Jimmy Carter Arctic Refuge Rhetorical Analysis Essay

Jimmy Carter, former president of the United States, advocates for the preservation of the Arctic Refuge, but is also arguing against using the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for industry and manufacture. In regards to Carter experience in the Arctic Refuge as well as historical support to stress the importance of maintaining traditional values in America he uses descriptive, emotionally-appealing language, and his personal experience for logic and persuasiveness.

In the beginning of the article, Carter indicates the Arctic National Wildlife as “America’s last truly great wilderness” (Carter 1).   In the article Carter uses the words “magnificent'', “timeless”, “fortunate”, and “brillant”, while he continued exploring the beauty of the Arctic Refuge as well as the many different animals and wildlife reservations the site harbors. Carter’s choice of descriptive words strengthens the persuasiveness of his argument, appealing the emotions in the audience by developing colorful images for the audience to visualize the wildlife. “The never-setting sun circled above the horizon” (Carter 2) to “ sounds of grunting animals and clicking hooves filling the air”(Carter 3), To make the audience feel connected Carter recreated the experience of the Arctic National Wildlife.

Many of Carter’s reasons came from  eye witness of his own experience, as he mentioned that he visited this area with his wife. He appeals to the audience's sense of humanity, when he states that Americans need to consider the fact that many indigeous people including the Gwich’in Athabascan people of Alaska and Canada rely on Alaskan wildlife. Carter wants the audience to understand the preservation of the Arctic National Wildlife and not just for the animals but on the behalf of the people that live there and need them.

Carter stated in the article that President Dwight D. Eisenhower established the “8.9 million-acre” which was a haven for the wildlife. Carter includes relevant evidence which appeals logically to the audience.  He recognizes the historical importance of the Arctic Refuge. He added that he safe guarded Alaskan wildlife after twenty years after Eisenhower when he signed the “Alaskan National Interest Lands Conservation Act” (Carter 5). He explained that what the oil industries would gain from the region wouldn't be enough to justify its destruction.    

Throughout the article, Carter’s uses both descriptive and emotionally-appealing language elevate the wildlife refuge’s highlight for the people and the animals.  He creates an argument with persuasiveness using emotionally appealing words.The audience can visualize the Arctic Refuge as a beautiful, wild place, and clearly they can see that drilling there isn't right at all whatsoever.