ideas will resonate with

them and the easier it is for Pitts to impose his ideas and morals on them.

Pitts hardly ever backs up his anti-Republican sentiment with an impermeable argument

or hard facts. His goal is not to persuade people with opposing views. He doesn’t need to. He

knows very well that his base is made up of people with left-leaning political views similar to his

own so, rather attempting any conversation with the other side, Pitts embraces the demographics

of his readers. He appeals to their liberal views on politics and social justice in order to argue for

overall moral justice. However Democratic Pitts may be, he is by no means a revolutionary. He

is not arguing for an uprising or a government overhaul. Pitts simply wants to remind us of our

country’s traditional moral value and reset our compass for right and wrong.