Ms. Conner’s op-ed levels a series of sweeping accusations about the current administration and Congress but never provides a single piece of evidence to support any of them. Assertions are not arguments and repeating them does not make them true.
If deregulation has “dismantled decades of environmental protections,” the author never identifies which regulations were removed, which industries benefited, or what measurable environmental impact followed. If economic policies have “worsened wealth inequality,” she offers no data, no trend, and no explanation of how those policies produced the outcome she claims. If foreign policy has “damaged our global standing,” she never cites a treaty, an alliance, or a diplomatic event to demonstrate the harm. Every charge is broad, generic, and unsupported. Please be specific.
She also presents a narrative in which Republicans exercise total control and Democrats are powerless observers. Recent congressional action contradicts that claim. Not true.
During the House vote on FISA surveillance reform, U.S. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez was recorded as not voting on the amendment that would have required a judge’s approval before federal agencies could search Americans’ emails, texts, and phone calls under a surveillance tool originally designed to monitor foreign terrorists. The amendment failed on a 212-212 tie, and in the House, a tie means the amendment fails. A “yes” vote would have closed the loophole; a “no” vote would have kept it open. By not voting at all, Rep. Gluesenkamp Perez had the same practical effect as a “no” vote, because her missing vote allowed the tie, and the tie kept the warrant requirement out of law.
Her refusal had the same practical effect as a “no” vote and directly contributed to the outcome. This is a clear example of a Democrat’s action in a chamber the author portrays as entirely controlled by Republicans.
The op-ed also fails structurally. It never establishes a thesis. Instead, it strings together unrelated grievances and then pivots abruptly into campaign-style slogans about “unity,” “hope,” and “leaders who listen.” None of these slogans connect to the earlier claims because the earlier claims were never substantiated.
The piece ends with a partisan endorsement, but never builds the argument required to justify it. A persuasive op-ed requires three things: a clear claim, evidence to support that claim, and a logical connection between the evidence and the conclusion. This piece offers none of the three. It is political venting presented as analysis, and readers deserve better than that. Serious issues deserve serious arguments, not a list of unverified accusations followed by a campaign tagline.
There are people who despise the Constitution. It was designed to protect people’s rights, but certain people will use any means to tear down the system they don’t like. The Fourth Amendment exists to prevent those actions without due process. In a time when the country faces real challenges, voters deserve facts, clarity, and honesty, not rhetoric.
Ray Anderson
Ethel
