Buyer's Remorse

This article deals with the current trade deficit America has with China. It is written from a perspective that is against the status quo; Senator Brown is decidedly opposed to our current trade practices and the foundations upon which they were established ten years ago.

His case is constructed with logical reasoning derived from empirical and historical data. In building a calculated argument based upon generally-accepted principles, he creates a compelling case for change in America's foreign trade policies with China.

Ultimately, however, his argument's efficacy can be determined by the response of the audience for whom he writes: the internationally-minded intellectual, those whose livelihoods are, or can be, directly impacted by the U.S. trade deficit with China.

As a senator, his own livelihood is reliant upon his ability to rouse his constituents to support changes he feel can better their lives. Thus, his rhetorical approach bears even more consideration when looking at the larger issue he is addressing.

To get caught up to speed, decades ago, during the Reagan administration, America decided that it wanted to trade with China. This was a daring move, as China was still closed to the outside world. But press onward we did! Our trade policies were founded upon the presupposition that capitalism would bring about democracy.

Whether or not this assessment was correct is currently a moot point. What matters is that the legislation we passed back then is biting us in the hindquarters now. We adjusted the rules so that our companies could export more to China. Instead, the corporations stabbed us in the back by closing their factories in America down and shipping the jobs to the pittance-earning Chinese. How capitalist of us. (the picture did not post--I will fix it later).

So much for Sino-US trade strengthening the American trade position. Enter Senator Sherrod Brown.

Sen. Brown comes to the table as an informed observer, though his role is slightly more interested than the casual newsreader; his political status is being applied to give the issue more visibility. His platform can be strengthened by winning favor of his constituents, so why not milk this problem for all its worth?

However, rather than abuse his position, Sen. Brown makes a solid argument for reform in regards to Sino-US trade relations. His mention of historical context provides the newcomer to the issue with the basic information requisite to consider his viewpoint. His logical connections between the facts of cause and the suggestions for reaction establish him as one who is rational, reasonable, and educated.

Unlike many political commentators, he does not force the issue to extremity to gain acknowledgement of his point. Not like this. (the picture did not post--to be fixed later).

Irrational or extremism is rarely effective in actually accomplishing anything, which is the antithesis of what Sen. Brown is trying to do—he is trying to rally people, particularly those of influence in Congress, to action. His is a calm and collected call to action, not the raucous, strident call to cultural revolution of extremists. He calls for change; change we can believe in. To do this, he methodically analyzes the problem and offers a viable response. As a result, his perspective can almost immediately be accepted as credible.

As a senator, Brown is a member of the Democratic Party and a result there are some subtle bits and pieces that are tied to their agenda. His overall suggestion, that Congress grant the president “authority to impose tariffs on China or any other country that unfairly manipulates its currency,” is a classic Democrat big-government objective. However, in the context of the article it is not functioning to convert Republicans or independents to his party, but rather functions as a suitable and, again, logical solution to the current trade crisis. It maintains his ethos as a writer on a complex topic.

In addition, within the two-line biography of the contributor, it states that he is the author of “Myths of Free Trade.” The title of this book leads readers to automatically assume that he is against many of the current trade policies in place; that he feels there are serious flaws in our economic system. This explains his stance on Sino-US trade agreements, though it also exposes some bias on his part as a writer. Again, though, his bias does not seem to interfere with his logical reasoning or evidence. And in writing for The New York Times, he places his opinion in the public record to spur conversation and debate among constituents, industrialists, economists, businessmen, entrepreneurs, and politicians alike.

The audience of The New York Times tends to be an educated demographic. They are directly affected by the events on Wall Street, they have white-collar jobs, and they are well versed in the international arena. As such, Sen. Brown had to write his piece with them in mind; else he would be viewed as one on a lower intellectual level. Brown acknowledges this and writes with references to actual current affairs. He does not brief them on the whole issue, as it would be redundant, but he alludes to other relevant information that the globally aware reader would already be familiar with. He gains respect and authority with this technique as he can be seen as an equal, instead of a pandering politician or pretentious armchair economist.

Brown writes to his audience in language that they are accustomed to, language that others may find to be more advanced. However, again, he dodges pretentious language by speaking with a voice that is uniquely his. He does not abuse a thesaurus to command attention. He does not misuse his vocabulary, a common hallmark of a false authority.

And while he is intelligent and sophisticated in his tone, he remains somewhat conversational. He does not move to the realm of inaccessibility by sounding haughty and removed; he prefers to use inclusive pronouns like “us” and “our.” By doing so, he is appealing to the voters’ sense of community and esprit de corp, an important element of any communication by a politician to any form of audience—he is always on the campaign trail. His writing feels fresh and organic and resembles the commentary one might encounter at a family gathering with a certain politically-inclined uncle. In fact, that is what gives this piece strength. Brown does not force readers to his point. Rather, he makes it clear that to think otherwise may not be the best decision they have ever made; he does not ostracize those who disagree.

In writing in the op-ed section of a newspaper like the New York Times, there are word limits and other formatting limitations, none of which appear to hinder Brown’s address. The article feels neither rushed nor unnaturally abbreviated. The flow of information is steady and consistent. The sentences also work together to say a lot in only a few words, but without ending up feeling overly terse.