Griffin Campbell WRD103 Section 801 Prof.

Brenner 1/17/2012

Paper 1 (First Draft) Admittedly, since the 2008 election results I've managed to stay blissfully ignorant to the world of politics; the troubles of who's on what side and pettifogging major issues with minor media scandals had me fed up. But as we enter a new election season, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to maintain that veil politicians and businessmen alike are widening the gap between rich & poor, and many of my peers still stand outside of town halls and major corporations around the country protesting the growing inequality. After having read Katrina vanden Heuvel's Vulture Capitalism on Trial, I'm afraid feigning ignorance is no longer an option in the realm of politics. Despite opening on an eerily-friendly note towards Republican candidates, vanden Heuvel's article takes into account a wealth of public speeches and political history to illustrate how Mitt Romney's concept of capitalism is not only warped, but entirely detrimental to an economy that so many fought to protect. The author begins her article with a personal introduction: she admits that previously, she'd have expected only the most outlandish of answers from Republican candidates at the podium; but quickly, she does an about-face and acknowledges that they [started] saying... the unvarnished, unblinking, stand-up-and-clap-for-it-truth. Although her immediate declaration of I don't typically validate Republicans would go a long

way to discredit her as a speaker typically, she makes a brilliant move by spinning it into an I was wrong, now let me admit the truth. Her apologetic and honest tone is more than credible for any Op Ed writer and does wonders to establish the author as a believable source she knows, recognizes, and even counteracts her own inherent biases. Taking into account the subtle viciousness of the opening line, it's readily apparent that vanden Heuvel purposed her article for a more (politically) left-leaning audience, but her quick withdrawal of the attack to acknowledge the Republicans' honesty did more than just validate her as a trustworthy speaker: it served as a bridge to include a more right-wing audience as well, accepting them for their candidates' positive qualities. Her introduction is a brilliant example of both establishing credibility for herself as an author and including a broad range of readers before she delivers the fullforce of her writing. Soon after her more-inclusive introduction, vanden Heuvel takes a turn for the direct: she identifies the problem (and title of her article) as this concept of Vulture Capitalism that both Liberals and Republicans seem to admonish. She quotes Romney and Gingrich, both Republican frontrunners, as saying that Vulture Capitalism undermine[s] the true nature of a capitalist economy. She invites both left- and rightleaning readers to hate on everyone's big bully, Greed And then she just keeps baiting in the reader further. Immediately after, vanden Heuvel makes a quick 180 from her all-inclusive position and creates a binary from one of Romney's speeches. She quotes his recent victory speech in New Hampshire where he scolded fellow Republican candidates for allying with President Obama in order to tear him down as the frontrunner for the

Republican party. She demonstrates his divisive politics with just a single sentence from his own mouth: This Country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy. Instantly, the reader is forced to either appreciate or dismiss Romney's quote and take a stand as either Liberal or Conservative, just before she takes her own bold stand. Vanden Heuvel then writes So that's what he thinks of the Occupy protests, of the 99 percenters, of the millions of Americans who believe income inequality is a reallife problem and that they deserve a fair shot. According to Romney, they're just jealous, of him, and of people like him, who concocted rapacious ways to make millions of dollars. With this retort, she forces the reader to both reconsider their own position as an American (Am I affected by income inequality?) and to reconsider Romney's position as a candidate. While some right-leaning readers might be quick to leap all over vanden Heuvel's attack on Romney, she quickly backs up her claim that This is what he believes, because of Romney's own career at Bain, a company with a long and blatantly controversial history of unfair competition and torturious interference (according to their trial against Value Partners). She doesn't just outline the fact that he finds Americans whiny and envious, she goes even further to warn to reader: he intends to apply his greedy policies all throughout the Oval Office. At this point, the author has taken an obviously Democratic tone, but she takes a step back to ask But what will be the other side of that debate?, meaning the Democrats' response to the Romney Economy. She acknowledges that the party is mostly fractured and inconsistent with its message, but Stitched together, they provide

