Argument. How does it work? I would like to think I know a little bit about it. After all, teaching argument is my job. So, hear we go.
When I teach students to write compare and contrast essays, we always consider two models.
Model A, probably the most common model, includes two main parts. In part one, the author writes all about one topic like, for example, Barack Obama. In part two, the author writes all about the other topic like, for example, John McCain. One can do this with any comparison, also a general term including both specific comparison (noting similarity) and specific contrast (noting difference).
Model B, less common but more effective, contains as many parts as one finds aspects of comparison. The author begins with one issue, like healthcare, and speaks of it in relation to the two topics of comparison, like Barack Obama and John McCain. Next, the author picks another issue, like Iraq, and speaks of it in relation to the two topics of comparison, like Barack Obama and John McCain. The superiority of this method resides in the intense focus and specific comparison on each issue between each topic.
If I follow Model A and tell you ten things about topic number one, Barack Obama, then ten things about topic number two, John McCain, you must assemble in your mind what is similar and what is different between them. Not only does this involve more work, and human brains are lazy at least in the fact that they seize the first available association, but it also fails to focus on similarity or difference. If I take one issue, the housing crisis, and characterize each topic, Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s recognition or lack thereof, in relation to it, then the reader immediately sees the point I want to make. She may argue with it, agree with it, or wonder about it, but she WILL SEE IT.
After all, that’s the point of comparison is it not? You want your audience to see the difference you see AS YOU SEE IT. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Michelle Obama’s speech last night disappointed me. It was beautiful, yes, and it was informative, but it separated the narrative of her and Barack’s life from the catalogue of important national issues.
What if Michelle spoke of Barack’s mother’s economic struggles and one-time need to resort to food stamps as an introduction to the necessity of social programs to give someone a chance? She could argue that, just as Barack’s mother’s ability to feed her son because of government aid helped her through a difficult time and contributed to her ability to then become self sufficient, government aid can cause an economically insecure family to produce economically secure children who can then contribute to society. After all, malnutrition slows brain function and reduces attention and retention. In short, if your belly’s growling you can’t hear the teacher. That’s just simple.
Now, I know what I propose is not exactly comparison, but it is linkage, and that’s the focus of Model B. Michelle did not do that. I remember she listed issues, but I do not remember which issues she listed. She failed to give them any context, a story to fix them in my mind. That is the narrative we need, a story attached to issues.
Michelle Obama was amazing last night. She was powerful and sympathetic, and she told a moving story. However, if the Democrats do not begin to explain current issues in the context of personal stories OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN they will fail to engage their audience.
Trust me. I’m a teacher. I know something about speaking to an audience that doesn’t care to listen.
This diary has been cross-posted on my site.