Op-Ed Post One

Sarah Reichenbach

Op - Ed Entry One

June 6, 2009

AP Lang.

Would You Slap Your Father? If So, You’re a Liberal

By: Nicholas D. Kristof

Published: May 27, 2009

            Growing up most people have at one point or another come across the labels of Conservative or Liberal. The people that claim one of these two labels are in a world all on their own. The Liberals are stereotyped as more free and almost “tree-hugger” like. The Conservatives are stereotyped as a narrow-minded Christian or wealthy business man. The two sides are both as stubborn as the other and both sides refuse to see things the other sides way. So when presenting the opposing sides with facts and figures to persuade them doesn’t work, what does? The best way to have people understand and open their mind to someone else’s way of thinking is to have those people become intimate with those ideas. For example, someone who has very negative feelings towards gay rights, might start to see things differently if they found out a close friend or their child was gay. The idea isn’t to force the person to change what they believe but rather to have them fully understand what it is that they disagree or agree with. People have the right to believe whatever they want; but its giving them the opportunity to understand what it is they believe thats important. So that people don’t just believe things because their “morals” tell them its what they ought to believe.

                Kristof’s title for this piece was witty and refreshing. Disappointingly so, there was not as much wit as I expected. Kristof starts off by talking about how to tell if a person is a Liberal or a Conservative using a couple of socially acceptable questions. By the end he’s talking about how people tend to start to see things differently, if they truly understand what it is they agree or disagree with. I found myself writing and rewriting my analysis on the article countless times before I realized that possibly my confusion with this article wasn’t entirely self induced. Kristof does a great job of supporting his statements by saying the way to make different people understand different situations is to have them sit down to dinner with these things and get to know them. The problem is he doesn’t keep a constant thought process. The title of the article lead me to believe the piece would be revolved around the differences between Liberals and Conservatives, while in actuality the article was about morals and how persuasion of a person needs to be more than just facts and figures, it needs to be an intimate adjustment. The tone of the title leaves one to believe their going to be reading about something their not. If Kristof could keep one thought the center of the article and elaborate on that thought the piece wouldn’t be as inconsistent as it is now. He does a great job supporting his stance, he just needs a little work on starting his topic and making that his main idea.