Analysis Of The Article ' Things Do Not Change '

1167 Words5 Pages
Ever since I could understand government and politics I always shared the same views as my parents. I would just listen to them rant or praise politicians and I would conform to their views. The current presidential election, the first I can legally vote in, has really thrown me for a loop. Honestly the two candidates both have major faults, but also have some good qualities. I do not believe that either one is fit to or should have the honor of running this country. These unfortunate candidates are why I have chosen not to vote in November. Garrison Keillor wrote the article “Things do not change. We change” for the Washington Post in August of 2016. Throughout the whole article there is a constant battle between the presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Keillor is promoting Clinton. He starts off by stating the causes and ways to avoid Lyme disease. Then relates Trump to Henry David Thoreau. Then starts to compare Trump and Clinton. He proves why women are capable of being in office by relating his own doctor to Hillary and brings up Bill Clinton’s Inauguration Day. Keillor also says that men have a problem dealing with smart ambitious women. He ends with bringing up Lyme disease again. Keillor showed the good and the bad of democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, the good and the bad of republican nominee Donald Trump, while using good strategies, and using poor strategies. Hillary Clinton is an experienced politician and she has seen the presidency from just about as close as you can get, being the first lady. This article provoked questions for me though, for example; why would Keillor be such a promoter of Clinton if in the past she has been called a criminal and been accused of many negative things. To... ... middle of paper ... ...his claims, it made his statements seem valid. He also was creative in the ways he persuaded the reader by using the Lyme disease analogy, and relating Hillary to Eisenhower. He is convincing to the reader; his sarcasm makes him seem like he knows what he is talking about, despite having no actual facts or evidence. The witty attitude kept the article fun and lively as apposed to the average political article in a newspaper. It was also easy to read and understand; most slightly educated people can comprehend what he says and his widely known references. Overall, Garrison Keillor wrote a powerful article. Though I do not believe that he did it in the most effective way possible. His style may appeal to some people, but for myself I was just turned off completely. They are pros and cons to both Trump and Hillary and I am eager to hear the results of the election.
Open Document