This bipolar picture is worth two-thousand words. For every positive interpretation of the face morph, there is at least one negative. What exactly does the picture mean? There is no true single, exact answer. The purpose of the face morph is to take advantage of these differing interpretations and open politically charged conversation within the audience.
For example, positive arguments could be constructed. Emphasis could be put on the large change needed to go from Bush to Obama. Liberally, this could reflect a belief that Obama was truthful in his campaign promise of “change” in 2008. An individual, who was both happy with Bush and Obama overall, could emphasize their similarities. This could reflect admiration toward both of their policies.
Alternatively, negative connotations could also be inferred. People disenfranchised with both Obama and Bush, could emphasize their similarities. By this logic, unfortunate parallels could be drawn between their respective policies, and idle promises. Conservatively, someone who supported Bush and is critical of Obama’s implemented changes could see a large, unfavorable change in the faces.
A political moderate would confront the picture with confusion. It is fairly evident that the picture has a sort of symbolic significance. Seeking to refrain from being cast with either political extreme, one will be unsure as to the meaning. That is the trick; being unsure of the meaning, could reflect an unsure, non-confrontational personality. This mental turmoil is understandable; the meaning is up for individualized interpretation. In the absence of political identity, the picture can mean a wide variety of things.
The overall perception received from the face-swap reflects the unspoken political satisfaction, or woe of the audience. It is meant for opinions to become verbal, and result in intelligent debate, the likes of which are becoming less and less frequent.
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
Drew, I ordinarily comment as I read through an essay from the top without first reading the entire work. In your case, I wanted to know before I critiqued your introduction whether it paid itself off in later paragraphs. I’ve concluded that it doesn’t quite. Its early sentences don’t inform or intrigue your readers. They’re just warm-up followed by the same conclusion you draw in P5.
You’ve no doubt learned how to produce a strong 5-paragraph essay, and that an introduction is essential. The three body paragraphs here are very conveniently themed. I value all the thoughtfulness of your construction.
Back to the introduction. It could do its job so differently, more specifically, and begin your argument earlier. This picture represents the two poles of our current political divide and the chance that we might meet in the middle. Or it’s a speculation on what the middle might look like. Specific conjectures, whatever they may be, are vastly superior to leading rhetorical questions like “What does this mean?” or vague generalities like “for every positive a negative.” To do its job right, the introduction needs to get the argument going, and quickly, before your reader turns to an essay that won’t let her go.
I encourage you STRONGLY to weed out all your very vague passive verbs. This essay takes place in a vacuum. There isn’t a single person we can identify, even ourselves. Such writing is unavoidable for encyclopedia entries, but it shouldn’t be your goal to write like an encyclopedia.
Examples:
—arguments could be constructed
—emphasis could be put
—could reflect a belief
—an individual could emphasize
—this could reflect
Not all those verbs are passive, but their subjects, like those below, don’t have faces.
—connotations could be inferred
—people could emphasize similarities
—parallels could be drawn
—someone could see change
True this may be, but it’s easy to bail on paragraphs like these. Your primary goal is to keep your reader from bailing.
Don’t be afraid of “we.” It is your most powerful strategy to keep readers engaged; it also creates a nice reader-writer bond to write as if we’re all in this together.
This image invites us to react according to our personalities, our political affiliations. It challenges us to create the meanings it only mirrors back to us. See who’s doing the constructing now? Your readers. You. We. Us.
I highly encourage you to rewrite this substituting first person plural wherever you can (pretty much everywhere). Where you can’t, consider people “types” like Obama supporters, or Bush detractors. They’re both better than “those who support the current president.” See if your resulting essay isn’t more compelling by half.
Clearly you weren’t interested in revising, but unclear is whether you appreciated the feedback at all or care to have more, Drew. I’ll save myself the effort if you’re not interested.