Don Tran

Mrs. Dafoe

AP English Language : Period 3

19 August 2022

In his column, “Column: The Atlantic says ‘the California Dream is dying,” Michael Hiltzik argues through an informal and sarcastic tone that pieces such as Connor Friedersdorf’s piece, “The California Dream is Dying,” is another instance of a flawed notion of the “dying California dream” overlooks its obvious inherent flaws and objective successes. Hiltzik starts with a clear informal tone, immediately using a variety of colloquial language such as “Magazine writers’ chestnuts,” “buzz,” and “glittering.” Through this colloquial language, he sets up his abrasive and sarcastic tone, which establishes his open disagreement with Friedersdorf’s piece and the “ ‘California is dying’ trope.” The most prominent example is his acerbic remark regarding business owners cited for violations which Friedersdorf cites as reasons against California’s regulation: “My guess” A poll of such business owners would turn up unanimous agreement that regulation is bad.” Through the informal and abrasive tone Hiltzik uses, he creates a feeling of ridicule towards the article, setting up his breakdown of Friedersdorf’s arguments as silly and tedious. While he does make scathing remarks about the piece and the “trope” in general, he attempts to appeal to his audience’s logos through quotes and statistics that he uses to break apart Friedersdorf’s arguments. In response to the special pleading that Fridersdorf’s analysis of an almond farmer who “grouses” about his water struggles, Hiltzik notes that Friedersdorf disregards that almond farms require large quantities of continuous water necessary to facilitate them. He furthermore cites an article regarding the likely reversal of California’s population decline in addition to achievements such as its high median household income, low new COVID case rates, strong economic growth, and model pollution and water conservation regulations. By appealing to his audience through organized logic, Hiltzik reinforces the idea that California’s situation has always been filled with tenuous and inevitable struggles, which the state has met with its own successes.
For the most part, Hiltzik provides a fair assessment of the flaws within Friedersdorf’s piece and reveals that California is not all doom and gloom and has never been perfect. However, his argument provided an overall favorable view of California as a state, especially its performance as a US state, and tended to portray Californian economic and environmental practices as successes. Consequently, Hiltzik also tended to overlook issues California faces not just as an American state but as a broader systemic problem unique to the state. California may have a high median household income, especially in comparison to Texas or Florida. Yet, it also ranks as having the US’s 3rd highest cost of living and 2nd highest median home prices. Therefore it’s important to note California as a state still has a lot of work to do to reach towards a brighter future. Although the opportunity the state presented during the Gold Rush has subsided, now, the cultural and economic value that Hollywood and Silicon Valley provide are uniquely Californian and therefore be leveraged to all levels of society if California wishes to continue being a leading US state. Friedersdorf’s piece, in contrast to Hiltzik’s critical tone of the piece infers, is not all too against the “Californian dream” compared to the other much more hostile attitudes of “California Dream” critics. Friedersdorf, as a Californian, believes that the attitude that California is great as it is in the face of troubles and flaws fundamentally hurts California as it creates preservationists. In that regard, I believe that Hiltzik’s belief in California’s perseverance comes off as temporarily hopeful, especially in the face of future problems. So, if California is to survive the 21st century, I, like Friedersdorf, believe it will be up to Californians to focus on creating a future that all its current and future residents can enjoy.