Endangered Species Are In DANGER

It is a simple fact: human-kind is growing. Human’s continual outward growth means less and less room for other species on the planet. This growth combined with our new technological capabilities has become a potent recipe for destruction of the environment and those living in it. This is why John D. Dingell, a Democratic Congressman from Michigan, urged Congress to pass a bill he authored that would protect the environment and its species: the Endangered Species Act. In the article “The Endangered Species Act Should Be Preserved,” Dingell pleads with the U.S. Government and the public not to weaken or dispose of the ESA by using scare tactics, generalizations, sarcasm, vivid imagery, and his own reputation.

To begin his argument, Dingell comes up with a shrewdly disguised threat to immediately influence his reader’s thinking. He writes, “To me, the ESA was and remains common sense.” This masked threat suggests to the audience that if they don’t agree with the upholding of the ESA then they have no common sense. Even though this is a false statement, he unfairly makes those who disagree with his stance on the ESA feel like they are on the wrong side of the argument and that they lack intelligence because of their position on the subject. With a threat of only a few short words Dingell is able to make his audience feel insignificant for not agreeing with him.

Dingell is extremely critical of the Bush Administration’s ability and desire to cope with the unfounded environmental problems. At one moment in his argument against the Bush Administration he effectively uses sarcasm to illustrate his point when he says “Our armed forces have won two major wars in Iraq, toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, stopped a civil war in Yugoslavia, and prevented genocide in Kosovo. All these missions were trained for with the ESA intact. Yet, now the administration appears to be saying that desert tortoise preservation is a threat to our national security”. In the beginning of the sarcastic statement it appears Dingell will complement the Bush Administration on their accomplishments; however, he immediately follows his “compliment” with a sarcastic slap in the Administration’s face. By building the reader’s trust in the Bush Administration then swiftly tearing it away, Dingell effectively makes the reader feel more angry towards the Administration than they would have been had he not used sarcasm in his statement.

Issues Paper Topic: Why the government should subsidize companies for making more fuel efficient cars.