Reflection on “Reducing Our Obscene Level of Child Poverty”
Charles M. Blow’s article “Reducing Our Obscene Level of Child Poverty” presents the issue in which many children in the United States experience the hardships of poverty. In the beginning of his article, Blow states that poverty will never be completely obliterated from society. However, he suggests that there may be ways to prevent it from negatively affecting children. Blow claims that Americans should feel a moral obligation to help children suffering from poverty. He appeals to the audience by refusing to critique their opinions and beliefs. This columnist states: “People may disagree about the choices parents make…People may disagree about access to methods of family planning…People may disagree about the size and role of government…But surely we can all agree that no child, once born, should suffer through poverty. Surely we can all agree that working to end child poverty- or at least severely reduce it- is a moral obligation of a civilized society.” Blow continues to stress the importance of helping poor children by providing his audience with supporting facts and statistics. His information convinces the audience of the severity of his proposed issue and persuades readers to consider taking action. For instance, Charles M. Blow quotes a report from the Children’s Defense Fund, stating: “America’s poor children did not ask to be born; did not choose their parents, country, state, neighborhood, race, color, or faith. In fact if they had been born in 33 other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries they would be less likely to be poor. Among these 35 countries, America ranks 34th in relative child poverty…” This fact supports Blow’s belief that action needs to be taken in order to solve the issue of children suffering from poverty. Blow raises the audience’s awareness that America is not as well-off as people typically imagine; children may even be better off in other countries! Blow continues to develop this argument throughout the rest of his article, and suggests that we invest funds into helping children with poverty. He claims that if Americans can put aside their other issues and focus on the critical matter concerning children in poverty, the world would be a much better place.
As a whole, I agree with my columnist’s argument. I think that Charles M. Blow has a point when he claims that it is important for us to set aside our matters, and focus on a more critical issue. As Americans we get so caught up in our own dilemmas, that we do not take the time to reflect on the bigger issues that are occurring in the world. Although everyone may not agree that it is right to have premarital sex or use birth control, it is likely that everyone agrees that something must be done to stop the suffering of innocent children. Therefore I agree with Blow that it is important to put our focus on issues that do matter and that we can agree to resolve.
Overall, Charles M. Blow uses several rhetorical strategies throughout his article in order to convince the audience to support his claim. For instance, Blow purposefully states his opinion on poverty in the beginning of the article in order to introduce his perspective to the audience. He intentionally makes a statement and contradicts himself in order to soften his claim and appeal to his audience. Blow states: “I’m not someone who believes that poverty can ever truly be ended — I’m one of those “the poor will always be with you” types — but I do believe that the ranks of the poor can and must be shrunk and that the effects of poverty can and must be ameliorated.” This statement has a negative context at first, however it appeals to a variety of readers. People may find that they can agree with Blow either way; whether they believe that poverty can be resolved or not. This opening statement has the ability of holding the audience’s attention, and encouraging them to read even further to see the author’s point of view. Charles M. Blow is able to effectively create a position, and alludes to conflicting issues in society- such as premarital sex and abortion. Ultimately, Blow’s allusion to conflicting ideas in society stresses the importance of focusing on an issue that can be resolved- children in poverty. Additionally, Blow connects to his audience by promoting questions and offering possible suggestions. For instance, he sarcastically asks readers: “What would we get for our $77 billion, anyway?”. This columnist then goes on to offer suggestions that would be ideal to reducing poverty: “Things like the creation of subsidized jobs, an increase in the earned income tax credit, a raise of the minimum wage, an expansion of child care subsidies and housing subsidies…” Overall, I believe that Blow’s rhetorical strategies help promote his claim and stress the importance of taking action against children suffering from low-income.
Excellent rhetorical analysis.
ReplyDelete