glimmers of a coherent, inspired response to the excesses and depredations of the Romney Economy. She acknowledges that her party doesn't seem to know any better from an official perspective, but there may yet be hope if the politicians can manage to work their ideas together into a coherent message. By now, vanden Heuvel is going for the jugular on Mitt Romney, and admittedly with a strong case for any American reader to agree with. She then outlines her idea of the problem in a final, clear binary: The difference between the two isn't only that one is about nurturing fairness and the other, very clearly, is not. The difference is that Romney capitalism... undermines the strength of our economy itself, and the economy's ability to work for working people. She clearly defines this as an issue of working for profit rather than merely receiving a profit. She calls out Bain and chop-shop private equity operations as pirates of the free economy, seeking to rape and pillage profits from the poor working American. And then she backs it all up with a paraphrase of Warren Buffet, the King of Business himself, as she writes There is, as even Warren Buffet has pointed our, a real difference between investing and building a company that makes something or provides a service that adds value to the economy, and a barbarian-at-thegate-style enterprise that loots and strips, making millions for its executives by ripping holes in the economic fabric. She finally strikes the point home by clearly identifying how these people were able to make such absurd profits, while at the same time, warning the American people of the weight of their next decision. The current rules... have been rigged to allow Romney and his friends to make out like bandits. And so this election doesn't just turn on whether we will change the rules; it's a question of whether we want one of the actual bandits to

be put in charge of our future. By now, vanden Heuvel has hammered her argument in clearly. She begins by admitting her fault as a human, but showing credibility as an honest author. She continues by showing the value of the speeches that Republicans have made to the public in raising our awareness on the greed of Vulture Capitalism. She shows her subject's vicious and tactless attacks on the president as petty before finally making a legitimate, wellsubstantiated attack on Romney himself and further proves her point by quoting a Republican idol, Warren Buffet. Across the board, vanden Heuvel has appealed to ethos, pathos, and logos: that is, she established her own credibility and that of Buffet's (ethos), she appealed to the average American's pains of income inequality (pathos), and she appealed to her audience's sense of logic (logos) by constantly weaving the argument together through well-substantiated claims and evidence. Her argument against Romney's terrifying concept of capitalism is not only vivid it seems entirely engaging and legitimate to me, a politically apathetic reader. If she can manage to gain control of a disinterested audience like myself, I'd argue that her claims definitely hold water within her intended audience, if not readers everywhere.

Vulture capitalism on trial

By Katrina vanden Heuvel, Tuesday, January 17, 9:12 AM
If you had asked me at the beginning of the Republican nomination fight what candidates like Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry would say to win, I would have said just about anything. What I couldnt possibly imagine was that one of the things they might start saying would actually be the unvarnished, unblinking, stand-up-and-clap-for-it truth. With their eyes set on Bains bane and Mitt Romneys career, Perry and Gingrich have been astonishingly and appropriately brutal. Theres a real difference between venture capitalism and vulture capitalism, Perry told Fox and Friends last week. I dont believe that capitalism is making a buck under any circumstances. Couldnt have said it better myself. Gingrich sharpened that point further on Bloomberg.The question is whether or not these companies were being manipulated by the guys who invest to drain them of their money, leaving behind people who were unemployed, he said. Show me somebody who has consistently made money while losing money for workers and Ill show you someone who has undermined capitalism. Sing it, Brother Gingrich. Whats especially ironic about all of this is how much the roles have reversed. Romney, shameless flip-flopper that he is, has stood his ground, while the rest of the Republican field is opportunistically flipping and flopping around him. That, it turns out, is incredibly lucky for the American people, allowing us as clear a picture as wed ever had of the real Romney just at the moment hes become the near-presumptive nominee.

