As it Were: Euphemisms can be insidiously partisan and harmful
I applied to write this column because I feel that certain perspectives — and sometimes, even entire issues — are not being adequately covered. I want to use my voice not only to add to current discourse but also to elevate it and (hopefully) incite change within the USC community and beyond. The conversations we have about race and politics are more consequential now than ever before, especially with the 2020 presidential election fast approaching, and it’s important that we identify and name systems of oppression wherever we find them, whether that be our University’s administration or in our political rhetoric.
For one, the political pundit class seems to be obsessed with euphemisms. Two stick out to me in particular: “coastal elites” and “working class.” The term “coastal elites” denotes wealthy, highly educated, often white and perpetually out-of-touch folks. The term “working class” often describes white folks with blue-collar jobs, as opposed to the literal working class. Coastal elites reside in “liberal bubbles” up and down the East and West coasts while the working class resides in “the Heartland” — and there’s not much middle ground.
That being said, pundits do generally recognize other identity groups. It is not uncommon to turn on the news and hear commentators describe Black, Latinx and immigrant communities as individual and politically monolithic groups. In truth, however, these groups are not afforded the political analysis they deserve and are ultimately erased by the larger, coastal elite and working-class monikers.
The majority of all Americans and the vast majority of people of color in this country live on the so-called coasts — but the “coastal elite” denomination dismisses them all as being out-of-touch. I don’t think it’s that pundits believe that everyone in Los Angeles is a movie star, everyone in San Francisco is a tech billionaire or everyone in New York City is a media titan. However, using the term “coastal elite” is an easy way to dismiss entire swaths of people, especially people of color who, despite having very complex personal politics, are not electorally interesting. In some senses, they are the polar opposite of the swing voters who allege that they voted for President Donald Trump because of economic anxiety.
People of color, particularly Black and Latinx folk, overwhelmingly vote for and support Democratic policies. It’s easy to just say voters of color vote for Democrats because that’s what voters of color do. That being said, with just a little political analysis, one would find that communities of color are diverse — made up of both blue- and white-collar workers and folks of all education levels — with individuals who make personal political decisions based off of their lived realities.
The “coastal elite” designation creates and adds to problems outside political discourse. This manifests in the question of District of Columbia statehood: The district has a population of just more than 705,000, which would make it one of the smallest states by population, but still larger in population size than Wyoming and Vermont. The implications of granting the District of Columbia statehood are that it would get a voting member of the House of Representatives and, more impactfully, two U.S. senators.
As our constitution stands, each state is assigned two senators, irrespective of population size. This means states with smaller populations, which often skew Republican, get just as much representation in the U.S. Senate as more populated states which skew Democrat and coastal.
Republican legislators, led by Sen. Tom Cotton, object to the concept of District of Columbia statehood on the basis that, unlike Wyoming, it would not be a “well-rounded” and “working-class state,” noting that a large percentage of residents work in government. While it obviously doesn’t make sense to deny citizens representation on the basis of their education level and careers in government, that argument ignores the fact that not everyone in the District of Columbia is a political transplant.
Notably, the District of Columbia has a large Black population that has been there for generations, a population that is not ubiquitously focused on the Hill. Thinking about this in context, then, it suddenly makes more sense that the Harvard College- and Harvard Law School-educated United States senator would utilize an argument that doesn’t make sense on its face. When Cotton says the District of Columbia is not well-rounded and working-class, what he means is white — the district is not white, unlike Wyoming, which is almost 93% white.
I don’t think I am reaching because this is the same Cotton who believes chattel slavery was a necessary evil and that the United States military should have been used to quell protests surrounding the death of Black people at the hands of the police. Cotton was able to weaponize the language of pundits to meet his political ends. It’s the perfect example of lazy rhetoric and analysis lending to illogical and racist praxis.
Michael Mikail is a senior writing about race, culture and politics. His column, “As It Were,” runs every other Wednesday.