Non-citizen Suffrage to Cause Citizen Sufferage?

After weeks of sitting in a summer political science course, something actually captured my attention. No, it wasn’t a riveting section of game theory or an argument for the necessity of a bicameral legislature – it was a real live rhetorical fail.

Now, as an eighteen-year-old female, I fall into two groups who have not always had the right to vote. Plus, I don’t own any land – I live in a tiny dorm room with three boxes of books and a suitcase of clothes.  The nineteenth and twenty-sixth amendments, respectively, allowed women and people under twenty-one to vote, and few will argue that these weren’t steps towards progress. But what’s next?

In “The Case for Immigrant Voting Rights,” an essay published in 2009, Ron Hayduk proposes that noncitizens (or “immigrants, foreign born, aliens, émigrés, refugees, asylees, green card-holders, newcomers”) should be given the same rights as American citizens to vote not only on the local level, but for state and federal elections. He even hints at – though does not explicitly state, perhaps because he isn’t completely ignorant, just mostly – giving voting rights to “undocumented” (illegal) immigrants because they constitute an increasingly large sector of our country’s population.

Apparently, noncitizens are the new women, or black population, if you prefer. Apparently, they deserve the same rights as the other citizens of the United States, who have been born or naturalized here. Apparently, just because it’s “legal” and we tax noncitizens, they should be able to vote “right off the plane.” Apparently, allowing noncitizens to vote won’t make them circumvent the citizenship process, but actually expedite it. Apparently, allowing noncitizens to vote will benefit everyone, because “we all have the same interests in safe streets, good schools, affordable housing, health care, and good jobs.” Apparently, all those things are free in America, and aren’t the cause of most of the divisions between political parties. Good to know.

Boulder, the illegitimate flowerchild of my home state, has always been known for its hybrid-car-complete-with-bumper-stickers-on-every-political-topic-imaginable-driving liberal environmentalists, even introduced a measure not just to allow noncitizens to vote, but also to allow noncitizens to serve on city boards and commissions.  

Where do we have to draw the line?

So America, it’s okay when immigrants are taking jobs that no American ever dreams of doing, but not when they move towards white-collar professions? Is that the line? What about when noncitizens start to take political office? Change our legislation?  What happens when the proverbial slippery slope actually turns into a huge, out-of-control avalanche, killing everyone in its wake?

Of course, drawing the line brings us to another of America’s problems.  If the melting pot doesn’t want to select a national language, can we even demand that immigrants be literate to vote, instead of simply memorizing a group of characters to further the interest of their group? Hayduk also asserts that requiring immigrants to have some political or civil knowledge prior to voting is unfair because much of the America populace is ignorant on such topics. For once, I am going to agree with him, at least partially. Americans are ignorant. That should not give free reign for anyone else to be ignorant; just because you see a group of people jumping off a cliff next to a McDonalds doesn’t mean you should get in line for a Big Mac. More than anything, this should be a cry for help to the government about our education system.

Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. Just because allowing noncitizens to vote is technically legal, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t draw a line in the soil. 

Mmmm...

Oh, the sweet scent of a homework pass in the evening when you are already behind on your British Lit and precalculus homework and need a chance to catch up! I'm trading in my get out of jail free card this time, hoping I won't regret it!

He compared gay-rights activists to Muslim terrorists

This title is a line from the argument (see link below) that I have chosen to use from my final rhetorical analysis. This is obviously just a sloppy attempt to inflict a pathetic appeal in the audience in a fallacy-ridden way. 

  Perhaps this assignment (R.A. #1) doesn't quite fit with those of us who are writing a rhetorical analysis for our final project, because we are arguing, surely, but not in the same manner. I am not arguing an issue, but rather the effectiveness - or, in my case, the ineffectiveness - of the presentation of an argument by a rhetor. Therefore, I will deconstruct the argument that I will be analyzing for my final project using the steps described in the classical argumentative structure, namely exordium, narrative, partition, and peroration - and describe the ineffectual nature of each.

