Final Essay One Analysis and Commentary.

I just finished grading all the first essays, and for all you Hermione’s out there, thought I’d post my thoughts. My comments from Essay Two will be shortly forthcoming.

The prompt asked for an essay which “clarifies the issues of governance Gore addresses.” Additional tips were given to 1) use the text of the speech, 2) demonstrate how language is used, 3) apply works we’ve studied, and 4) write well.

The best essays responded to Gore’s argument against an increasingly strong executive branch. These typically referenced Bush’s apparent willingness to follow Machiavelli and Hobbes, while recognizing Gore’s call to action in the vein of Locke. U.S. Constitution references, and also those to implied powers, worked well. These were a privilege to read, an honor I do not take lightly. References to The Tempest, Plato, Brave New World, and others were occasionally included, but often strained and only rarely effective. These were generally A’s to B’s.

Adequate essays tended to provide a narrative analysis of the speech, progressing though while offering commentary. Those which applied works we have studied were at the higher end of this B scale, while those who analyzed every paragraph without a larger perspective of key points sunk into a C range.

Many of you were unable to objectively respond to Gore’s content without nibbling at the bait of his occasionally inflammatory language. Calling the speaker a “sore loser,” with the “tone of a two-year old,” while gleefully reminding the evaluator who won the 2000 election did little to aid an analysis of Gore’s concerns about separations of power and co-equal branches of government. Gore’s diction was notable, and writers gained credibility for placing it in the perspective of a political speech meant to incite and inspire. As one essay stated in the conclusion, “Though-out it all, are many anti-Bush insinuations. Whether or not Gore makes a subjective argument, let’s hope he is wrong.” This identifies and labels Gore’s tone, yet addresses the core issue. Or, as a conservative author wrote, Gore “reveals his true agenda to crawl his way back from insignificance with a dramatic push for a second American Revolution against the new tyrant abusing our people. However, in doing so he brings up a number of legitimate political issues regarding governance.” Funny, incisive, and biased, this works because it subordinates to the prominence of the article’s main purpose. The best handling of the politically strident language was done by Danielle Block, who wrote, “Although these arguments risk slipping into argumentum ad homminem [sic] with the attacks focused on the president [sic] himself instead of the entire administration, the strongly worded rhetoric establishes his point with gusto.”

Finally, a dozen swallowed the entire bait and were hooked on the line as the response became a defense of eavesdropping/wiretapping for security’s sake. Often while being critical of Gore, these responses implicitly agreed with Gore that Bush has taken more executive power, but argued that such action was justified. These arguments often failed to respond to the prompt in a substantial way.

And, for posterity:

ESSAY ONE: 40 points.

Al Gore delivered a speech on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 2006 in Washington, D.C., which the Star Tribune printed. Before the text of the speech is a brief response from Tracey Schmitt of the Republican National Committee. Using the speech (and/or Schmitt’s response) as a starting point, develop an essay which clarifies issues of governance which Gore addresses. While a rhetorical analysis of Gore’s speech is not explicitly requested, your ability to demonstrate an understanding of how he uses language to accomplish his goals may support your larger points. Applying works we’ve studied will help you to illustrate your comprehension, as will a well-organized essay which benefits from strong rhetorical fluency.

Al Gore: The executive branch’s own threat to democracy.