Sarah Kells: Outside Reading Editorial #2

**EDITED**

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/13/opinion/13lighthizer.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
"Throwing Free Trade Overboard" by Robert E Lighthizer

This editorial has a very professional tone to the entire paper, from the diction to the different techniques used.  These techniques include links and facts that clearly required much research.  For example, when Lighthizer is writing about the state of the US, he mentions specifics such as a $4.3 trillion deficit and 5.6 million jobs that have been lost.
Although the tone is very mature and advanced, it does not have a very strong voice for an editorial.  Generally editorials have a unique and interesting writing style, but this one does not.  The focus is clearly more upon giving the facts rather than having a unique way of giving an opinion.
Another unusual part of this editorial is the bias - it is not as obvious to the reader as it is in most editorials.  Lighthizer is clearly biased towards the democratic party, but he does not make this very clear.  This is a good technique in convinced the audience because it leads the reader into agreeing with the author without even realizing it.  He merely throws in some slightly negative sentences such as "the Republican establishment will have to deal with..." and some insulting terms, such as when he puts "elites" in quotation marks, as though he is mocking the republican party.  Lighthizer also includes some statistics that point in the way that he wants them to be, and it suddenly seems that he has the reader.
The main strength of this article is certainly the strong diction.  This adds an authorative feel to the paper which many editorials lack.  It makes the reader feel as through it is reading a professionally writen article, and makes the author seem much more confident about the subject.
Although the diction is strong, the weakness is that the tone is rather weak.  There is no interesting technique used in it, nor is there a unique style or opinion given.  The mere fact-giving tone is boring and does not draw a reader in.
Even though I do not agree with this editorial, it was doubtlessly very well written.  The author led the reader on a trail by giving little bits of information that they must agree with, and then grabbing the audience at the very end.  He almost makes it very difficult to find anything specific that is wrong with the editorial because he uses nothing that is not true - everything he says is a fact, and he covers all of the problems with his own political party.  The opinion part of this editorial is how he takes the facts and applies them to politics.
If this paper were written on an AP test, I believe that it would be a high rated essay.  It displays a large vocabulary and an impressive writing style.