In a period of economic fluctuation, each citizen is affected differently.  Text C is a poem written by a citizen negatively affected by the economy, whereas text D is an article written by a figure of the 0.01% who benefited from the plummeting economy.  This essay will compare and contrast the ways in which these texts discuss the profound effect of the financial divide. 

The narrators of texts A and B aim to serve as ambassadors for their economic class.  In text A, Carl Sandburg uses singular pronouns for plural pronouns such as “I am the audience” throughout the poem as an epigraph, suggesting the tone of the poem, and to declare his status as a representative of “the workman, the inventor, the maker of the world’s food and clothes.”  The pronoun “I” is an allusion to the member of the working class.  To enforce his position, using anaphora, Sandburg states, “I am” which is a refrain used in this poem to indicate the pride of his social and economic position.  To further emphasize the spectrum of people that Sandburg represents, asyndetic listing is used to separate “the workingman, the inventor, the maker of the world’s good and clothes” which calls attention to each individual role and allows the audience to compare these roles, bringing attention to their lack of societal recognition. 

Similarly, in text D, Nick Hanauer identifies himself as a representative of the social class he belongs to.  The image associated with this article indicates power and prowess as the height of Nick Hanauer, who stands in the foreground, is equated to the height of the buildings, which are in the background.  In addition, Hanauer wears glasses which contribute to his anonymity.  These techniques used collectively allude to a singular voice speaking on the behalf of many. 

However, text C and D direct their message at different audiences.  Text C is directed at those who benefitted from the economy, and take advantage of working class people.  This text is an acknowledgment of the damage caused by the upper class, which is indicated in the phrase “when I, the people, learn to remember…who robbed me last year, who played me for a fool.”  The purpose of this poem is to threaten those who have wronged him.  The metaphor, “terrible storms have passed over me” is used to further emphasize the carnage caused by the wealthy, who “robbed’ the speaker, and therefore the people.  In addition, Sandburg uses cacophonous words such as “spatter” and onomatopoeic words like “growl” to express his disgust for his treatment. 

On the contract, Nick Hanauer directs his arguments towards member of a similar economic and social stance, namely the “plurocrats.”  This sense of inclusion is a product of the use of synthetic personalization.  He uses pronouns such as “we” and “our” and in addition uses colloquial diction in order to allow his audience to identify with him.  The article he has written takes the form of a plea for the purpose of persuading those of the upper class to reduce the gap between the wealthy and the poor.  This argument uses telegraphic sentences such as “It won’t last” in order to capture the direct attention of his audience.  The short sentences provide a stark, abrupt effect on the audience.  This argument also uses logos in the form of statistics when we writes “today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent [of the U.S. national income]; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.  He appeals to the logic of his audience here.  In combination, the pitchfork is a symbol of protest and links with his reference to the 18^th century French revolution.  Nick Hahauer attempts to not only warn his people, but explain why they may be targeted. 

In conclusion, it is the context of texts A and B that binds these two texts together even though they are narrated by representatives of two opposite perspectives from two separate periods of economic recession.