His full-throated response to his Republican opponents was deliciously revealing. In the last few days, we have seen some desperate Republicans join forces with [President Obama], he said during his victory speech in New Hampshire.This is such a mistake for our party and for our nation. This country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy. He warned that we must not be dragged down by a resentment of success. So thats what he thinks of the Occupy protests, of the 99 percenters, of the millions of Americans who believe income inequality is a real-life problem and that they deserve a fair shot. According to Romney, theyre just jealous, of him, and of people like him, who concocted rapacious ways to make millions of dollars. This is what he believes, we know, not just because of these comments, but because of his career at Bain. Hes a man who built a personal fortune practicing a form of predatory, you-are-on-your own brand of capitalism that casts workers into joblessness by design. And hes a man who thinks those workers grievances are just about his success and not the system he intends to propagate from the Oval Office. And so the country is being offered a rare opportunity: the chance to have a conversation about two vastly different visions for our nation and its economy. On one side, the Romney Economy a vision of deregulation, of tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations, of an assault on the middle class and the poor, and of an attack on the social safety net. But what will be the other side of that debate? We have, so far, a patchwork of answers: President Obamas Osawatomie speech, Elizabeth Warrens candidacy, New York Attorney General Eric Schneidermans public fight for the victims of the big banks, the

Progressive Caucus and its Peoples Budget, and a nascent, but potent 99 percent movement. Stitched together, they provide glimmers of a coherent, inspired response to the excesses and depredations of the Romney Economy. The difference between the two isnt only that one is about nurturing fairness and the other, very clearly, is not. The difference is that Romney capitalism the kind of vulture capitalism represented by Bain and so many chop-shop private equity operations undermines the strength of our economy itself, and the economys ability to work for working people. There is, as even Warren Buffett has pointed out, a real difference between investing and building a company that makes something or provides a service that adds value to the economy, and a barbarian-at-the-gate-style enterprise that loots and strips, making millions for its executives by ripping holes in the economic fabric. The current rules, as set by lobbyists pushing for tax loopholes and deregulations, have been rigged to allow Romney and his friends to make out like bandits. And so this election doesnt just turn on whether we will change the rules; it is a question of whether we want one of the actual bandits to be put in charge of our future. Though it might be odd that such attacks on Romney have originated with Republicans themselves, that they have sparked a national conversation matters a great deal. It allows those whove been making the case for years to drive home the critical point that the work of people like Romney is not the stuff of natural free markets; it is the product of a well-funded construct of laws and rules and institutions and values that undermine shared prosperity in a country that once took pride in supporting upward mobility.

There are many smart, concrete, not pie-in-the-sky ideas about how we can recalibrate our economy, return it to fairness, how we can reimagine it as one built not on vulture capitalism but on democratic capitalism. The Nation recently gathered many of those ideas in a special issue, Reimagining Capitalism, laying out alternative ideas for a more humane capitalism that works for communities. This campaign promises to be an MRI of our economic system. If that sounds unlikely, consider that six months ago, few, if any, political leaders were talking seriously about economic inequality and today, the king of crony politics, the governor of Texas, is complaining about the immorality of vulture capitalists. A lot can change; a lot already has.

Draft Questionnaire When you hand in an assignment draft for comments and grading, you must include this completed questionnaire. Simply copy and paste it into the Word document (for Assignments 1, 2, and 4) or into Digication (for Assignment 3). 1. What areas did you revise after the peer review session for this paper (if applicable)? Was the peer review helpful? No peer review applicable

2. Did you use any specific invention strategies for this draft (e.g., free writing, listing, outlining, sketching)? If so, which one(s)? I chose to outline the article first by going over the speaker's main points and adding in my own notes in the margins of a hard copy. Keeping things clear and in front of me at all times tends to help my focus in writing.

3. What did you do particularly well in this draft? I feel like I went to great lengths to provide supporting evidence and quotes that would support my point/examination of the author's rhetoric.

4. What do you need to improve when revising this draft? Going back to #3... I feel like I may have used too many quotes, or perhaps just longer ones. I tried to abridge a few with ellipses, but I didn't want to lose the point of the text either. I need to find a way to prove my points with more succinct evidence.

5. What specific issues would you like me to comment on when I provide feedback on this draft? Mainly just what I wrote in #4 tell me about my use of quotes/evidence.