The Rhetoric of NO!

I typed in: www.noon87.org, and, presto, a site came up explaining everything that is wrong with Prop 87.

The No on 87site lists the following points and seems to tie them together, rhetorically:

higher gas prices will result from a $4 billion tax on oil produced here in California
increased dependence on foreign oil will result


Here is what I got on the No on 87 website:
“Economists report that higher taxes on instate oil production would reduce instate oil production and increase our dependence on foreign oil. Oil from the Middle East and other countries costs more to get here and more to refine once here. That means higher fuel costs for consumers.
But the proponents say Prop 87 prohibits the tax from being passed on to consumers?Despite the promises, the reality is that Prop 87’s $4 billion oil tax increase will lead to higher fuel prices for all Californians. And, higher fuel prices hurt everyone. Drivers will have to pay more at the pump. Businesses will have to pay more to transport their goods via trucks and airplanes, which comes back again to consumers in the form of higher prices.”
Mini Rhetorical Analysis:
The second paragraph is full on non sequitors—well-written, effectively scary non-sequitors. What is the relationship between the sentences? It strikes me that the authors are very careful not to make any claims of causality or even correlation. They simply string together a series of scary ideas in the same paragraph with the words “prop 87” and hope that readers will unconsciously connect the ideas in the paragraph.

It is my understanding that California gas stations buy most of their oil from California producers. If the tax cannot be passed on, why would the gas stations buy oil outside of California and risk getting hit with shipping charges? The claims here just do not add up.

Even if we do end up buying non-California oil, we will not automatically buy “foreign oil,” (the words “foreign oil” conjure up images of us supporting regimes such as Iran or Venezuela). We could simply buy oil from Texas (although that didn’t work out so great when we bought energy from Texas if you all remember the Enron guys plotting to “screw over the little old ladies in California.”), or from Montana, etc.

The website also states: “There’s no question we need to advance energy alternatives, but Proposition 87 is not the way to get there.”

While that statement looks good at first blush, it strikes me as an empty promise. The first part of the sentence appeals to pathos very well: the sympathetic reach out to the poor reader who is getting reamed at the pump every week. Yes, Regular Voter Guy, we do know that we’ve got to find some alternative energy – we surely can’t keep going down this path.

They claim that Prop 87 is the wrong way to “advance energy alternatives,” but they do not provide an alternate plan. They have no suggestions whatsoever for how to reduce pollution, reduce dependence on fossil fuel by researching other forms of energy, etc.

In past elections, we have actually had two different propositions that attempt to solve the same problem. Not so here. All we have is a plan and a group saying the plan is bad. We’ve got no better ideas, but the plan is bad. Now, that position is not always a bad position (In fact I’m sure I’ve taken that position with my husband many a time in an argument), but if they do not have an inkling of an alternative, I’m inclined to say better to do something rather than nothing. In my years, I’ve come to realize that there are usually no perfect plans, but there may be a compromise or an imperfect solution that will work (note: “will work” and “perfect” are not synonyms!).

Next post: tackling the rhetoric of the pro-87 camp!