Questions posed throughout the article implying the reader has his own choice actually serve as an interview with himself, discounting answers other than his own. Glasser spends a more significant amount of time in his article posing questions such as "How should public morality be defined?" setting the reader for what is to come than giving his facts to strengthen his argument. Glasser then answers these questions with his own opinion which leaves little room for expansion of the reader's opinion as he criticizes the other options, leaving the reader frustrated and disconnected from the piece. .
More than alternating the focus to contrast freedom and democracy, Glasser tactfully formulates his argument to narrow the scope of the argument with every example. Beginning with a personal experience, reading the paper, he moves through the paper examining the international, contrasting the "moral compasses" of Afghanistan and South Africa, then moving to national, local, and individual levels of his argument creating a full circle finally choosing the morality of South Africa. The compare and contrast method coupled with narrowing the scope of the argument, producing a very interesting result, linking senator Jesse Helms to the authoritarian regime of the Taliban as they are both set to exemplify "visions of morality" not represented by freedom and America. Implicitly linking the two marks a significant turning point, not only within the essay, but within the reader as well. .
The essay diverges from the national and international and sets up a personal attack deeming Helms as one of the "merchants of virtue, bent on forcing their [his] beliefs on everyone else," strikingly similar authoritarian Afghanistan, as explained earlier by Glasser. The scathing remarks and implicit insults change the article from a "struggle between two competing visions of morality" to a modern mudslinging match, Glasser seizing all opportunities to lambaste and belittle his political rival, Jesse Helms.