The exordium should "prepare our audience in such a way that they will be disposed to lend a ready ear to the rest of our speech," and should be "dignified and serious. [The exordium] should not be vague or disconnected from the issues or the situation" (Crowley 295). This is the easiest part of my whole analysis - there isn't an exordium present in this article. It just jumps right in, describing the argument, and sets nothing up for the audience.

The narrative of this piece is the clearest of the four sections of this argument. It uses a definitive narrative form, and states the facts clearly, if not somewhat vaguely.

The partition is negligent, if even present at all. Of course, "not every argument requires a partition; if only one point is to be made, a narrative will suffice" (Crowley 306).

There are three options given in our book for the peroration: "composing a summary, composing appeals to the emotions, and/or enhancing ethos" (Crowley 314). This argument neither summarizes nor enhances the ethos of Utah senator Buttars, but it does create an emotional appeal, letting people connect their wallets to the futures of the children in this state.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/utah-mulls-eliminating-12th-grade/story?id=9853553

Can You Smell the Inaccuracy?

Rhetorical Activity 8.2

I love it when my classes intersect! I recently wrote a paper on the very subject of trusting the senses to provide evidence. There are two schools of thought, Materialism and Idealism, which attempt to answer this metaphysical question. The first believes that everything that is real is that which can be sensed using the empirical evidence of the five senses. Idealism, however, states that all we can prove to be real is the perceptions our minds receive.

Materialists hold that “there is only one valid source of knowledge about the world around us: sense perception” (Velasquez 145).  Velasquez continues, “Any ‘things’ we cannot perceive with our senses – such as souls, god, or any other spiritual ‘realities’ – cannot be said to exist at all” (Velasquez 145).

Idealists believe, according to Manuel Velasquez in the text, Philosophy: A Text with Readings, “The universe is not matter, but only mind and idea” (151). As Velasquez explains, “Because perceptions and sensations can exist only in the mind, it follows that every object must exist only the mind” (Velasquez 153).

Our book tells us, "Rhetors should never accept facts at face value" (Crowley 281). In this sense, I think it would be unwise, no matter whether you adopt the Materialistic or Idealistic viewpoint, to simply believe and trust in the senses to provide "truth." Senses, in many situations, are too subjective to be trusted. A person who is feeling a very strong emotion of any kind, likewise called "passion," may have very unreliable perceptions or memories of a certain event that took place during this period. Think crimes of passion - people can claim temporary insanity in such instances. Wouldn't something similar be true for witnesses to such crimes? Even if the witness believes he or she is telling the truth, external forces can alter the senses as the mind perceives the stimuli.

Our book also mentions, "Today rhetors often assume that whatever is written down and published is accurate and trustworthy, since, in a sense, it represents someone's testimony about something" (Crowley 267). I have two quick examples to leave you with: Wikipedia, and the Twilight series. I would hope that Wikipedia would be self-explanatory. The Twilight series though, as I read through it, was riddled with grammar, consistency, and even spelling ("stoppd" instead of stopped, for an example) errors. Without establishing this kind of ethos, can we really assume that an author's "published" work is credible and accurate?

Velasquez, Manuel G. Philosophy: a Text with Readings. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth,

(2008): 145-165. Print.

To: Dr. Euthanasia

Hey fool!

I saw you speak last Thursday about putting old people to sleep. What’s the word for that? Anyways, I think your argument sucked. How can you possibly say that we should just kill all the old people in hospitals and nursing homes? I’ve never even heard of this topic before, and I’ve never heard you speak before, but I still thought the whole thing was bogus. I mean, who gave you the right to decide this kind of thing? Did you think about what this would do to someone like me – someone who actually cares about other people? The fact that you say that ALL people deserve a choice to live or die, well that’s just not right. Some people have to get these things decided for them. It’s just the way society works. You should really think about shutting up (or at least not speaking publically) about something as important as this.

