Friday, March 20, 2015

Zakaria’s and Friedman’s arguments

Salvador Lopez

Professor Baer

English 5B

MWF 12:00-12:50PM
 Fareed Zakaria's and Thomas L. Friedmans arguments 
After reading both excerpts i felt like they were both interesting. I like it when certain articles, excerpts, letters, etc. talk about our country. It expands my learning when it comes to the U.S. Both excerpts were talking about the U.S and including other countries and that is what i like. Once you talk about the country i live in i give it my undivided attention. Therefore, i was really interested and enjoyed reading both excerpts from Fareed Zakaria and Thomas L. Friedman. However, i happened to find Zakarias excerpt more interesting. 
For instance i found that Zakaria was more persuasive in her article. I felt like using the 3 tectonic power shifts really showed a lot. It really gave me something to imagine. For example, the first shift was "The Rise of the Western World" it really helped me imagine everything being set up for the second shift. The first shift to me was an example of everything being prepared for the upcoming shift. Then the second power shift was "Rise of the United States" i totally imagined this right away since i know a lot of things from history. I imagined the U.S to be a power house. More like a big brother to all the other countries that were not as big as the U.S. Then that all suddenly changed when the third shift went in. That was "the rise of the rest". i did not even have to read along more because i knew what it was about. I never realized this until i read the third power shifts name. I have witnessed other countries grow out of what they used to be. They are not noticed but they are rising. The United States has been on hold for the last couple of decades. They have not risen any greater of what they were before. We can easily compare their electronics, culture, science, and politics to another country such as china. They even beat us in half the things. That is not what a superior country does? They can't be compared to another country they have to prove its dominance and sadly the U.S is not doing that.
In addition, Friedmans article wasn't persuasive enough for me like Zakarias. For example, Zakaria hit us with 3 main tectonic power shifts while Friedman would go back in forth with the Colombus expedition. I did not like how he would go back in forth with Colombus and the real world. I don't feel like Colombus's trip was that credible in order to compare it to the real world we live in today. He was going somewhere about India being very upgraded and the people they have in business, but i just feel like he should have shared to us reasons on how the U.S is stuck in time. I would have been persuaded more if Friedman had used the U.S before using India. I felt like giving us a brief overview of how America is and compared it to India would have been much better. 
In conclusion, i feel as if Zakarias writing is more persuasive since i can have examples for many ideas he can make. I witness a lot of things and see what his claims are tied to. I know this country is at stake of losing its supreme power, but I hope this country improves. I hope this country can get off hold and go back to work. 


  1. Salvador,

    You've done some nice reflection on why you found Zakaria's rhetoric persuasive, but what's missing from this post is commentary on why his rhetoric was more effective than Friedman's. What was less persuasive about Friedman's strategies?