The Gender Gap

    The editors of the National Review posted an editorial to National Review Online suggesting that the Republican Party and the general public should “Ignore the Gender Gap.” The National Review has existed since 1955 as one of the, if not the, top news sources for conservative politics. Though the article is mostly aimed at members of the conservative public, it also seems to be pointed at the Obama campaign and its treatment of the gender issue.
    In their article the editors suggest that the whole gender issue with the current election has no bearing on the popularity or chances of being elected of either candidate. The argument itself is never explicitly stated in the editorial, and the reader must make a small inference. However, the argument relies on the assumption that voters will remain where they currently stand on the gender issue in the election.
    Evidence provided does not clearly state the argument. However, it does support the argument through the usage of quotes from speeches and public statements along with statistics from recent public polls to describing the candidates’ actions and comments to each other. The evidence has been segmented into paragraphs in the article, with each paragraph being about a different aspect of the argument. This results in a mishmash of points being made through the article, when a clear, coherent structure would be better at getting the argument across.
    I have to say that I agree with the argument being made to a point. They state that the gender issue doesn’t matter and that the gender gap between Democrats and Republicans has actually grow since 2008, but it does not matter as the gender arguments that have been thrown back and forth do not affect the likelihood of either gender voting on each candidate. In addition the editors made the point that Romney has been ignoring the gender related comments in favor of proving that he would be a better president works in his favor. While I agree with setting the gender issues aside in favor of proving that he would make a better president helps Romney, I think completely ignoring the gender issues will only harm Romney in the long run as every voter counts in this election.

Defense Budget Cuts

Dr. John C. Hulsman, the president of an international political-risk consulting firm, wrote to the Christian Science Monitor about “A sure-fire place to cut the US defense budget.” In addition to his consulting firm, Dr. Hulsman has written or co-written ten books about either politics or political history. While he submitted his work to the Monitor in order to get it out to the general public, it also seems to aim itself at congress as he proposes action that congress could take in order to improve the US budget.

            Hulsman argues that the United States should abort its MEADS missile and drone defense project that has consistently fallen behind schedule and over budget and replace it with modified Patriot missile systems. He makes the point of the argument clear and backs the point up with relevant evidence. However, he assumes that the United States’ partners in the project, Germany and Italy, will not anger at the US for backing out.

            The provided evidence supports the argument through clear and logical links. A significant portion of Hulsman's evidence relies on logical and objective argumentation in order to get the point across to the reader. From listing reasons why the US’ relations with the project partners would not be harmed if the project got the axe to providing evidence for the cancellation of MEADS in the form of quotes and political analysis.

            I agree with the argument and with his conclusion that the US should cancel MEADS and replace it with modified Patriots. He makes a case that is beneficial for all parties involved economically and militarily. The modified missiles take over one of the main selling points of MEADS, increased radar coverage. All that would need to be done is installing new types of radar and detection systems onto existing missiles installations instead of needing new ones. In addition to the savings on time and effort cancellation of the project would save the US $400 million and save Germany and Italy the money that would otherwise be thrown into the funding black hole that MEADS has become. In the end, all parties involved save money and gain the main advantages of the MEADS system by canning it and swapping to modified Patriot missile installations.