In Ruben Navarrette’s opinion piece in the USA Today, “Don’t be a 100 percent-er”, she discusses the partisanship involved in two major American political issues, guns and abortion. The beliefs of most people of these two political debates mostly coincide with their political party, with Democrats being on the side for gun control and be pro-choice, while Republicans are on the side of less gun control and be pro-life. Navarrette argues that this partisanship, these contrasting views with no grey in between, is fracturing the country, and politics is not about absolutes. She goes on to describe that there are people in the United States, including the author herself, that have beliefs in this grey area, and that going more to the fringes is …show more content…
Most people often feel pressure to support the political party closest to their beliefs, no matter what, and often support their stances, even if it is not exactly what that person believes (Bonotti 158). Another piece of evidence that Navarrette could have brought in is about the benefits of partisanship, and how being partisan has its advantages (Bonotti 158). Going into detail about how “...special advantages due to... position... generates stronger partisan obligations for [partisans].”(Bonotti 158) would have helped to explain to her audience the reasons that partisanship is present in political culture. If Navarrette went into detail about the reasons behind partisanship, and not just share her disdain, it would have created a clearer argument behind her opinion piece, as well a possible solution to the problem she …show more content…
She states that these “...absolutists and ‘100 percent’ers are clueless.”(Navarrette) By making this simple statement, it makes the author sound like she does not respect the opposition to her argument, and dismisses them as people that are not worthy to partake in such a debate. Navarrette does not employ the strategy of disproving the other side’s argument, by stating what that argument is and using evidence to show the illogic behind that argument. With stating this generalization in her piece, Navarette did not show how the opposition’s argument is wrong, but only showed her dismissal to the beliefs of those that are different than