Paige Rump Mr. Clark AP Language and Composition 23 October 2011 Modern columnists all have different political philosophies and each of them have their own ways of making their opinions evident in their writing. Some of these writers are liberal and some are conservative. Some of them believe in a strong national defense while others believe in a strong social safety net. Columnist, Kathleen Parker of The Washington Post, is a conservative. She supports moralistic ideals such as lower taxes, God and faith, charity, and limited government in her opinionated columns.
In Parker’s column Defining Weird she describes Mitt Romney as “weird” repeatedly. Perhaps he is weird because of his “straight as an arrow” ways, she considered. But in the end she decided this: “But what else might weird mean? It sounds smackingly like code for that which must go unspoken—that Mormon thing. ” Kathleen supports Romney’s “weird” ways. She writes, “If 2008 was the season for cool, then 2012 may be a time for uncool. ” So, perhaps Romney does stand a chance in the 2012 elections against President Obama.
Along with the campaign topic, Parker argues about whether woman (specifically presidential candidate Michele Bachmann) are given the same reaction to having headaches as men, and if it makes them less likely to be a good leader in her column Not tonight, dear. In a serious tone she writes, “Migraines can be debilitating, but they also can be managed. ” Suspicious, Parker also adds that “Bachmann has moved ahead of Mitt Romney in the latest poll. ” So do headaches according to sex really make someone less likely to be a good president? Not according to Kathleen Parker.
Women deserve an equal opportunity for anything men can do; it’s a human right. Continuing this argument of women’s rights, Parker writes this in her column Women aren’t Pet Rocks: “Without exception, every nation that oppresses women is a failed one and, therefore, dangerous nation. ” Abandoning her humorous approach to this column, unlike in her others, Parker takes a stern tone; she insistently defends her belief that it’s “[s]uch a simple concept, empowering women,” and yet, nations all over the globe fight letting go of their male dominancy.
Parker’s opinion is especially evident in this column about the female right “to be fully human, in other words. ” When it comes to the worldwide epidemic of obesity, Parker, with her traditional conservative ideals, writes in her column Health Reform and Obesity: Eat, Drink and Watch Out, “As with most problems, the solution is family. ” She takes a serious tone in this article, but also sprinkles it with humor by using the phrase “fat kids,” along with others, to lighten to mood.
Adding statistics and mentioning the names of numerous organizations and campaigns, Parker shows her abundant knowledge on this particular topic. “It isn’t that you’re hurting yourself by eating too much of the wrong foods; you’re hurting the rest of us by willfully contributing to your own poor health and therefore to the cost of public health,” Parker writes. “Fat is the new nicotine,” she adds. In her opinion, yes, obesity is a problem in America, but when does it become okay for the government to regulate what we eat?
People should choose better foods to eat on their own; the government should back off instead of spending billions of dollars on the “fat” problem alone. January 12, 2010 Haiti was struck with a “horrific earthquake. ” Parker writes in her column The Generosity of Wings Over Haiti about Jonathan Nash Glynn, an artist, who flew to the “heart of the apocalypse” simply because “[h]e had an airplane and time. ” Glynn founded Wings Over Haiti, in which he raised money for schools, food, water, etc. and transported supplies to the affected children of the area.
Parker writes that Glynn “understand[s] that Haiti’s hope rests with its children. ” Parker, with a hopeful tone throughout the column, has strong belief that children are the future and we should nurture them. It is also made evident that she is a strong believer in the great honor of charity; she is a women who would “drop whatever [she’s] doing and dash to the worst places on the planted to lend a hand,” surely an act that would prove to you that she is a conservative. She leaves her audience with this statement and strong opinion, “It is a mere dent. A tiny drop in a well of despair.
But it is sure something. ” In Parker’s extremely opinionated column, almost blog-like, There’s Nothing to Cheer about in Bin Laden’s Death, she criticizes the reaction of many Americans to bin Laden’s death. How could they “have expressed jubilation” to his death? In her opinion, she questions “how to explain that nothing has changed? The boogeyman may be dead, but the boogey is still at large in the world. ” Her comparison is strikingly captivating but expected. She writes, “How curious that people would cheer another’s death. ” It’s expected of a conservative to eel this way towards the circumstances at hand. In a Christian perspective she notes, “There is nothing to celebrate in any man’s death. ” And to those who would disagree, she later adds this: “But he was not the sole proprietor of evil… there will be another one willing to fill his shoes and eager to find expression in others’ suffering. Evil, after all, is a vagabond, ever on the prowl for a crack in the door. ” She believes that more bad people will enter and leave the world, but what makes us any better if we are so energized by the pain and suffering of those who caused us pain and suffering?
She leaves her audience with a thoughtful statement: “Triumphalism might play better on the day when we no longer have to kill each other. ” Kathleen Parker is an icon in the world of political writing, and should be praised for her eager attitude to share her opinions. Her conservative philosophy rings true in all of her columns; beliefs of God, charity, limited government, human rights, and others are manifested throughout each and every column mentioned in the above paragraphs as well as those not reviewed.
Parker’s ability to create a piece of writing that contains both humor and sternness, while still being conversational, is remarkable, and it sure isn’t going unnoticed in both the conservative and liberal standpoints. Works Cited Parker, , Kathleen. “Health Reform and Obesity: Eat, Drink and Watch out – The Washington Post. ” The Washington Post: National, World & D. C. Area News and Headlines – The Washington Post. The Washington Post, 20 May 2011. Web. 13 Aug. 2011. . Parker, , Kathleen. “The Generosity of Wings Over Haiti – The Washington Post. The Washington Post: National, World & D. C. Area News and Headlines – The Washington Post. The Washington Post, 18 Mar. 2011. Web. 13 Aug. 2011. . Parker, , Kathleen. “There’s Nothing to Cheer about in Bin Laden’s Death – The Washington Post. ” The Washington Post: National, World & D. C. Area News and Headlines – The Washington Post. The Washington Post, 6 May 2011. Web. 13 Aug. 2011. . This, Hide. “Defining Weird – PostPartisan – The Washington Post. ” The Washington Post: National, World & D. C.
Area News and Headlines – The Washington Post. The Washington Post, 9 Aug. 2011. Web. 13 Aug. 2011. . This, Hide. “Not Tonight, Dear – PostPartisan – The Washington Post. ” The Washington Post: National, World & D. C. Area News and Headlines – The Washington Post. The Washington Post, 1 Apr. 2011. Web. 13 Aug. 2011. . This, Hide. “Not Tonight, Dear – PostPartisan – The Washington Post. ” The Washington Post: National, World & D. C. Area News and Headlines – The Washington Post. The Washington Post, 20 July 2011. Web. 13 Aug. 2011. .