Thoughts in the Presence of Fear

¶ … Presence of Fear" (2001) the author argues for the need to come to peace and terms with what we are as a society, wasteful, selfish, and entitled. He makes his argument convincing by stating something that can relate to everyone, and picks topics that covers almost every type of person that will end up reading this piece. He presents his argument relatively well by enforcing upon his readers examples of how as a society, we have become our worst nightmare, dependent on the suffering on the lack of well-being of others and our surroundings, and he does so in a way that makes his comments and opinions relatable to a large proportion of readers. It is this concept of making the reader feel comfortable and making them feel like the piece is written for them, that makes the author's argument persuasive.

The author's argument is very well-rounded in the sense that it provides the reader with a way to fully comprehend the issue at hand. He writes, "We must not again allow public emotion or the public media to caricature our enemies. If our enemies are now to be some nations of Islam, then we should undertake to know those enemies. Our schools should begin to teach the histories, cultures, arts, and language of the Islamic nations. And our leaders should have the humility and the wisdom to ask the reasons some of those people have for hating us" (XXIII). By providing ways to understand the potential problem and its target, he is providing his audience with a suggestion to make their own unbiased opinions based on complete research and comprehension than to jump to unsupported conclusions. His argument is persuading not only to think his ideas, but to think his ideas because one has enough evidence, knowledge, and exposure to make one's own assumptions. He is counting on the confidence that his readers will then place in him for not forcing his opinions on them, but instead will be thankful for allowing them to make up their own conclusions based on what they themselves see as appropriately fitting.

His plea to the public, to his readers, to think about the poor underprivileged that have gotten the shortest end of this stick, makes his argument that much more appealing to those who come from these types of backgrounds. He writes directly to them saying, "The dominant politicians, corporate officers, and investors who believed this proposition did not acknowledge that the prosperity was limited to a tiny percent of the world's people, and to an ever smaller number of people even in the United States; that it was founded upon the oppressive labor of poor people all over the world" (II). By acknowledging that people are being oppressed by those who deem themselves superior, he is using a technique that again makes the readers feel comfortable with his writing and eases their doubts in anything that they might disagree with later on in his writing because he has already hooked them from the beginning with stating something that affects a large number of the population. He uses this to reel more people into being convinced by what he has to say.

Again appealing to those who might feel ignored in a society, he makes it a point to mention environment and local markets, again approaching his argument from another's perspective and therefore appealing to a bigger crowd that as a result allows him to be more convincing and persuading. He writes, "Starting with the economies of food and farming, we should promote at home, and encourage abroad, the ideal of local self-sufficiency. We should recognize that this is the surest, the safest, and the cheapest way for the world to live. We should not countenance the loss or destruction of any local capacity to produce necessary goods" (XXIV). By approaching his argument from the perspective of those who feel most marginalized by the economy and the potential downfall of the nation, he makes it clear that he is trying to make a convincing argument for everyone who is willing to hear him out, and it is that in itself that makes his persuasive ability in his writing more prevalent.

Even though the author uses a great technique to persuade his audience, he does fall short in a few of his positions. It is understandable that a writer who is trying to convince a reader to think a certain way should provide great concepts for that which he is arguing, but he fails to mention the other side of the issue. He fails to contribute how people are already helping out. Even though it might just be a selected few who have taken it upon themselves to attempt to change the new world order, according to his argument alone, things have not gotten better, nor is anyone doing anything to change the status quo. This would have to be the biggest hole in his ability to account for what is wrong with society. As aforementioned, the author does state what needs to be done to change this societal downfall, but he does not acknowledge the few that are not bringing society down, to at least allow the readers to get a sense of what someone who is willing to change will turn out to be.