9 October 2011—Close Reading

Why "occupy"? It's personal

In this article, Maria Cardona interprets the source of the Occupy Wall Street movement. She argues that Americans do not feel the pressures of the day primarily economically or politically, but personally—that the actions of the right-wing are intimate in their effects on the "average" American. As she sees it, protestors aren't fighting against opposing ideologies, they're defending their well-being and dignity against a conservative-run system.

Cardona lists statistic after statistic demonstrating the prosperous upper classes and waning less fortunate. She first mentions that "executive pay is now about five times higher than it was in 1980" while the working class pay has remained stagnant. She also points out that "the average CEO makes $11 million a year while the average person makes $40,000." With these details, Cardona means to emphasize an inequality and instill a sense of unjustness, appealing to a reader's emotions, illuminating that personal feeling of OWS. She uses other statistics to further this cause and target the free-market-favoring GOP. Cardona reveals the amount of money donated by large corporations to political candidates to support her claim that politicians must cater to the money, not the needs of the American people, again appealing to the emotions of a reader. With detail, she also prods at readers' sense of morality, stating, "latino children now rank highest in child poverty rates. Latinos and African-Americans suffer from much higher unemployment rates than others."

Cardona writes colloquially, meaning to stress how intimate yet universal the effects of the actions taken by corporations and Republican politicians have been. Her diction is informal, and she keeps emphatic sentences short. With this perhaps Cardona is trying to convey to readers that if she's down-to-earth and personal with them, and if she takes the current situation in the US personally, then the readers should thereby take it personally as well, and feel as vexed as she. Her diction also trivializes the tactics of the opposing party and business executives. She uses "scream" and "cry" to show their immaturity, to show that those upsetting the protesters of OWS are not acting professionally or in accordance with political ideology. They're acting like stubborn toddlers, making the situation very much personal and undignified.

The simple sentence, "It is personal," or small variations are weaved throughout Cardona's article. She makes use of this repetition as well as rhetorical question to further place herself on the same level with the reader. Her questions mean to accentuate her own personal frustration and again draw on the emotional response of her audience, such as with "Really? Does American exceptionalism exist only at the top 1% of our workforce?" Cardona imparts the idea that the GOP and the super wealthy are demeaning the rest of society, and that's what angers the protesters of OWS, that's what angers her, and that's what should anger the reader.