The Impact of Liberal Policies on America as Evaluated by Cal Thomas

Over the past several months, there have been many debated issues involving the government, and more specifically, President Obama and his administration. The Washington Times columnist Cal Thomas analyzes major issues the United States is facing, and critiques the choices of our government and current presidential administration, while offering alternative solutions to our nations' crises. Cal Thomas's utilizes rhetorical strategies and methods such as evidence, diction, and compare and contrast, to illustrate the dramatically devastating impact liberal policies are having on America.

By including evidence in his columns, Thomas demonstrates the specific drawbacks that liberal ideals have on the nation. For example, in his January 6th column on the effect of gun control laws on America, Thomas is able to express how gun control laws fail to deter lawbreakers. He includes that recent notorious mass shootings were committed by people who "did not have criminal backgrounds" or had taken a gun by "his mother who had legally obtained guns" (Thomas, "Out of (gun) control"). By recounting this factual evidence supported by various news outlets, Thomas shows how gun restrictions wouldn't have any affect in these widely publicized incidents. Thomas's evidence supports his notion that gun regulations do not succeed in preventing massacres. Furthermore, Thomas' evidence also supports his belief that Obama's rejection of the keystone pipeline is irrational.

Thomas cites the Final Environmental Impact Statement, which concluded that the pipeline "would be unlikely to alter global greenhouse gas emissions"" (Thomas, "Solutions to poverty, not posturing"). Furthermore, Thomas also makes reference to research conducted by NASA and the Remote Sensing Systems satellite (RSS), which showed evidence that the sea ice in Antarctica is actually expanding, and that there has been no warming of the planet for nearly 19 years. Through the use of evidence from a variety of reliable sources, Thomas is able to express the absurdness of Obama's reasoning on climate change. Overall, Thomas' evidence plays a significant role in showcasing the irrational thinking of our current political leaders.

Order custom essay The Impact of Liberal Policies on America as Evaluated by Cal Thomas with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

Thomas's diction asserts the notion that our nation's leaders are nonsensical in their decision making, and that as a result, their policies are a detriment to America. Thomas's diction in an analysis of Obama's decision to reject the construction of the keystone pipeline illustrates the lack of common sense in Obama's judgment. He includes that President Obama "ignores the facts" and "goes with the radicals" with his "bogus climate change position" which he believes with "all the fervency of a cult member" (Thomas, "Keystone Kaput for Now"). By using this harsh word choice against the president, Thomas conveys the outrageousness of Obama's beliefs. This diction displays Obama's decision making as ludicrous, thus, supporting Thomas' argument against Obama's harmful decision.

Additionally, Thomas also expresses the foolishness of the president's administration in making a destructive deal with Iran. Thomas mentions that President Obama "ludicrously" provided Iran with interest by his "war through weakness" strategy, allowing terrorists to "just grab Americans and hold them hostage long enough" (Thomas, "Dollars for Hostages"). This diction highlights the dreadful impact that Obama's failed negotiation has on the United States. This supports Thomas' argument that the deal made with Iran was unreasonable and devastating. Therefore, as demonstrated by Thomas in several columns, his diction reflects the poor decisions of liberal leaders of our nation, and the resulting destruction these ideals can bring upon America.

By comparing and contrasting alternative perspectives and practices, Thomas expresses the failing and unreasonable nature of liberal policies in comparison to conservative approaches. In his column discussing the problems of current practices attempting to end poverty, Thomas compares and contrasts two distinct approaches to show how liberal policies' success pales in comparison to the success of conservative agenda.

Thomas discusses how the Democratic establishment "preaches that racism is at the heart of poverty," and then compares this to the optimistic conservative approach, which is teaching every poor person "to embrace the prospect of success over failure" (Thomas, "Solutions to poverty, not posturing"). By comparing these approaches, and further discussing how the conservative approach was more effective in reducing poverty, exemplifies how ineffective liberal agendas for poverty are. Also, in the article concerning the Iran nuclear deal, Thomas shows how the deal made with Iran and similar policies are unreasonable and ineffective with comparing and contrasting alternative views. First, Thomas compares America's end of the deal, "American hostages... being reunited with family, friends and co-workers," with Iran's end of the deal, "$400 million trust fund, used to buy military equipment" (Thomas, "Dollars for hostages").

This comparison highlights the large disparity in terms of advantages attained by the negotiation. Additionally, Thomas compares the current release of hostages from Iran, with the release of 52 American hostages released on the day of Ronald Reagan's inauguration. He even further compared these two events by the Reagan era release as a policy of "peace through strength," and the current release as a policy of "war through weakness" (Thomas, "Dollars for hostages"). By contrasting distinct views and ideals, Thomas hyperbolizes the flaws of the Obama's administration's policies, and how there are much better approaches to national issues.

Cal Thomas's variety of rhetorical strategies and techniques helped him tackle some of the biggest and most widely debated issues of modern society. In each of his columns, I agreed with his overarching claims; the discussed liberal policies are entirely devastating to the nation. While Thomas was successful in supporting his views with several excerpts of evidence and proponents of his ideals, I believe some of his ideas are too radical and unreasonable. Some examples of these polarized views are his belief that gun control is entirely ineffective, that optimism alone can help poor people, and that climate change is a complete hoax.

Thomas failed to acknowledge validity to the opposing side, as he didn't mention any cases where gun control can be helpful, where welfare has helped the poor, or where there are studies affirming the validity of global warming. Due to Thomas's selective bias and polarized beliefs towards right wing conservatism, I do have some doubt in the arguments where he portrays liberal politicians as entirely unreasonable. There is always some validity to both ends of an argument, so for Cal Thomas to disregard the opposing view as being very irrational, is itself, irrational! Hence, while Thomas does make a strong case against liberal policies, he does not acknowledge both sides with equivalent skepticism, making his writing incredibly biased.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer