Rhetorical Analysis: Jimmy Carter's Essay
By Jonathan Lam on 08/23/17
Tagged: rhetorical-analysis essay
Previous post: On Rubik's Cubing
Next post: Stages of Learning
In response to passage: Adapted from former US President Jimmy Carter, Foreword to Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of Life and Land, A Photographic Journey by Subhankar Banerjee. Editing and revising assisted by KhanAcademy, in partnership with TurnItIn. In preparation for the SAT on Saturday…
—
"Saving America by Saving American Wilderness"
Former president Jimmy Carter effectively argues for the conservation of the Arctic wilderness to his audience of the general American public by using patriotic word choice, a moving personal anecdote, a compare/contrast structure of the wildlife to its potential destruction, and a compelling call to action.
Carter uses an abundance of patriotic words and rationale in order to make his argument more relatable to the general American public. Carter instills a sense of pride in the reader by stating that the USA is "our country." "Our national heritage." Just by using the word "our," Carter makes the USA something that he and the reader shares and can be proud of together. This not only establishes ethos between Carter and the Americans he speaks to, but it makes his argument very pointed towards the American people. We, the American people; a specific audience. Using patriotic vocabulary also puts classic American values on Carter's side: for example, the residue of Manifest Destiny and western expansionism from the early history of the United States makes the idea of preserving the "remnant of frontier America" very appealing to the Americans he speaks to. Even vague statements, such as "a grand triumph for America," fuel a strong nationalism that makes this essay more attractive to US citizens.
The personal anecdote in the second paragraph was very effective, both to draw the reader in, and to make Carter more approachable. Being a former president might create an air of political extravagance-- obscure history such as the "Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act," a complex bundle of preservative laws, may dissuade some readers. Carter maintains many light. personal details such as his wife's name, "Rosalynn," and elaboration on the "timeless quality about [the Arctic wilderness]" in order to tell a story that invites all of its readers. From this passage alone it is difficult to discern that the author is the President or that a political message is to come. Instead, beautiful descriptions such as the "brilliant mosaic of wildflowers, mosses, and lichen" simply give context to Reagan's message in a very normal, unintimidating matter. Only later in his essay is there any mention of conservation acts and the corporate desire to drill oil in such a way that would adversely affect the nature in Alaska, heavy political topics that may scare off readers avoiding politics.
Carter develops his argument that the wildlife in Alaska will be ruined if conservation efforts are not maintained by using a compare/contrast structure that clearly demonstrates the effects with and without conservation. The beautiful description of the so-called "American Serengeti," what with the "tens of thousands of caribou" migrating in all of Nature's splendor, would be turned to an ugly "web of roads and pipelines, drilling rigs and industrial facilities" if acts such as the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act had not been enacted. He explicates the benefits of the present Alaskan wilderness with great awe; however, this tone is completely reversed to shock in the latter paragraphs. While a positive lexicon is used in the former (such as "great," "amazement," "fortunate," "brilliant"), the latter is met with equally negative vocabulary (such as "saddened," "tragedy," "consumed," "destroyed"). This drastic switch between emotions Carter associates with conservation and nature's destruction greatly juxtaposes the two potential outcomes of the issues, further emphasizing the need for Nature's conservation.
While the beginning of his essay was very personal and descriptive, Carter's essay finishes with a very political tone in the form of a call to action directed at the audience that shows the reader's immediate relevance to the conservation issue. He mentions the actions of President Eisenhower and himself to preserve nature in Alaska (the creation of the "8.9 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Range" and the "Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act," respectively), which is used to bring the reader's attention to the politics behind the beauty of Alaska. Especially clear is the call to action in the antepenultimate paragraph: "we should use our resources more wisely" and that conservation of nature is "we must look beyond the alleged benefits of a short-term economic gain"; these sentences are commands that clearly address the reader, thus making the audience relevant to the conservation movement. With the stakes in mind from his descriptive, awed imagery, this call-to action gives specific examples of what the general American public can achieve (spending resources more wisely and preemptively planning nature conservation), effectively honing in on his point to conclude his essay.
By building an lead with a personal appeal that wraps around into a political call-toaction, Carter makes a strong argument for the conservation of the Arctic wilderness that is directed towards American citizens.