Closed Reading: "Failure is Good"

Failure is Good

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/opinion/krugman-failure-is-good.html

Most of the times, when we think of failure, we think of it as bad, don’t we? However, Paul Krugman argues the case that failure can actually be a good thing—especially in the political process. Using diction, syntax, and details, Krugman describes why failure can actually be good in the political world.

Krugman’s word choice is very concise and pointed; he uses words such as “slashing”, “pose”, and “destructive” to describe Republicans and their views on reducing future deficits, while he uses “moral” and “raising” to create a slightly more positive connotation when discussing the Democratic view of reducing future deficits. Krugman also creates a negative aura when discussing this issue by using words such as “doomed”, “fail”, and intransigent”. By creating this negative view of the issue, Krugman manages to convince readers that the failure of this issue will indeed benefit our lives.

Syntax is also used to help support Krugman’s view that failure can actually be good. Krugman often uses rhetorical questions to get readers to think about what he said- and he manages to prove himself right! Krugman says “Does anone doubt that he was speaking for many in his party?” in reference to Rick Perry’s view of Social Security. When Krugman inserts this question, readers realize that his point is in fact valid- that Perry’s views do apply to many Republicans. Krugman also uses dashes to explain his thoughts, creating a sense of casualness, making his article more relatable. The pause caused by the dashes also help readers to make a distinction between the explanation of specific points and the actual points. With this easy distinction, this work is easy to follow, making readers more likely to agree that in this case, failure is actually good.

Krugman successfully uses details to explain why he –and you too- should believe that failure is good in this case. Krugman talks about details such as how government works, and the difference between the two parties to explain this. By detailing the ways the two major parties run, Krugman manages to explain that in this “supercommittee”, there will be policy gridlock, which is why their goal to reduce future deficits will fail to meet the deadline. Also, he explains the Republican’s “true” views about reducing deficit spending. Purposefully attempting to pin the issue as a Republican view, Krugman manages to make Democrats feel stronger about this issue. By explaining the issue and detailing how it would not help the United States to decrease deficits, Krugman convinces anyone, who was not already convinced, that this issue is better left a failure than a success.

Through the use of diction, syntax, and details, Krugman successfully elaborates why failure can be a benefit to people for the current hot issue about reducing future deficits.