In her recent article, “Why You Should Worry About The Census”, Liz Peek raises concerns about US Census policies that she considers to be underhanded and politically-motivated. She accuses urban (read: minority) "community organizations" of encouraging census fraud, and calls for the US Census to determine citizenship status so as not to include illegal immigrants in their count.
The general tone and rhetorical intent of the article is not realistically to reform US Census policy (since such a change could not be implemented until the 2020 Census), but is instead to coyly insinuate a "vast left-wing conspiracy", and to play on reliable conservative fears. The article is effective in that it marries hard facts and real concerns with paranoid "culture war" innuendos in a way that appear to give the latter an air of legitimacy. Accordingly, the article will almost certainly resonate with its intended audience (the Fox News online readership).
The author gives close attention to her audience in her presentation. By mingling erudite language with folksy vernacular—phrases like “decennial nose-count”, and “a cozy arrangement”—she establishes a conversational but authoritative tone. By casually alluding to sources of conservative outrage like Obama’s stimulus program and ACORN, she establishes an emotional kinship with her intended audience: members of the Republican Party who have felt frustrated, marginalized and disenfranchised since the GOP’s electoral defeat in 2008.
If her intent was seriously to reform US Census procedure, the kairos is past. The Census began in January, and will likely be complete before any meaningful reform could result from an article like this, no matter how influential. However, if her intent is merely to imply liberal perfidy and give “tea-party” Republicans a few more reasons to feel aggrieved and besieged, then her timing is excellent. With the Democratic Party holding the Presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, and the Republican Party routed and ineffectual, conservative feelings of anger and powerlessness have not been more potent in recent memory.
Obama betrayed Jesus. You know, probably.
She opens her argument with a legitimate question: should illegal immigrants determine a state’s representation in the House of Representatives (and, accordingly, in the Electoral College)? At face value, this is a reasonable question, worth debating. But she missteps when she suggests that counting illegal immigrants is somehow a liberal plot to secure Democratic domination of the government. She admits that the Census has never considered immigration status in its calculations, but she claims that this is because the immigrant population “was historically not considered significant”. However, from the 1830s to the 1870s, the wave of immigration from Ireland and Germany far outpaced current Mexican immigration (in proportion with the total US population), and therefore would have had a far greater impact on Census figures.
America’s immigrant population has always been statistically significant, and has engendered predictable paranoia from “Nativist” politicians almost since the birth of the republic. The reason immigrant status has never been considered in Census data is to allay immigrant fears of prosecution to ensure a more accurate count, since those figures are used to determine more than just Congressional representation and allocation of funds. It is in this same spirit that the Obama administration is attempting to obtain an accurate count of populations in poor black and Hispanic neighborhoods.
It is also unfair to suggest that illegal immigrant populations should not be considered in determining Congressional representation, since they are not the only non-voters who are counted. Felons, minors, and legal non-citizens (none of whom are able to vote) are also considered in US Census data and Congressional representation. The controversy over whether non-voters should be represented in the legislature predates the Constitution, and was made infamous by the “Three-fifths Compromise” which determined that black slaves and Indians, who obviously were not permitted to vote, would be calculated for Census purposes as “three-fifths” of a person.
She does provide a compelling counter-example in the case of 11,000 Mormon missionaries who will not be counted in the 2010 Census, while illegal immigrants and servicemen deployed overseas are. It conveys an almost comical sense of irony, that these citizens who will vote as absentees cannot be represented in the legislature, while illegal immigrants who cannot vote at all will determine their state’s representation in the House.
Rhetorical Devices:
The article opens with rhetorical questions: "Did you know that the census does not distinguish between illegal immigrants and U.S. citizens? It does not, which raises questions such as: Should Arizona win more seats in the House of Representatives because it harbors a large number of illegal aliens? Or, should people who can’t vote decide how many electoral college votes California is awarded?" These questions lead the reader to some natural conclusions: of course, in a census that determines the partition of the electoral college and House of Representatives, only citizens should be considered--particularly if the alternative is that the decadent People's Republic of California gets more electoral clout.
Go back to Berkeley, Moonbeam.
By alluding to ACORN (though only in the context of stating that ACORN is not cooperating in the Census due to last year's scandal), the author strikes a vein of rich emotional baggage for her audience. She injects ACORN into the discussion because of its connection with SEIU, a service-industry union that had ties to ACORN until last year, when SEIU distanced itself from ACORN in the aftermath of the hidden-camera scandal.
For her readers, ACORN is a powerful symbol of liberal amorality and malfeasance; and even if it has literally no involvement in the issue under discussion, it conjures feelings of anger (as well as latent racial and socioeconomic tensions) without forcing the author to resort to open race-baiting or libelous accusations. While it is reasonable to suggest that “community organizers” and special interest groups are vulnerable to corruption and machine politics, it is not reasonable to suggest that Democratic candidates and minority communities are the only perpetrators and beneficiaries of that corruption.
The article's rhetorical effectiveness is dependent on a general assumption that minority advocacy groups are corrupt, thieving, and dissolute; but, in the interest of political correctness, that fear cannot be openly exploited. Thus, the author uses phrases like "particular communities" when what she means is "inner-city blacks and Hispanics" (but what she really means is "criminals and welfare queens"). Or, she might make broad generalizations, such as, "Minority voters tend to elect Democrats, who generally favor expanded government, to represent them." This assertion, by the way, is not universally accurate—particularly among Hispanic immigrants, who tend to vote very conservatively on social issues. But by speaking this ambiguous conservative cant, she is able to indulge the reader's xenophobia and racism without obviously incriminating herself.
The general tone of the piece is probably the most effective device. The title phrase, "Why You Should Worry", is an excellent summary of the tone of the entire article. Using phrases like "a cozy arrangement" to describe the impact of census policy, and putting key opposition words in quotes to make them appear dubious (Hispanic votes are "undercounted", and the Census is cooperating with 30,000 "partners")--the writer can, without making any explicit accusations, couch the entire situation in an atmosphere of conspiracy and suspicion.
New Media:
Overall, the author’s presentation makes poor use of the online medium; the text is small, tight, and uninterrupted, with no hyperlinks, citations, or visual aids. Rich-text capabilities are only utilized once in the article, and while the text is reasonably fast-moving and entertaining to read, the format makes it difficult to follow on a webpage.
The image at the top of the article, however, depicts a black US Census worker; which artfully (and surreptitiously) cements the racial innuendoes that form the bulk of the written portion. With allusions to ACORN, barbershops, and a quote from a “minister at a Chicago-area church”, she is able to make the same unspoken, racist accusations that were bread-and-butter for anti-Irish demagogues in the 19th century, without having to acknowledge that questionable heritage.
As a coherent analysis of public policy, this article falls on its face. It displays ignorance of history and Census policy, and makes no suggestions for the system’s improvement. As a work of innuendo and smear, however (which, given the timing, is the more likely case), the piece is quite effective. It indulges irrational fears and hostilities of which most people are rightly ashamed—and it is able to do so precisely because neither the writer nor the reader has to openly acknowledge them.
No comments:
Post a Comment