How not to write an essay

Today, class, we're going to go over classic essay and argument structure again. We just saw last night that Father Garvey doesn't get it, and this morning, we're reading a piece by David Domke, and apparently he missed that lesson, too.

Briefly, class, when you make an assertion in print, you should back it up with evidence of some sort. Here's Mr. Domke's central assertion (in someone else's essay, it might be called a "central idea," but I think that's a little too positive for this one):

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, the president and his administration have converged a religious fundamentalist worldview with a political agenda -- a distinctly partisan one, wrapped in the mantle of national interest but crafted by and for only those who share their outlook. It is a modern form of political fundamentalism -- that is, the adaptation of a self-proclaimed conservative Christian rectitude, by way of strategic language choices and communication approaches designed for a mass-media culture, into political policy.

As we can see, Mr. Domke is pretty excited about the situation, but he needs to slow down and define some terms and support his proposition: "religious fundamentalist worldview"---what does Mr. Domke mean by that, and in what way does the Bush administration fit that definition? "Crafted by and for only those who share their outlook"--establish the truth of that in light of the administration's domestic and foreign policy actions (note to Mr. Domke--"only" is a hard word to prove). "It is a modern form of political fundamentalism -- that is, the adaptation of a self-proclaimed conservative Christian rectitude, by way of strategic language choices and communication approaches designed for a mass-media culture, into political policy": Well, isn't that scary--"rectitude" is uprightness, Mr. Domke. So the administration is trying to portray itself as morally upright by communicating through the mass media? Heck, the Clinton administration did the same thing. John Kerry is making the same effort. It's part of campaigning. Mr. Domke's "strategic language choices" seem to be aiming to make that something furtive and underhanded.

I'm not going to take apart Mr. Domke's essay--life is too short to dissect all the schlock that gets printed in the daily newspapers, but here are a couple more cappers:

For example, in his address before Congress and a national television audience nine days after the terrorist attacks, Bush declared: "The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." Similarly, in the 2003 State of the Union address, with the conflict in Iraq imminent, he declared: "Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." These are not requests for divine favor; they are declarations of divine wishes.

They are lasting themes of the American self-definition, in the same vein as Lincoln, Jefferson, and the Declaration of Independence (see my first rant on Father John Garvey.)

I systematically examined hundreds of administration public communications -- by the president, John Ashcroft, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld -- about the "war on terrorism" in the 20 months between Sept. 11, 2001, and the end of "major combat" in Iraq in spring 2003.

Stop a minute while I laugh at his "systematic examination of hundreds of administration public communications." It sounds like a kid's science project. OK. I'm ready.

This research showed that the administration's public communications contained four characteristics simultaneously rooted in religious fundamentalism while offering political capital:

• Simplistic, black-and-white conceptions of the political landscape, most notably good vs. evil and security vs. peril.

It may surprise Mr. Domke, but a lot of people in the flyover states (and some who are not in the flyover states) actually think that good and evil exist and that it's our business to pursue the one and fight the other. And that security and peril are substantially different, opposites in fact, and we want our government to pursue the one and ameliorate the other.

Calls for immediate action on administration policies as a necessary part of the nation's "calling" and "mission" against terrorism.

Perhaps Mr. Domke was busy three years ago when 19 highjackers flew (attempted to fly) four airliners into public buildings. A lot of people in flyover country (and some on the coasts) don't want that to happen again. We're pretty sure that the planning continues, and we need to move fast to stop it.

Declarations about the will of God for America and for the spread of U.S. conceptions of freedom and liberty.

And the problem with that is--? We have people risking their lives to do stoop labor in the farms of America. They line up for visas and green cards. They demonstrate against their home tyrants even to the extent of facing down tanks and guns. Mr. Domke lives here, where he can make stupid statements like this with impunity. Why does he presume that the people of Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Zimbabwe and North Korea don't want the same rights and opportunities he has?

Claims that dissent from the administration is unpatriotic and a threat to the nation and globe.

Mr. Domke, show me one statement in your "hundreds of administration public communications -- by the president, John Ashcroft, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld" that supports this view. I'm not talking about an exaggerating pundit or a loud-mouthed talk-show host or some crazy in the comments of a blog (no crazies in my blog). You listed John Ashcroft, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfield and the president. Show me a statement from one of them that calls any dissenters unpatriotic. I'll even give you Condoleeza Rice for good measure.

Then I'll show you statements from Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Gen. Wesley Clark calling George W. Bush unpatriotic. In fact, 97 percent (based on a seat-of-the-pants analysis of a Google search on "'george w. bush' unpatriotic") of the hubbub about "patriotism" is coming from the Left--either whining that they are patriotic, whining that other people think they're not, or accusing other people of being unpatriotic. People, get a grip. You brought it up. Maybe you've got issues.

OK. That's all the attention Mr. Domke is going to get from me this morning. He goes on to complain about how the press advances Bush's nefarious agenda. I guess he didn't read the column by the New York Times ombudsman, Daniel Okrent, acknowledging that the paper is liberal--maybe even a little too liberal. It's not just the Times either. Mr. Domke apparently doesn't think the press should report on presidential statements at all.

OK, class. That's our lesson for today. A good essay makes a point and backs it up. Paranoid ravings do not make for a serious discussion, although they may be useful in humorous writing.