Letter to Obama, Example of a Strong Argument

Throughout the semester I will be asking for electronic copies of your work to use as copies of outstanding work. Then, I will post them to the blog as examples for other students. Of course, you are always welcome to post your work on your own.

Here is Katie's letter to Barack Obama. I like it because it is a nice example of the Trinity of Argument in action. There is a clear thesis moment and none of the evidence lacks analysis.



An Open Letter to Barack Obama

Dear Senator Barack Obama,
I am writing to express my reservations with your current energy policy. I hope you will agree with me when I say that America is in the midst of an energy crisis. Gas prices have soared astronomically affecting not only America’s wallets but also serving as the driving force behind America’s economic depression. According to Bloomberg.com, oil is currently $109 per barrel. September 2003 witnessed oil prices as low as $25 per barrel, meaning America has witnessed an over 400% markup in prices within the last five years. These figures are staggering, and the future president’s energy plan will arguably be the most important policy of the new presidency. After reviewing your current energy plan enumerated on your official campaign website www.barackobama.com, regretfully, I find your plan highly insufficient. With regards to your energy plan, I believe you do not adequately address the oil supply issue, you place too much emphasis on the future of clean fuels and “green” alternatives, and you inadequately allocate government funds within your energy plan.
A recent CNN report compared your energy plan with Senator John McCain’s and drew the conclusion that you address the demand issue of the energy crisis while McCain addresses the supply issue. Specifically, you are against an increase in off-shore drilling and aim to decrease America’s demand for oil by increasing automobiles’ fuel efficiency and by promoting the invention and adoption of hybrid cars that can get 150 miles to the gallon. While these goals may alleviate America’s energy crisis, they are far too idealistic. Government regulation of fuel efficiency would be highly contested by automobile manufacturers, and hybrid cars are still objects of the future. Additionally, you offer no incentive to the development of hybrid cars unlike McCain who, according to his official campaign website www.johnmccain.com, will offer a $300 million prize for the development of the battery technology necessary for hybrid/fully-electric cars. While this figure may sound fantastical, it at least provides a way in which McCain intends to implement his plan for hybrid cars. McCain also addresses the supply issue of the energy crisis by promoting more on- and off-shore drilling, and running mate Sarah Palin has even been vocal about drilling in the protected ANWAR region. While you idealistically attempt to decrease America’s demand for oil, McCain wisely attempts to focus more on the supply issue, for by increasing the supply of oil, Americans will feel immediate relief instead of having to wait for the technological advancement of the future.
Secondly, you irrationally and overzealously advocate the inception of clean fuels. On your website, you list as one of your objectives that you aim to “ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.” However, your term as president will not even last until the year 2025, and surely America cannot wait seventeen years to witness the ultimate goals of your energy plan. Also, you advocate the production of ethanol from corn without taking into consideration how such mass production will affect food prices. McCain, however, intends to explore the uses of cellulosic ethanol which will not interfere with food crops. While alternatives to petroleum are the way of the future, more emphasis must be placed on the immediate, short-term solutions that utilize the resources we currently have instead of letting the present become subordinate to the future.
Finally, I vehemently disagree with your intended allocation of government funds within your energy plan. One of the first items listed on your website is a proposed Emergency Energy Rebate that will give families $1000 to aid Americans in paying astronomically high gas prices. Such an irrational government handout will surely pummel America into a massive amount of debt. Would it not also be wiser to invest that money into increases in oil production which will subsequently make gas prices fall, or even to use that money to relieve the gas tax which will ensure that the funds get used specifically for energy relief and energy relief only? Also, you never specifically state how much money you intend to invest in the development of clean fuels and oil alternatives, whereas McCain plainly reveals his intentions to invest $2 billion annually in the development of clean coal as well as to build 45 nuclear power plants. As a tax-paying citizen, I am very wary of voting for a candidate who does not clearly state how he plans to allocate government funds.
One of the things I respect most about your campaign is your emphasis on the importance of change. Change is greatly needed in regards to energy policy. Your current energy plan as enumerated on your website does possess some ideas that are definitely steps in the right direction, but there is much need for improvement. I urge you to think about the complaints and suggestions I have listed above and to take into every consideration the well-being of the American people.

Sincerely,

Katie Bryant