Leo W. Gerard writes the critical column “Murdering American Manufacturing/‘Strictly Business’” in an attempt to foreshadow the imminent doom of American manufacturing due to corporations leaving for Mexico. In the column, Gerard compares the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in an analogy to “labor abuses, not improvements”, so that the Trans-Pacific Partnership receives an understood omen of failure. In an urgent manner, the columnist bashes the TPP proposal; however he loses the reader from misplacing the main idea near the end of the column. Emitting pathos, Gerard’s tone is the equivalent to a fervent plea directed at individuals who have fallen victim to the exodus of American companies. Beginning his column, Gerard is cautious about his word choice. With the intent of ridicule, Gerard decides to use language that suggests either extreme sarcasm or …show more content…
For the majority of the column, Gerard has consistently berated United Technologies; however, suddenly Gerard begins denouncing the TPP as another way for American corporations to slip out on the United States. Gerard does exercise rhetorical strategies like similes and juxtaposition that compared NAFTA and the TPP together. Gerard also uses compelling emotional exclamations like “for the love of American manufacturing, they [the audience] should be yelling bloody murder” for the end of the TPP, but his interruptions are not as appreciated as they could have been if his column was structurally clear. The audience becomes lost in a myriad of alternating opinions over multiple topics. It is possible that Gerard may have gotten too caught up in his fervor for the end of the corporation exodus in America that he overlooked the purpose of his column- the dismissal of the