In David Brooks, “One Nation Slightly Divisible” and Jonathan Rauch’s “In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected”, both authors illustrate bias to convey their messages and arguments. For instance, Rauch exploits the not so negative attributes that come with prejudice such as the unrealistic objectivity of trying to get rid of it. Rauch also makes claims that it is nearly impossible to stop prejudice because as he states, individuals have some form of prejudice within them. In addition, Rauch strongly implies that eradicating prejudice is a fantasy that will not come true as long as one considers prejudice itself the enemy. On the other hand, Brooks believes that eliminating prejudice in one’s lifetime is attainable.
…show more content…
Rauch speaks of a regime that influences people to think in a prejudice manner. One can assume that the government does the same in order to garner the support and approval of the majority population of the United States citizens to pass laws efficiently. For instance, Rauch states, “An enlightened and efficient intellectual regime lets a million prejudices bloom, including many that you and I may regard as hateful or grotesque” (Rauch 3). Rauch suggests that the ‘regime’ creates prejudice because a person or in this case a government is ‘enlightened’ does not mean that they are less prejudice, less ‘hateful’ or ‘grotesque’ than a group of people who does not illustrate an ‘efficient intellectual’ capability. In addition, Rauch uses the word ‘bloom’ to illustrate that regimes have an influence over the people. For instance, in today’s day, “the Mexican wall” in the name “of homeland security” nationally breeds further hatred and bigotry because it targets a specific group of people that, according to Donald Trump, should not be welcomed into the United States. In other words, people will conform to the regime simply due to the fact that most people would rather stand behind the authoritative power (the bully) rather than in front of the power. …show more content…
For instance, Brooks states, “What unites the two, then, is our mutual commitment to this way of life- to the idea that a person is not bound by his class, or by the religion of his fathers, but is free to build a plurality of connections for himself. We are participants in the same striving process, the same experimental journey” (Brooks 7). Brooks gives a sense of hope that the American people are not ‘bond’ to a certain attribute despite the prejudice that comes with belonging to a certain group, that one can change for ‘himself”, and have the possibility to become anew. However, Brooks’ illustration of the American dream is unattainable because one can assume that bias and prejudice in other words judgment are embedded in the human mind by nature. One can also assume that the American Dream only really belongs to a certain group of people and it is not open to all. Both authors illustrate a different form of bias however; Rauch pervasively effects his readers than Brooks can because of he gives solutions to wither
Rauch speaks of a regime that influences people to think in a prejudice manner. One can assume that the government does the same in order to garner the support and approval of the majority population of the United States citizens to pass laws efficiently. For instance, Rauch states, “An enlightened and efficient intellectual regime lets a million prejudices bloom, including many that you and I may regard as hateful or grotesque” (Rauch 3). Rauch suggests that the ‘regime’ creates prejudice because a person or in this case a government is ‘enlightened’ does not mean that they are less prejudice, less ‘hateful’ or ‘grotesque’ than a group of people who does not illustrate an ‘efficient intellectual’ capability. In addition, Rauch uses the word ‘bloom’ to illustrate that regimes have an influence over the people. For instance, in today’s day, “the Mexican wall” in the name “of homeland security” nationally breeds further hatred and bigotry because it targets a specific group of people that, according to Donald Trump, should not be welcomed into the United States. In other words, people will conform to the regime simply due to the fact that most people would rather stand behind the authoritative power (the bully) rather than in front of the power. …show more content…
For instance, Brooks states, “What unites the two, then, is our mutual commitment to this way of life- to the idea that a person is not bound by his class, or by the religion of his fathers, but is free to build a plurality of connections for himself. We are participants in the same striving process, the same experimental journey” (Brooks 7). Brooks gives a sense of hope that the American people are not ‘bond’ to a certain attribute despite the prejudice that comes with belonging to a certain group, that one can change for ‘himself”, and have the possibility to become anew. However, Brooks’ illustration of the American dream is unattainable because one can assume that bias and prejudice in other words judgment are embedded in the human mind by nature. One can also assume that the American Dream only really belongs to a certain group of people and it is not open to all. Both authors illustrate a different form of bias however; Rauch pervasively effects his readers than Brooks can because of he gives solutions to wither