Phnom Penh Rhetorical Analysis

The author, Nicholas D. Kristof, begins his essay by describing Phnom Penh, a place where many families are forced to live in poverty because of the lack of jobs. The problem Kristof identifies is the labor standards that are set from President Obama and the Democrats who try to eliminate the use of sweatshops. Furthermore, the labor standards are set by people who have never witnessed the daily struggles a person faces living in Phnom Penh.
Although sweatshops are viewed as negative by Obama and the Democrats, the job is desirable for citizens in Phnom Penh. In the essay Kristof told a story that appeals to emotion, or pathos. The story he told was about a young girl that had to scavenge in trashcans and dumpsters to try and find recyclables, food, or things she could sell for money in order to support herself and her sister. The reason Kristof told this sorrowful story was to make a point, which is instead of trying to get rid of the sweatshops Obama and the Democrats should try to help the people by making workable areas and supply the people with jobs. Not only did Kristof use pathos in his essay, he also used logos, or the appeal to reason and logic. Logos is used frequently throughout the essay when Kristof explains Obamas and the Democrats
views and actions such as labor standards, wages, and working conditions.
In this essay Kristof displays strong opinions about poverty and the economic distress that many of the poorer countries are in.
He then explains a possible solution that manufacturing would provide millions of jobs that would help the poorer countries increase wages, working conditions, and labor standards. Kristof then refutes this argument by stating that expanding the manufacturing production to the poorer countries this would result in moving the newly built factories to better off nations. Not only does he refute his argument in predictions of what he believes, but he explains how Cambodia tried to increase wages. However, this resulted in increased production costs, which ended up shutting down several
businesses.
As Kristof stated in the essay, many of his ideas are shaped from the time he lived in East Asia where he witnessed the harsh living standards. He also tries to establish his credibility by telling the audience he lived there and observed how the people struggled. Moreover, he implies he knows more on the subject than Obama and the Democrats because he has witnessed firsthand what really goes on. Where Obama and the Democrats rely strictly on facts.
Finally, he concludes by making the point that sweatshops have more of a positive influence than a negative. Moreover, the best way to help the people in poorer countries is not to be against sweatshops but to help promote them. Also, he understands why Americans have a difficult time trying to comprehend the idea of sweatshops because they are not seen in the average American day.
Overall, the argument Kristof makes is effective because he uses strong evidence to support ethos and pathos. The problem he identifies is from Obama and the Democrats who continue to attempt at helping, but because this team relies on facts Kristof implies they are not as equip as he is because he has seen the effects the poorer countries where Obama and the democrats have not. Nonetheless, he describes the use of sweatshops in how they provide many jobs for the poorer countries where jobs are scarce.