Analysis Of David Brooks One Nation Slightly Divisible

David Brooks, writer of “One Nation Slightly Divisible,” tries to control the audience’s minds by using “we” in his article. Similarly, Jonathan Rauch, writer of “In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected” argues in a biased point of view exceptionally to attract the audience to believe his personal view towards prejudice. Even though both Brooks and Rauch share the same bias perspective, Brooks reveals a more pervasive biased opinion compared to Rauch. David Brooks stands out with a positive effect of bias to convince the readers and help unfold his viewpoint to grasp the audience's attention. Rauch also uses bias to convince the reader but was not as effective as Brooks' tactics to convey his objective through diction,

In "One Nation Slightly Divisible" Brook emphasizes his connection with the reader consistently with a stronger effect on the reader’s mind. "All we know, or all we think we know" (Brooks, One Nation Slightly Divisible). Brooks uses the word "we" three times in one sentence to attract or invade the reader's mind to change their opinion. While Jonathan Rauch also attempts to convince the reader of his biased opinion he doesn’t have a strong enough effect on the reader. “We all feel we know prejudice when we see it. But do we?” (Rauch, In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected). Rauch gives readers the choice to pick a side instead of invading their minds with his beliefs towards prejudice. The diction both authors use has an influence on the audience but Brooks has a strong and more effective approach to convincing the audience of his

Brooks uses that certain technique to satisfy his objective of his writing by indicating how the matter should be seen in his point of view. “When they talk about the days their kids were born, their eyes take on a soft Garth Brooks expression, and they tear up” (Brooks, One Nation Slightly Divisible). Brooks gives the reader a sad picture to convince the reader of his opinion. The reader has no choice but to surrender to Brooks’ writing and fall for his effective technique to invade their minds. On the other hand, Rauch uses emotional appeal but not as effective as Brooks. “I can think of nothing sadder than that minority activists, in their haste to make the world better, should be the ones to forget the lesson of Rushdie's plight: for minorities, pluralism, not purism, is the answer” (Rauch, In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected). Even though Rauch uses the pronoun “I” to try to express his biased opinion, the statement fails to connect with the audience. Words such as “sadder” would normally appeal to the reader’s emotions. However, the way Rauch uses the phrase in a serious matter is not strong enough to enter the reader’s