Drew Persinger

Professor Fielding

WRTC 103

11 February 2018

A Rhetorical Analysis of “Marriage, Poverty and the Political Divide”

Marriage is one of the fundamental and defining components of our society. Marriage

structures family life as well as impacts the social and economic aspects of our entire population.

The encouragement of marriage could decrease child poverty by 82% in addition to increase the

positive correlation between married couples and high net worth. Andrew Yarrow writes an

article about marriage, politics, and poverty during the beginning of the 2016 presidential

campaign while the candidates are beginning to express their platforms on family life and

poverty. Andrew Yarrow successfully showcases the economic and social benefits of living in a

traditional family unit while acknowledging that society isn’t currently highly conducive to the

traditional family structure by utilizing ethos, logos, and pathos.

The traditional family can yield many positive effects but in an evolving society the

traditional structure is becoming illogical. The traditional model has been known to increase

economic stability, provide healthy environments for children, and decrease poverty. However,

with the rise of the feminist movement, the online dating scene, and new technology all make

marriage less reasonable for adults. Young professionals, particularly women, have increased the

number of hours dedicated to their career in recent years. Young women are more focused on

their careers and interests which makes dating and marriage less relevant in their lives. Young
adults need to contemplate the role and prevalence that a traditional marriage could have in their

society and culture.

Ethos is utilized to advance the credibility of his claims. He cited a widely known

scholarly study from University of California Los Angeles which states that poorer Americans

aspire to marriage at similar or higher rates than higher-income Americans. The author addresses

the stigma that marriage alone is a solution to poverty. Yarrow cites, W. Bradford Wilcox, an

expert in the field of poverty and the director of the National Marriage Project. He agreed that

marriage is not all that is needed to fight poverty, “but Americans are more likely to realize the

American dream if they get and stay married and grow up in communities where marriage is

stronger” (par. 26). The government’s involvement thus far in promoting marriage is shown

through its allotted $800 million through 2014 for the Healthy Marriage Initiative. The initiative

provided a range of programs to help low-income couples have better relationships. Yarrow also

cites a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, Kay S. Horwitz, that claims that marriage

promotion programs have had little success. Another expert in the poverty and family life,

Melissa Boteach, claims that “policy makers should focus on strengthening the economic

foundations of families in ways that foster stable and healthy marriages” (par. 18).

The author showcases how the issue of marriage and poverty can be politicized. He

explains that promoting good marriage and family values is essentially non-partisan but needs to

be addressed in slightly different ways. Horowitz also asserted that both parties are

fundamentally pro-marriage and pro-family, however, “the right wants to see more married

couple families. For the left, widespread single motherhood is a fact of modern life that has to be

met with vigorously expanded government support” (par. 14). The married couple should be

supported, but the people that don’t participate need to be protected and supported as well. He
asserts that the plan to increase marriage rates is very idealistic and a drastic increase is not

feasible; “It doesn’t make much sense to encourage, much less pressure, a couple with no shared

history interests or deep affection to marry” (par. 15).

Yarrow employs pathos to motivate the reader to empathize with individuals that need

support beyond the solution of the institution of marriage. Yarrow describes how the country

fails to support the lower class in terms of family values by asserting that “the United States lags

behind virtually every major country on earth. We are the only advanced economy that doesn’t

guarantee its workers some form of paid family leave, paid sick or paid vacation time” (par. 22).

He also reminds his readers that millions of families receive help in the form of food stamps or

payments from government programs. While marriage could decrease poverty, the poverty

margins are still heavily reliant on government programs and welfare. If marriage rates were at

an all-time high, there would still be many people in poverty which include many married

couples. He appeals to American patriotism and pride by conceding that realizing the traditional

American dream is more likely for married couples.

Andrew Yarrow is very effective at conveying his ideas about the traditional family

structure in America. He structures his argument by explaining his ideas in relation to ethos,

pathos, and logos. Yarrow convinces the reader to think thoughtfully about the traditional

marriage structure in America and explore how socioeconomic factors are making the traditional

marriage unit less beneficial for a lot of people.

 Work Cited
Yarrow , Andrew L. “Marriage, Poverty, and the Political Divide .” Www.newyorktimes.comNew

York Times , 24 Jan. 2016,

www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/fashion/weddings/marriage-poverty-gop-political-

divide.html.