"A Debate Bigger Than Reform" New York Times Op-Ed

The Thursday, February 10th, 2011 edition of the New York Times featured an extremely interesting article in its Op-Ed section titled, "A Debate Bigger Than Reform". The article chronicles a recent debate about the health care reform law, or "Obamacare" as some like to call it. Recently, newly elected Republicans in Congress are trying to repeal the law, and some states are banning it, saying that it is unconstitutional. The article takes an important rhetorical approach to expressing its view.

The entire article expresses the views of both Walter Dellinger, a former Clinton employee who supports the law, and Randy Barnett, a Georgetown law professor who denies its constitutionality. The entire article goes back and forth, expressing the views and the arguments that each man makes, and explaining these two views. Throughout the majority of the first half of the article, the writer does not express any bias, but rather increases his credibility by expressing the views and reasoning of both sides.

Eventually, in the second half of the article, speaking for the staff of the New York Times, it says, "We disagree [with Barnett's view], and so do years of judicial precedent." It then goes on to explain the views of the staff. At this point, the article makes a good argument for its views, and has drawn in readers of all political affiliations, since it does not express any affiliation. It is not surprising though at this point, that the New York Times took its traditional, left-leaning stance, but it is good that it was able to draw in all readers by expressing both views of the argument.

This Op-Ed made good use of ethos, by increasing its credibility by expressing both sides of the argument. I think that it was a very interesting approach to drawing in all possible readers to view its ultimate stance that the health care reform is constitutional.