Rhetorical_Analysis

Rhetorical Analysis on ‘Inequality and the American Dream’ “A Fair Analysis Based on Inequality and the American Dream” The United States economy took a turn for the worst in the year 2006. Consumption declined the most it had in three years[1]. Job opportunities also declined 15% from 2004 to 20061. Because many could not afford to buy new homes, the prices of houses declined by a staggering 6.6% rate just from 20051. In addition, wages and salaries compiled only 51.4% of the national income1. This is the lowest percentage ever recorded. Though the financial circumstances of many Americans weakened, circumstances of those wealthier did not change as drastically. In the essay “Inequality and the American Dream”, the anonymous author lays out defects in the American economy emphasizing its unequal spread of wealth and benefits and favor for the rich. The author makes an effective argument through the usage of pathos; however, the essay has weakening points in the essay when using logos and ethos. “Inequality and the American Dream” was published in the Economist newspaper, a business and political newspaper in London during the summer of 2006. The anonymous author reiterates throughout the essay that although America is the “world’s most impressive economic machine” (page 257), it still “needs a little adjusting” (page 257). The author also restates throughout the essay how influential the American economy model is to countries world-wide. During an early transition in the essay, the author mentions that ratios of Americans feel “unhappy” (page 257) over the United States economy. As the article continues to unfold, the author unravels the unfortunate truths behind the American economy; that an individual’s academic qualifications and skills are no longer enough for financial success in America. The author also states that inequality is not entirely immoral if three criterions are satisfied. These criterions generally provide an individual with equal economic opportunities regardless of “class, race, creed, or sex” (Page 258) and a “safety net” in any case where these opportunities are not made available. Leading to the conclusion of the article, the author mentions sectors of the economy, such as welfare and healthcare that also need adjustments. The author concludes the article by mentioning how the influence of the United States on the rest of the world endows America with a sense of responsibility to set a good example. In order to fulfill this responsibility, America must instill financial equality to all of its economic classes rather than promoting self-interest driven by selfishness. The intended audience clearly seems to be United States government officials who have the authority to make changes. This essay is a political newspaper article and therefore, can also target white-collared and blue-collared Americans who feel just as strongly about the nation’s stressed economic situation. This essay falls under the political viewpoint newspaper article genre. The anonymous-publishing of this essay is not because it revolves around controversial opinions but because the ‘Economist’ newspaper publishes all of its opinions essays anonymously. Although this article is based on political and economic topics, which normally utilize citations and statistics, this essay does not use logos effectively despite its genre and publisher. The author mentions the low rates of employment and yet how profits remain high but simply mentioned it without elaborating or giving any statistical information. No actual rates of employment or numbers indicating any sort of profit are stated. Another example of misusage of logos is near the end of the essay where the author states, “Inequality is not inherently wrong- as long as three conditions are met” (Page 258). This single statement sets the author’s intended argument many steps back. Despite what the three “conditions” he/she mentions are, the argument of the entire essay is that American individuals must be equally distributed with benefits (healthcare, welfare…etc.), opportunities for fiscal improvement, and monetary means. This statement may be interpreted as contradicting. Logically, it does not make sense with the rest of the essay. A third example of improper usage of logos is towards the conclusion of the essay where the author brings up hot topics such as immigration, welfare, and healthcare. The author practically lists them and states that these systems must be adjusted (“Health care, for instance, needs reform” [Page 259]). However, without any guidance or logical explanation as to how to properly adjust these systems, the author leaves the reader wondering exactly what would make him/her satisfied. The usage of ethos is least included in this essay. In the introduction, where an author should mostly establish credibility, the author states, “Only one in four Americans believes the economy is in good shape.” Though this statement could have definitely supported the author’s argument on the negative aspects of the American economy, without a citation of sources, the persuasive essence of this statement is lost. Another example is also in the introduction where the author mentions how powerful and influential the American economy is today. The author reinforces this positive commentary by quoting former President George Bush (“This economy is powerful, productive, and prosperous” [Page 257]). However, this is the only quotation included throughout the entire composition. In fact, this is the only citation made in the entire essay. This affects the author’s credibility in the sense that it gives him/her very little credibility. The author manages to incorporate only a little outside information in this essay but the fact that he/she did not once cite the sources of the little information they included may negatively reflect on the author’s skills in attaining information. This is not a tendency in the Economist newspaper because even in the Opinions section, where this essay was drawn from, most authors cite their information, especially the opening facts in the introduction (Anonymous author. “The Bihari Enlightment”. The Economist Newspaper Limited. January 2010. http://economsit.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm'story_id=15393980). In terms of pathos, the appeal to the reader’s emotions, this essay excels. Because the basis of this essay is arguing for the rights of affluent equality, American citizens who feel financially crammed feel that this essay is their voice. By mentioning the “squeezed” (Page 257) feeling of the American middle class and how “a college degree is no longer a passport to ever-higher pay” (Page 257) helps support the author’s argument by appealing to the individuals in America who fall within these categories. Pathos is also effectively used in the introduction of the essay where the author states the American promise of “economic opportunity and upward mobility” (Page 257). This statement can appeal to immigrants and foreigners who migrated to the United States in search of these opportunities but only ended up with disappointment. It seems as if the author also attempts to instill fear in the readers’ minds by saying, “Now politicians are playing on these fears” (Page 257) in order to indirectly state that government officials are not solely interested in the well-being of American citizens. Another strategic usage of pathos is throughout the entire essay where the author reiterates the power and dynamic of the American economy. This feeds on the arrogance that many zealous Americans may feel. Pathos is the only rhetorical appeal that is properly used and therefore, makes up for the weaknesses in the remainder of the essay. In conclusion, “Inequality and the American Dream” creates an effective argument on the lack of economic equality in the United States despite its deficit in citations and references which discredit the author’s reliability (ethos) and the weakness of logos. The driving force of the essay is the usage of pathos because it is used properly and can be used to relate to a vast amount of people. Because many Americans are still experiencing the nation’s financial crisis, the author appeals to these readers by using their unfortunate circumstances to prove his/her argument of inequality. Work Cited Page 1. Miyanaga, Kuniko. “Collectivism vs. Individualism”. 1994. http://internationalbusiness.wikia.com/wiki/Collectivism_vs._Individualism 2. Anonymous author. “The Bihari Enlightenment” The Economist Newspaper Limited. January 2010. http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm'story_id=15393980 3. (The U.S. Economy in Review. Christian E. Weller. December 2006. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/12/economic_review.html) ----------------------- [1] The U.S. Economy in Review. Christian E. Weller. December 2006. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/12/economic_review.html