Introduction
In his 18th-century work titled “A Modest Proposal,” Jonathan Swift investigates poor Irish people’s boundaries. The piece mocks financial policy-makers’ non-existent empathy for the economically disadvantaged populations’ daily issues and emotional connection to their families. Aside from culture-related themes, one aspect of the assigned reading that deserves further discussion pertains to Swift’s skillful manipulation of facts to make selling poor children as food seem a righteous idea.
Discussion
Just like successful manipulative politicians, Swift carefully selects and presents facts to shift society’s attention from the proposed measure’s ethical inappropriateness to the practical benefits that it can promote. Specifically, implementing his writing talent, Swift connects the legalization of child trade and cannibalism to the opportunity to reduce the incidence of abortions in poor households. Despite being exaggerated for a humorous effect, this example resembles the act of channeling the crowd’s negative attention to another unpleasant phenomenon by vilifying the latter. Politicians can actively instrumentalize it when justifying decisions that gain negative reception.
Similar to much less extreme political speeches that can be encountered today, Swift’s humorous arguments for sacrificing the poor’s offspring are permeated with demonstrative righteousness, double standards, and incomplete logical sequences. For instance, he suggests that treating the poor’s children as a commodity will discourage low-income women from engaging in the heartless act of killing children born outside of marriage or adulterine bastards. At the same time, the fact that these children will still be slaughtered a bit later in life does not deserve Swift’s critical remarks and gets ignored. Such decisions reveal his ability to place accents wisely and stop reviewing the proposal’s implications when necessary. Technically, the rich purchasing low-income children as their livestock should also be condemned for taking human lives away, but Swift’s argumentation carefully avoids any negative labels for the hypothetical consumers, revealing how double standards work.
Conclusion
Overall, the essayist effectively satirizes political leaders’ unchanging persuasion tactics by appealing to the poor’s collective identity. Swift’s writing mocks the act of condemning certain behaviors in one group while ignoring the same actions in a more privileged group, playing with facts, and biased evidence selection practices. From this perspective, the essay has not lost its actuality and still represents a thought-provoking piece to shed light on manipulative rhetorics.