Republican Party Census Document Fallacy Disappointment PR Blowhard

An Open Response to the RNC

I am moderately conservative. I am not, however, stupid.

I received from you in the mail today a strange document entitled FORM RNC-2006: Republican Party Census Document.

Crack teams of political hieroglyphicists have just translated the text using the infamous Rosetta Stone:

Inexplicably, they found evidence that you, the reigning majority party in the most powerful nation in the history of the world, have to resort to putrid survey-writing (and deceitful at worst) to prove a political mandate!

Apparently, I am "among a select group of Republicans who have been chosen to take part in the official census of the Republican Party." My answers on this questionnaire represent the views of thousands of party members in my voting district, and without my answers, the Republican National Committee will "not be able to help President Bush win passage of his reform agenda in Congress."

Well, if my answers to this academically worthless survey are critical to the President's agenda, we've elected the wrong party. You appeal to my intelligence and then insult it. You make me think you care about my opinions, then discard them and ask for money. Your survey is callous and embodies the impoverished political thinking far too prevalent in the United States today.

Good survey questions don't try to lead the subject into answering a certain way. Good survey questions don't assume thought processes or unduly restrict answers in a "my way or the highway" fashion. Good surveys aren't biased - and bad surveys return useless data.

Republican National Committee, your Census misrepresents itself and makes money doing so. You ignore common people's common sense. You have so many leading questions, you're today's Pied Piper. The few redeeming matters don't cover the stench of blatant politicking, and I reject your call for support.

Let's examine your Questionnaire. All questions are yes/no/undecided. I've scored them on a scale of 0 (total bull) to 5 (great survey question).

Domestic and International Security

1. Do you support President Bush's initiatives to promote the safety and security of all Americans?

How can you beg an answer any more shamelessly? The "save the children" tone of the unnecessary last clause completely overshadows the real question: do we support President Bush's security initiatives? Checking 'no' does not mean the inevitable onset of fear, fire and foes. [Score: 0]

2. Do you support the use of air strikes against any country that offers safe harbor or aid to individuals or organizations committed to further attacks on America?

It's a decent question. Write instead: "Do you trust the President to decide when an organization becomes imminently dangerous to Americans, and if so, to preemptively strike with air forces?" As a matter of principle, we accept the first clause because of Bush's role as Commander in Chief. The second clause is the politically hot one. [Score: 4]

3. Do you continue to support increasing the amount of security at airports, train stations and all government buildings including monuments and museums?

Hey, RNC: it's not so black-and-white. This should be at least a three-part "we need more security" versus "we have just enough security" versus "we have too much security" answer set. Does a continuing increase of security mean I'll have to submit my bag to four screeners next time, as happened to me in the Frankfurt, Germany airport? How about actually caring what we think instead of trying to get us to say the right answer? [Score: 2]

Economic Issues

1. Should the Inheritance or "Death Tax" be permanently repealed?

And the base says: 'Ah, a tax on death can't be good. Repeal!' This, RNC, is what's called a loaded question. You should simply have asked about the Inheritance Tax, because that's exactly what the tax does. There's no tax on death itself. I give it 2 points because "Death Tax" is at least common parlance. [Score: 2]

2. Do you support President Bush's pro-growth policies to create more jobs and improve the economy?

Oh wow. This digs deep into the foul morass of loaded meaningless questions. [Score: 0] and it would go negative if I cared to mess up my rating system. Do I support his pro-growth policies? Yes, if he can prove they're actually pro-growth. Does he mean short-term growth instead of long-term growth? Then no. Create more jobs? Certainly! But at what cost? Improve the economy? Sure! But how?! Carte blanche survey questions like this brazenly assume that I, the Chosen Republican One (another assumption), am shallow enough to quickly tick the 'yes' box because 'no' entails all sorts of ugly alternatives, including the loss of my job and the downfall of the Great American Economy. Shameless, just shameless.

3. Do you think Congress should focus on cutting the federal budget deficit by reducing wasteful government spending?

Why do you think I elected them there? I don't think Congress should focus on it, I think they should do it by nature and focus on getting our tax money to relevant and worthy services. Another question that begs a 'yes,' and another question that has little to no meaning in any sort of meaningful political discussion. [Score: 2]

"Hey, Condi, 98.7% of Republicans think Congress should focus on cutting pork spending!"
"Duh, George. You said they were 'wasteful' if they didn't say yes. What else were they going to say?"

Defense Issues

1. Do you think U.S. troops should have to serve under United Nations' commanders?

'What? Give up our sovereignty? Over my dead body!' The United States has traditionally demanded American commanders when fighting as a UN unit (for instance, Gen. MacArthur as supreme commander of the Korean War UN forces). But here's the hypocritical part of this question: we've demanded that other nations serve under our commanders! (e.g. South Korea under MacArthur) It's not a bad question - just a bit ignorant of how UN fighting works. You might have asked: "Should UN nations in combat fight under commanders from other nations?" That way you're being fair. [Score: 4]

Oh, and if we're fighting a defensive war on our soil, of course we want American commanders. But if we're fighting an defensive global war on terrorism, maybe it makes sense to fight under a foreign ally's general when he knows his own country better than we know it. You, of course, state it so coarsely: "troops have to serve." Please, RNC, don't misconstrue this topic.

2. Do you agree that our top military priority should be fighting terrorists?

On 'priority' survey questions, we need a list! With a list we have options; we can rank them and know what we're placing where. But at least you ask specifically for the top priority instead of the much worse "Should the military focus on terrorism?" Because of that, it warrants a 4, losing a point because we don't know what we're placing second, third and lower. [Score: 4]

3. Should the U.S. continue work on building a defense shield against nuclear missile attack?

Nah - we're overdue for a good nuclear holocaust.