Signed,

Igor Ignorance

Did you notice lack of/problems with:

·         Lack of “doing homework”

·         Lack of “securing goodwill”

·         Utter ignorance

·         Inappropriately informal language

·         Word size

·         Qualifiers

·         Punctuation

·         Logical fallacies

Chapter 7: You Make Me Angry

People say that you should always avoid two thins in conversation to avoid conflict: religion and politics. Well, what about cloning, homosexuality, Darwinism, euthanasia, gun control, terrorism, extra-terrestrial life, and last, but certainly not least, education? Surely, all of these topics are going to create some kind of emotional response, and in most cases, depending on how the rhetor approaches the topic, of course, will be anger. The best way to begin is with a well-placed enargeia:

Take a trip to your local zoo and look around you. There is a chimp sitting in a cage, simply for entertainment’s sake. You can feed him, and he has been taught to smile at you afterwards. He may know a few tricks, and may be able to turn over or jump when instructed by a zookeeper, and at his most intelligent stage, understand a few words of sign language or figure out a puzzle in order to get to the treat he desires. However, he is  by no means intelligent. Looking into this animal’s face, however, is simply a look at yourself a few million years ago.

However, the well-trained and responsible rhetor is able to construct an appeal to more than anger, the easiest emotion to appeal to. They may use their skills to appeal to their audience’s sense of anger, love, hate, fear, shame, compassion, pity, indignation, envy, joy, and hope.

What about an appeal to fear concerning cloning?

You walk through the main entrance of the local mall, searching for a specific shirt that you saw in a newspaper ad this weekend. It should only take five minutes, which is good, since you don’t like the feeling of being cramped in the crowds that always exist in the mall. It makes you anxious. The store is just past the food court, and you decide to stop for a smoothie. The line is long, and you’re frustrated before you reach the counter. You start to tell the person behind the register that you would like a raspberry-banana twist when you suddenly stop. This person has your face. You start to think about the identical-twin-separated-at-birth scenario, when you see their nametag. Their name is the same as yours, and the small freckle you have above your lip? It’s there on their face, staring back at you like the ugly truth. You forget all about your smoothie and run, as fast as you can, back to your car, never looking back.

Or, perhaps, if it’s more your style, an appeal pity and euthanasia?

Your eighty-nine year old grandmother lies in the hospital bed after she has broken her hip for the second time. She has been told that she will never walk again, though that was before her Alzheimer’s got so bad that she couldn’t even remember the names of her children. She tells you that she is in incredible pain when she is coherent enough to express how she is feeling. The hospital has her connected to many machines to keep her alive, and the bills are becoming larger every day. Her power of attorney is in your hands, and you must decide if you will have her continue this existence until she can no longer be resuscitated or allow her to ease the pain with the “inhumane” procedure of euthanasia. 

Pass the Blame

In that rhetoric calls for a dialogical approach, it is most appropriate to provide both an encomium and an invective to the subject.



Rhetoric, in itself, is the most useful tool within the human tool belt. It is used, both effectively and ineffectively, by everyone who is capable of communicating on this planet, from describing in detail how the dog ate the homework assignment to arguing political or ethical issues we see on a daily basis. Rhetoric is most difficult to define because it has so many facets and uses within a language. It can provide a person with the capability, when used appropriately, to persuade another individual into agreeing with them on any subject. According to the dictionary provided by Princeton University (worldnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn), rhetoric is "using language effectively to please or persuade" or "study of the technique and rules for using language effectively (especially in public speaking)." However, this dictionary also provides two more definitions of an opposite outlook. Rhetoric can also be defined as "high-flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation" and "loud and confused and empty talk." In the same breath, I can easily praise rhetoric, and, for the same reasons, compose an negative invective. The fact that a person can effectively persuade another into believing most anything is where the largest problem with rhetoric lies. When individuals use empty language to persuade, as the sophists were accused of, they begin treading on very dangerous ground. The easiest and most common example to use is the speeches of Adolf Hitler. His best quality was his charisma and ability to convince the masses by telling them what they wanted to hear, an effective, though not always moral, form of rhetoric. Keep in mind that the most useful tool is often also the most dangerous.