The Two Predominant Power Poles: the USSR and the USA - Article Example

of the English of the Concerned 2 December Critical Analysis (Between Two Essays) It is a strange irony that the world has been deciphering the intricacies of the geopolitical political dynamics in the light of the strategic interests of a few dominant nations that tend to have a more than average say and impact in the world politics. During the Cold War, the world politics hovered around the two predominant power poles that are the USSR and the USA. However, with the end of the Cold War, the world stage is left open to one single dominant power that is the USA. Varied intellectuals and think tanks have been contriving varied theories to size up the role of the only left super power that is the USA on the world stage. In that context, Matthew Parris in his article It’s Time We All Signed Up for the Rest of the World Team and Laura Miller in her article America the Ignorant; have tried to minutely analyze the role of the United States of America in the post Cold War scenario. However, both the authors tend to differ in the approach they use to influence the target audience and the rhetorical strategies resorted to by them to come out with a convincing argument. Hence, it will be really interesting to analyze the premises resorted to by both the authors in their effort to move the target audience towards their way of thinking. Certainly, it would not be wrong to say that Matthew Parris tends to draw the picture of a highly polarized word, where the United States of America tends to be one dominant pole, and the other nations are painted as hesitant and subservient forces, many of which are trying their best to chalk out an independent foreign policy, which is significantly devoid of the American influence and happens to be independent and sovereign in its scope and dynamics. Even a cursory perusal of the article It’s Time We All Signed Up for the Rest of the World Team leads to the conclusion that Parris is trying to target an audience that is in the favor of a multi-polar world and that is averse to the dominance of the United States of America in the shaping of the world politics. Parris comes out as being supportive of the efforts of the sovereign nations that are desirous of coming together to do away with the American dominance, so as to contrive a geopolitical strategy that is self serving and independent. Yet, the weak point about Parris argument is that it fails to come out as a reasonable and cohesive argument in the support of the cause that it intends to uphold. So far as the element of logos is concerned, Parris argument comes out as being totally divest of the deductive and inductive reasoning that could justifiably prove that the US is acting as the only left dominant influence in the world affairs. When it comes to ethos, Parris indeed manages to throw his weight as an astute politician and his expansive experience as a seasoned reporter behind his argument. However, once the Parris’ argument is divested of the weight of the personality that is trying to assert it, the whole argument comes out as being something that is totally emotive and lacking the weight of the factual evidence and the sighting of the scholarly sources that may support and bolster it. To put it in a few words, the line of Parris’s argument predominantly relies on the pathos to make its way into the target audience’s sense of reason. Parris nowhere seems to care to prop up his assertion with the requisite evidence and sources. Hence, in a conclusive context, Parris assertion is emotive, weak and devoid of the much needed factual evidence. In contrast, Laura Miller in her article America the Ignorant tries to correlate the much infamous fiascos in the American foreign policy to the commensurate short sightedness, ignorance and complacence of the American masses. Miller tries to bring home the fact that the American education system is such that it fails to endow the American masses with the fundamental facts and information pertaining to international geography and geopolitics that could be exploited by them to make a sense of the international politics being pursued by the American leadership. Miller tries her best to belabor the point that owing to this factual paucity of the American masses regarding the world geography and the associated political and social concepts, the American media has been pulling out of the policy to accrue an expansive coverage to the international political and strategic issues. In other words, Miller emphatically decries the passive attitude of the American masses towards the international strategic maneuvers being indulged in by the American political class. The good thing about Miller’s line of argument is that it is able to support its forthcoming premises with the commensurate facts properly ascribed to, to the authentic academic institutions and the experts who have a deep insight into the American foreign policy. When it comes to logos, Miller bolsters and supports her logic with the appropriate factual evidence and facts that lie in the sphere of public awareness. Miller indeed manages to put the weight of the ethos driven appeal that her editorial experience commands, right behind her line of argument. However, nowhere Miller comes out as a rabid and opinionated personality that tries to take away her audience for a ride by pandering to the emotive side of their personality. All over, Miler’s line of argument is factual, evidence based and credible in its scope and framework. To put it in a few words, though both the writers that are Matthew Parris and Laura Miller are trying to make a sense of the current status of the US as the sole surviving super power and its role in the world politics, in a rhetorical context, Miller comes out as being more factual, authentic and logical. Read More