Editorial Outside Reading: January 10

Editorial Outside Reading

“Oh Shut Up” by Hendrik Hertzberg

The New Yorker January 10, 2011

            In “Oh Shut Up,” Hendrik Hertzberg points out many flaws in American politics and especially in the recently adjourned Congress.  Hertzberg’s apparent thesis is in favor of modifying the Senatorial filibuster method, and he connects some altered Congressional rules to an improved government.  As he discusses the Senate in particular and its 2010 lame-duck session, Hertzberg makes appropriate rhetoric choices, but his disorganization and unclear thesis hinders his ability to communicate effectively.

            Hertzberg is able to craft a strong voice by introducing a bias to his editorial.  He employs diction such as “dishonorable” and “unconscionable” to describe acts passed by Republicans, and thus paints himself as a devoted liberal.  This bias keeps Hertzberg from sitting on the fence; his devotion to his beliefs allows him to create a firm and convincing voice.  This is definitely a strength of Hertzberg’s; his strong voice adds validity to his argument. 

Hertzberg is able to use short sentences to convey one of the many points he seems to be arguing, as well.  His first paragraph explains the triumphs of our last Congress and his second discusses their inadequacies.  He therefore begins his second paragraph with “Good.  But not good enough” (2): the syntax of which emphasizes the failure of the recently adjourned Congressional session. 

Hertzberg also employs a lot of figurative language, and in so doing, is able to relate to the reader.  He compares the original rarity of the filibuster method to the frequency of solar eclipses (3) and later describes the modern version of the filibuster to be “as common as sunsets- and as destructive as tsunamis” (3).  These similes paint a picture for the reader and enhance their understanding; they ultimately make Hertzberg’s argument relatable.  Despite this success though, his use of figurative language introduces an informality to the editorial that would be inappropriate for an AP Essay. 

However, despite his effectiveness in supporting his claims, I personally finished the article disagreeing with Hertzberg.  Because the piece is fairly short and he brings up a lot of points, it often is difficult to discern what exactly he is arguing.  He begins by discussing the 111^th Congress and what he views to be their successes and shortcomings, and then transitions to discuss his actual thesis: modifying the filibuster.  However, the points he makes concerning the ultimate ineffectiveness of the 111^th Congress outnumber his arguments surrounding the filibuster method.  Because he unfortunately fails to connect the two sections of his editorial, the reader is left confused.  To me, this weakness stuck out more than Hertzberg’s main strength.  Despite his strong voice, Hertzberg’s disorganized editorial seemed to be more of a poke at Republicans than a critique of the methodology of American politics.