Outside Reading: Editorial Column due 11/15/10

11/14/10

“Dangerous Nuclear Illusions” by Roger Cohen

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12iht-edcohen.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

In Roger Cohen's “Dangerous Nuclear Illusions”, Cohen attempts to convince his readers that President Barack Obama's commitment to seek a world without nuclear weapons in his 2009 Prague speech was a big mistake. He goes on to prove why, categorizing his reasoning and addressing each assertion specifically. Yet because of some statements he makes, his argument does not come across as convincing as it could have.

Right of the bat, Cohen's tone comes of as abrasive when he writes that if the reader wants a world that brought us WWI and WWII, then “the touchy-feely “Global Zero” bandwagon is probably for you”. This upfront statement probably will rub many readers the wrong way because of the pejorative connotation of the word “bandwagon”. This comment makes Cohen seem as if he holds himself higher than the general mass to whom he is addressing and as a result, makes him less likeable.

Not long after, Cohen makes a statement that makes the reader question his reliability. He writes that Obama “should not have accepted” the Nobel Peace Prize, whose merits were “dubious”. Now it is clear that Cohen already does not hold Obama's achievements in high regard so all comments about the president made hereafter are taken with a grain of salt.

Cohen weakens his argument further when he refers to Obama's vision as “a form of utopian idealism”. He goes on to then write “Visions are nice – Marx had one of classless societies”. This completely throws off the reader because drawing a comparison between a vision of a nuclear free world and Marxism is beyond over the top. This statement alone knocks Cohen's reliability down several pegs.

Overall, the voice that Cohen developed in this piece was reasonable because of his logical approach. But it was marred by the obvious bias that he did not care to filter out of his argument. His voice also sounded slightly puffed up in the beginning, which probably alienated many readers from the get go. His argument is solid enough to convince an audience who shares the same disapproval of Obama. But as for an audience who does not hold the same view point, his argument is very ineffective.

If this piece were an AP essay, it would fare well structure wise. He backs up his assertions with proofs and whatnot. But when his tone and some comments he makes are taken into account, this piece would probably not score very high.