Close Reading #3

What greed has wrought in D.C.

By Colbert I. King, Published: November 16

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-16/opinions/35502980_1_lottery-contract-money-orders-council-member

In his recent article in the Washington Post, “What Greed has Wrought in DC,” Colbert King takes a look at a recent Washington D.C. political corruption scandal. He then steps back and criticizes political atmosphere in Washington, focusing on the prevalence of corrupt local politicians accepting money from private special interests. He uses unflattering details, colorful figurative language, and effective syntax to give a brutal account of the political corruption that plagues Washington D.C.

King creates a harshly negative depiction of the political corruption in Washington D.C. using details that illustrate dramatic instances of corruption. For example, he includes details of two former Washington D.C. councilmen to make apparent the growing trend of corruption in local D.C. politics. He mentions that former councilman Harry Thomas Jr is in prison and former council chairman Kwame Brown is now a convicted felon under house arrest. These eye-opening instances of corruption are meant to warrant King’s urgent cries for dramatic reform. In another example, he writes that “D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D), who was an at-large member of the council when the contract was awarded, was the lone legislator to vote against” a 2009 D.C. Lottery contract, an alleged product of corruption. By pointing to the fact that Mendelson was the only councilman to vote against the suspect contract, King implicitly suggests that the other councilmen were bought. With this detail, King suggests that corruption is so deeply-rooted in D.C. that special interests were able to influence all but one member of the council. King includes this detail to illustrate the severity ubiquity of corruption in D.C.

King uses figurative language by expressing his ideas in easy-to-understand metaphoric terms and analogies. By doing this, he clarifies his message for the reader and strengthens the voice of his argument. For example, he refers to the deep-pocketed special interests as “moneybags,” a name that unambiguously expresses King’s disdain for private interest companies. Another example arises when King talks about the shadiness of the DC lottery contract. Rather than expressing his suspicion of the situation in literal terms, King chooses a more colorful metaphor, saying “the odor stunk up the place.” Metaphors like these resound much better with readers than literal statements. King also uses an analogy to explain how strongly-rooted the problem is, saying that “[b]reaking money’s hold on our politicians may be akin to keeping an alcoholic away from strong drink.” These instances of colorful figurative language make the writer’s message clearer and his argument stronger.

King also uses a variety of sentence syntax techniques to give importance and emphasis to messages. Writers often use short sentences to create points of emphasis. In the most powerful tone-creating technique in the entire article, King ends the article with a one-word sentence, “Disgusting.” Usually one-word sentences are powerful enough in and of themselves because they’re so short. But King also places it at the very end of the article so that it will surely leave a resounding impression on the reader. With this kind of ending, the reader walks away from the article with no doubt of King’s visceral hatred of political corruption. Another example of effective syntax comes up when King recaps the negative effects of “buying” politicians. Rather than explaining all of the effects in just one sentence, King uses three sentences. He writes, “The cozy, and corrupt, arrangement supplants your voice in government. It undermines public policy and directs resources toward the powerful and privileged. It fouls our leaders and stinks up the city.” Though it might make for a choppier read, the use of anaphora emphasizes the severity of the situation by giving special importance to each point.

            King’s article is a very critical one, one that offers a severe view of corruption in local Washington D.C. politics. Yet, it doesn’t have the kind of extreme, negative diction that a lot of criticizing opinion articles often use. Rather, it uses deeply unflattering details, colorful figurative language, and effective syntax techniques to attack the corruption in D.C. With these elements alone, the article paints a harsh, eye-opening picture of the political atmosphere in D.C.