You hit another decent policy question: 'Star Wars' has been in the news for a couple decades and with the rise of North Korea and Iran with real or possible nuclear weapons and fairly unfriendly remarks, a passive shield would be nice. Indeed, the Soviet Union was so scared of it, they tried to bargain it off the diplomatic table numerous times. I'd like to say that the terminology in question 3 with "defense" and "nuclear" is loaded verbiage, but they're not wrong adjectives, and they're the primary use of the program anyhow. Five points for not resorting to emotions and restricting the question to one issue. [Score: 5]

Republican Party

1. Do you support the election of Republican candidates across the country and rebuilding our majorities over the next ten years?

Hey, who's your target audience? You're sending this to Republicans, and even though you're asking them to predict their voting for the next decade (a dubious endeavour at best), of course almost 100% of Republicans want election of Republican candidates. That's the essence of political parties, and makes this a foregone question. It's not bad - it's just a waste of space. [Score: 3]

2. Did you vote in the year 2000? Did you vote in the year 2002? Did you vote in the year 2004? [each had a separate yes/no box]

Excellent - a straight-up data question. No spin whatsoever. Finding out whether your base votes is critical for any national committee. [Score: 5]

Social Issues

1. Do you support President Bush's initiative to allow private religious and charitable groups to do more to help those in need?

So President Bush has the power to stop private groups from helping those in need? No - what you want is President Bush's initiative to give federal dollars to private social groups. That's a completely different story. What a misleading question. [Score: 1] And that's a generous 1.

2. Do you support the law, passed by the Republican Congress and signed by President Bush, that bans partial-birth abortions?

Finally a halfway-good question. The part about Republicans and Bush is completely unnecessary and is calculated to get Republicans to automatically check the box (subtract 2 points there). But at least it's a policy question that doesn't read as follows: "Do you support the Democrats' push to kill babies just at the moment they have a chance at a fulfilling life?" It could have been a lot worse. [Score: 3]

3. Do you support the President's efforts to save Social Security for future generations?

Sigh - and we're back to loaded questions. Why do you continue to place divine status on the President's programs? Why do you make it impossible to check one of only two boxes? Better: "Do you support President Bush's Social Security private investment account reform plan?" By attaching the question to a specific policy, you get good data. As the question stands, the answers are connected with the program itself and again, our children. Checking 'no' here is straight unpatriotic. [Score: 1]

4. Do you think Congress should pass legislation on the Federal Marriage Amendment?

Good question. It's policy-centered, doesn't use loaded language and presents all the alternatives: yes or no on an Amendment, that's all the senators have. Sure, there are other ways of legislating marriage, but this question is specific and doesn't connect the Amendment with emotion or party-specific feeling. [Score: 5]

Education Issues

1. Do you support President Bush's plan to make our schools more accountable to parents and to restore local control of education?

If they mean No Child Left Behind, that's hardly local control of education. Of course I support the issue: schools should always be accountable to parents and the community. But I'm afraid of how you're going to twist my answer to yet another loaded question. Give us particulars about the program and not just an assumed utopian outcome. [Score: 1]

2. Should students, teachers, principals and administrators be held to higher standards?

No.

Yes, you scoundrels! But this vaguest of questions, loaded with a classic either-or argumentative fallacy, begs not only incredulous vomiting but a plea: "let's get back to the real issues." [Score: 0]

3. Do you agree that teaching our children to read and increasing literacy rates should be a national priority?

Shut up already. [Score: 0]

No, seriously. This is getting irritating. Yes, I want my children to read. Yes, increasing literacy rates is important. But with a limited amount of money, we have to prioritize, and that means giving us a list of options! Give us a list of 30 initiatives and I'll rank the top 15 in order. Then you can gather the aggregate data and actually have something useful to send to the President! Imagine that!

Tabulation

It's a good thing there's not a No Survey Left Behind law. Guess who fails?

Grade:

Forty-two of ninety. Not even half of your questions adequately cover very real issues pertaining to my country! And you're the majority party! Giving a national census used to "develop a new BLUEPRINT for the Republican Party for the next 10 years"! All you give me is a 'yes' box and a 'no' box and an 'undecided'. I can hardly check 'no:' you make sure of that. And who wants to be undecided when America's very future (and that of, of course, our children) is at stake? You made sure you're getting all 'yes' answers. Republican Party Leaders: you want me, and the entire party, to be a yes-man.

But I won't let you.

Finally you ask me for money to send even more census forms out. That's salt in the wound. And you even say that I can send $11 to cover the cost of "tabulating my survey." Who provides your bubble-sheet reading machines: Arthur Andersen? And yet, this survey was insidiously good at making Bush's agenda seem the correct one for America and worthy of donation. And that, of course, is the entire point of the Republican National Committee: to make money for Republicans, to elect Republicans, and to improve the public image of Republicans. I'll admit, most of the 'base' will probably send money in response to this bogus "census."

It's a shifty and underhanded way to get it, though. You should be ashamed.

Even as I realize the 100%-politics nature of this document, I condemn you for pretending to give out a census, for pretending that you actually care about the opinions of the 'faithful' when the grade-school level and illegitimate surveying of many of the questions plead otherwise, for disguising fundraising as policy-making! (And I wish that wasn't the way government actually worked) This census saddens me. It frightens me. It makes me wonder who really does care about my individual voice - and not just my wallet.

Hear me, RNC. I care about America.

Hear me, RNC. I'm not dumb with my mind, and your assumption only makes me more resolved not to be dumb with my money.

Hear me, RNC. That money's not going to you. Nor is it going to the DNC right now. Because I'm waiting.

Indeed, America is waiting.