Tess Williams

Ms. Whitney

AP Lang

21 February 2020

Pitts Makes a Convincing Argument Without Much Substance

In “Bloomberg’s Apologies to African Americans Sound More Convenient Than Sincere

| Opinion” (February 14, 2020), Leonard Pitts, Jr. asserts that Democrats must not continue

supporting candidate Michael Bloomberg despite the reveal of his past racist comments solely

because he is a Democrat, and so would be “better than Trump.” Pitts uses clear evidence,

statistics, and personal anecdotes to establish that Bloomberg’s policies were harmful and

unacceptable, and writes in an urgent tone to convince readers that these policies are important

and not to be dismissed. Through these rhetorical devices Pitts hopes to convince readers of

Bloomberg’s fault, and urge Democrats to cease their blind support of him just because he’s

another Democrat. This message is directed towards Democrats who have adopted the general

mindset that the end goal of the election is beating Trump no matter the consequences, and who

Pitts believes need a reminder that all Democratic candidates are not ideal.

Pitts is generally successful in communicating his message in this article, through the use

of anecdotes and sharp, concise language. He provides anecdotal evidence when he gives the

story of police brutality against an African American man in DC, writing “He wasn’t even sure

they were actually police as they threw him against a railing and began frisking him. “Then they

feel the food and they scream, ‘Gun!’ and really snatch me up. I scream, ‘No! It’s chicken! It’s

chicken!’” The story provides a reminder of the abject violence of police encounters with black
people, and emphasizes the obvious discrimination present in stop-and-frisk incidents. By

reminding readers of how unnecessary and harmful stop-and-frisk policies are, Pitts puts

Bloomberg’s comments into context, showing readers that Bloomberg was supporting a

dangerous policy and thus revealing that he is not a candidate that voters would want to support.

He uses direct language and word choice in the form of brief, uncomplicated sentences that stick

in the reader’s mind. This is seen when Pitts writes, “Maybe. Still, one can’t help noting the way

many white voters seem to regard racism as something that, while a character flaw, is not a deal

breaker. This was true on the right. Apparently it is also true on the left.” Through the use of

these telegraphic sentences, Pitts states his points in an unapologetic and blunt way, which

catches the reader’s attention and ensures that the audience fully absorbs what he says.

Despite his success in developing his argument, Pitts fails to provide an action plan for

the audience, leaving the reader unsure what to do with this new information. He argues for

Bloomberg’s fault, but never clearly states what kind of actions Democrats might take when

moving on. So, the article is successful in developing Pitts’s own views, but fails to accomplish

much else. Pitts also fails to mention Bloomberg’s other problematic comments, especially those

surrounding transgender women, which could have been used to boost his argument and further

prove Bloomberg’s disregard for human rights. The argument presented in this column was,

while convincing, not fully developed and therefore not fully effective.