Muslim Ban: A Dangerous Act
For many Americans, the executive order to protect the Nation from terrorists is “bigoted, cowardly, and self-defeating”(Editorial Board, 2017). Just after the ban was passed, the hopes and dreams of many families were broken: to fly to a new nation and resist the outrage and fear their homelands generate. People who disagree with Trump’s travel ban believe that policy is inhumane and lacks logic. According the article Donald Trump’s Muslim Ban Is Cowardly and Dangerous written by the editorial board from the New York Times, “The order’s language makes clear that the xenophobia and Islamophobia that permeated Mr. Trump’s campaign are to stain his presidency as well”(The Editorial Board, 2017). The manner in which the Muslim ban was presented should be enough to make the Congress and Trump’s cabin revise the policy immediately. The policy tends to classify all Muslims as a threat to the United States. Furthermore, the ban can pose a threat to the U.S., provoking terrorists to attack and make American allies from the Middle East turn their backs on the U.S.
Agree to Disagree
In the article, the editorial board of the New York Times is in defense of the Muslim community. They believe that Trump should rethink the policy and create a new one that is fair to everyone. The purpose of the article is to show American citizens the misconception of the ban; instead of helping the country it can essentially put U.S citizens in danger. The article Donald Trump’s Muslim Ban Is Cowardly and Dangerous published in the opinion section of the New York Times has a biased argument that is strongly supported by rhetorical devices such as pathos and ethos but, fails to convince the audience through logos which would demonstrate factual information.
Cowardly and Dangerous
Throughout the article, the editorial board had a vigorous appeal to pathos in attempt to convince the audience that the ban can be cowardly and dangerous. The editorial board mentioned that the travel ban had caused several injuries and suffering to Muslim families. The article presents the effects of the policy, “This ban will also disrupt the lives and careers of potentially hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have been cleared to live in America under visas. On Saturday, as mass protests against that ban were held in various cities”(The Editorial Board, 2017). By using pathetic appeal, the writer can invoke emotion to the reader and conceivably change the views of the reader’s stance. The editorial board demonstrated that the ban can affect the careers of thousands of people. Many readers who are in favor of the ban can see that the policy can ruin the lives of harmless people. In this quote, the writer’s words successfully show the use of pathos in the article to reveal the cowardliness of the ban.
Another rhetorical device the editorial board used in the article was ethos. In the article, the board goes on to say that the ban can potentially put the U.S in danger. The writer of the article quoted none other than the secretary of defense Jim Mattis. In the interview, Mattis said he was clear about the dangers the ban would pose during the election, “This kind of thing is causing us great damage right now, and it’s sending shock waves through this international system”(The Editorial Board, 2017). By crediting a person knowledgeable of the situation, it makes the writer of the article sound credible. If the secretary of defense thinks that the ban is going to cause an outburst effect, then the United State should take critical action. Incorporating ethos in the article made the writer’s argument stronger because the source came right from the white house. If Mattis does not think the policy is right, then the writer has a better chance to appeal to the audience.
The only rhetorical device the author did not strongly use was logos. The editorial board did not incorporate any factual or statistical statements in the article to convince the audience of the cruel ban. It is important for the readers to see factual statements so that they can be convinced of the author’s claim. This article would have been stronger if it had appealed to logos. The editorial board should have incorporated statistical evidence that proved the large numbers of people who were affected by the travel ban.
The article Donald Trump’s Muslim Ban Is Cowardly and Dangerous written by the New York Times editorial board had good rhetorical methods to support the argument about the travel ban. The writer of the article disagrees with the ban because the policy is cruel and can endanger the U.S. Using both pathos and ethos made the writer’s article strong, but not using logos detracted from the initial purpose to convince the audience.
Editorial Board. “Donald Trump’s Muslim Ban Is Cowardly and Dangerous.” The New York Times. The New York Times. 28 January 2017.Web. 26 February 2016.