327305

Synd Colum Part 2

In Jackson Diehls article What Reagan understood about diplomacy that Obama
doesnt, Diehl discussed the comparisons between Reagans treatment of the Soviet Union and
Obamas treatment of Iran in relation to diplomacy. Diehl uses many rhetorical devices in this
article, the most prominent of which being allusions and passive aggression.
One of Diehls first allusions comes when he says that Obamas ideology, which he has
applied to Cuba and Burma as well as Iran, is that the United States should seek not to defeat its
adversaries, referencing other foreign policy decisions from the office of the president made in
Cuba and Burma. In another allusion, Diehl writes that Reagans massive increase in defense
spending and embrace of the missile defense helped to provoke the final collapse of the Soviet
economy, referencing Reagans policies and spending plans that helped end the war.
Diehl also uses passive aggressive diction at points. For example, he writes Set aside
for the moment the fact that Reagan walked away from the biggest nuclear deal he negotiated
with Mikhail Gorbachev and that the Obama administration accused Russia of cheating on the
one treaty Reagan did conclude, passively aggressively stating that he disagrees with some of
Reagans policies without directly saying so.
Diehls article had a positive effect on me. Although not personally in favor of his
argument, I found his article comprehensive and compelling. I feel this article will also be
helpful to other liberals hoping to find out a new, non-radical opinion on Obama foreign policy.
It will also confirm beliefs held by many conservatives.

327305
2

In Jackson Diehls article Will we let Ukraine die? Diehl discusses the lack of help
given by the Western countries to Ukraine while it is in its massive economic and political crisis
caused by the invasion by Russia. Diehl uses passive aggressive comments and extended use of
logos in his arguments to portray his point.
Diehl has a tendency to use passive aggression to portray his political beliefs throughout
his articles. For instance, he writes Ukraines democratically elected and fervently pro-Western
government faced all these trials essentially alone, which shows us that he does not approve of
the way the US and other western countries are treating a country with similar ideologies and
continuous support. This way, he can give his personal opinion in an informative piece without
specifically stating his opinion.
Diehl also has extended use of logos in this article. He uses facts and statistics,
particularly regarding the economic situation in Ukraine and distribution of funds by the US and
Germany, to show a massive discrepancy between the numbers and to further emphasize his
point.
This article is fairly interesting, and it gave me insight into the current economic situation
in Ukraine. However, as filled with statistics as it was, it did not actually provide any call to
action. Despite a clear opinion by the writer, he did not provide any alternative to the current
situation, although one might see the solution as obvious. I feel this will be a common problem
among readers. To add to that, as a well-informed reader, I was able to easily follow along with
the article. However, I believe someone who cannot pay as much attention to detail is likely to be
bogged down in the statistics and loaded diction.

327305
2

Part 3
Jackson Diehl is a conservative working for an overwhelmingly liberal newspaper. Diehl,
the Deputy Editor for the Editorial Board of the Washington Post, enjoys using historical
allusions and passive aggression to convey his opinions. Four prominent articles by Diehl are
What Reagan understood about diplomacy that Obama doesnt, contemplating Obamas Iran
diplomacy versus Reagans Cold War diplomacy; Will we let Ukraine die? discussing the crisis
in Ukraine and what Western countries are not doing to help them; Easing Venezuelas Crash,
speculating upon Venezuelan dealings with senior White House Officials; and For Obama, No
Middle Ground in the Mideast, explaining the hole Obama and the United States Government
have gotten themselves into in the Middle East. In all four articles, Diehl conveys opinion-ridden
news ineffectively using allusions, litotes and passive aggression.
Jackson Diehls favorite classic stylistic device is the allusion. He uses allusions in
many of his articles to reference what he thinks was a better time. For instance, he writes in his
article What Reagan understood about diplomacy that Obama doesnt that Obamas ideology,
which he has applied to Cuba and Burma as well as Iran, is that the United States should seek not
to defeat its adversaries, but to coax them into more cooperative behavior. These allusions work
to an extent. However, even in this case, Diehl uses them to put an unnecessary partisan edge to
the argument. The article has nothing to do with Cuba and Burma; however, Diehl includes them
to reference Obama foreign policy disliked by Republican Party members. This causes
Republican readers to be more inclined to believe in his argument as they dislike his policy in
Cuba and Burma. It is a shifty, partisan way to get a punch in, and it crowds out moderates and
liberals.

327305
2

Another device used by Diehl is litotes. Litotes is a technique where the author uses the
opposite meaning of a word by adding no to an antonym to weaken or soften an argument.
Diehl uses litotes in a variety of ways, both minor and major, to promote his political ideologies.
Diehl also uses litotes to keep the diction with the mood of the article. For instance, in Easing
Venezuelas Crash, Diehl writes that the visa denials and asset freezes were mandated by
congressional Legislation and wont be revoked without Capitol Hills support. On first glance,
this seems to be a non-partisan, factual sentence. However, Diehl inserts a subliminal partisan
tone into the article by using the words wont be revoked instead of are upheld. This
technique weakens the argument against the writer by making it seem like the administration is
doing the wrong thing. These subliminal messages are evident throughout his writing, and
attempt to insert partisan ideals into otherwise intriguing articles.
The last device used by Diehl is passive aggression. Passive aggression is Diehls favorite
stylistic technique, and it is used often to insert Republican ideals into the story and insult the
authority and decisions of President Obama. For instance, in his article Will we let Ukraine
die? Diehl writes that Ukraines democratically elected and fervently pro-Western government
faced all these trials essentially alone Barack Obama is intently focused on completing a
nuclear bargain with Iran. This one of the more partisan passive aggression used by Diehl. He
uses passive aggression to emphasize western countries are ignoring this pro-western country
that is in trouble, and then puts the emphasis on Barack Obama, rather than Congress. This
causes the reader to feel rage, and then direct it at the Democratic President, another form of
partisan bickering.
To add to this, there is a major flaw in Diehls writing style. Diehl gets the reader riled up
about a topic after criticizing it, and then neglects a call to action. He does not propose an

327305
2

alternative piece of policy of use of diplomacy, causing an altogether discontented reader, and
loses momentum gained by the article itself.
Jackson Diehl, like Congress, is too concentrated on partisan ideals to be able to
accurately and clearly portray the news in his opinion. He also neglects to use a call to action in
his conclusion, causing an annoyed reader. Jackson Diehl uses, litotes, allusions, and passive
aggression in his articles, inserting partisan bickering into his argument and ineffectively
portraying his goal of conveying his opinion.