 |
Tuesday, November 04, 2003 |
Bush's Political-Speak
The Bush Administration has become infamous for the rhetoric and political-speak they’ve been using to defend their agenda on the war, well.....make that on anything they have their mitts in. Every news conference Bush does seems to have a slogan conveniently displayed as a backdrop. For example, Mission Accomplished was hung across the tower of the USS Abraham so that Bush and his podium was centered underneath it. And just last week in Texas at the inauguration of a religious building, Bush was framed by the phrases King of Kings on the left side and Lord of Lords on the right side. Only someone with an unhealthy ego could go along with standing between phrases that are used in sacred worship to give honor to Jesus Christ. More on this later, I’m sure.
One of my favorite phrases after 9/11 went something like this: "If you don’t live life like you used to before 9/11, then you’re letting the terrorists win." My friend, who is now serving in Iraq on a maintenance crew, and I had planned to see Black Hawk Down. Before he agreed to go, he wanted to make sure his wife didn’t have plans for him. I told him to tell her: "If you don’t let me go see the movie, you are letting the terrorists win." We were allowed to see the movie.
Anyway, I am making a memo to self: start compiling a list of Bush political-speak. If you can think of any, or you have talked about this in one of your blogs, drop me a line and let me know.
In regards to Bush political-speak, I found a highly noteworthy editorial by columnist Simon Tisdall in The Guardian from Britain regarding the importance of truth in public discourse. From the article "Resist the Official Pol-Speak of Bush’s ‘War on Terror,’" I greatly appreciated these thoughts about the power of words:
Given that words, spoken, written or broadcast, are our main form of communication, and given that words have such inherent potency, it is a wonder that today's sound-biting leaders are not more careful what they say. In short, they should mind their language.
Words can define how a people or a nation sees itself: the US declaration of independence is one obvious example. Yet modern-day Palestinians also see themselves engaged in a struggle for "independence" and "freedom" from external oppression. The US ignores such semantic paradoxes....
[W]ords become symbols and benchmarks, as important, if not more so, than the "actions" (not words) that are ostensibly more significant.
Words such as "imperialism", "emancipation", "self- determination" and "liberation" define how history is scripted, how the future will be shaped, how contemporary conflicts are perceived and thus how they may or may not be resolved.
Terrorism is a salient case in point. In the abstract, "terrorism" is a terrible thing; everybody deplores it; nobody supports it. Why then is terrorism such a growth industry? Because its definition is not agreed. It depends where you stand. Terrorism has, thus, become a much abused, highly fungible term .
Tisdall describes how discourse has been used wrongly in wartime:
Second world war posters warning that "careless talk costs lives" embodied an enduring truth. Then the fear was that fifth columnists might overhear conversations of value to the Nazis. Elsie: "Can you take the kids to the park?" Herbert: "Sorry, ducks, it's D-day. I'll be invading Normandy all week." The equivalent US slogan was "loose lips sink ships".
Sixty years on, in another era of conflict, the careless talk comes more often from politicians - but it is potentially just as deadly. When George Bush, soon after September 11, referred to a "crusade" against al-Qaida, he helped persuade Muslims that they were under renewed attack from Richard the Lionheart in a US navy bomber jacket. In the context of a mooted "clash of civilisations", Bush's loose use of language was not only insensitive. It was unthinkingly reckless.
Bush has avoided the word "crusade" ever since. But he still regularly talks about the need to defend "civilisation" and "the civilised world" against "dark forces". He never quite says which part of the planet is the "uncivilised" or "dark" bit. Perhaps he means Kandahar. Or Eastbourne. It is unclear. But the unspoken implication is deeply divisive, even racist, not to say insulting.
Tisdell closes his article with a call to truthful discourse:
Greater sense and sensitivity in use of language is required of politicians _ and indeed the media. The urge to suppress arguably loaded words or phrases should as a rule be resisted as inimical to free expression and better understanding. As every spin doctor knows, acceptance of "official" terminology and definitions can amount to implicit endorsement of official policy. But the search for the right, exact mot juste requires constant awareness of possible ambiguity and politically and culturally charged, multiple meanings.
As ever, in all human discourse, there is truth and there is propaganda. As ever, it is important to be able to tell the difference. Before passing the ammunition, pass the word.
Continuing in this same thread, Joe Conason, in his Salon journal article today titled "It Isn’t Filter," had a poignant reply to Bush and his neo-con pals regarding their rhetoric against their critics and the media for the Iraq rebuilding policy’s continuing failure.
If the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians went unreported by the news "filter," would those people still be alive? If the critics of U.S. policy in Iraq kept quiet, would that policy be working rather than failing? If U.S. policy is failing, at the cost of American and Iraqi lives, is the duty of patriots to pretend otherwise or to speak out?
I only ask because -- until the terrible week that culminated in yesterday's Chinook helicopter downing -- the line from the White House and the Pentagon was that America's worst problems in Iraq were "negative" news coverage and domestic "political" sniping. That propaganda trope is no longer plausible even to those who fervently support the administration and the war. Americans are losing confidence in the president's war policy not because of media coverage or political criticism, but because the administration misled them about the reasons for the war and the costs and consequences of invading Iraq.
In closing, I’ve been reading I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years by Victor Klemperer. I found a passage describing the propaganda coming out of Hitler and his Third Reich. The date, interesting enough, is 11 September 1934. (I have added a few phrases to help clarify what I think Klemperer is saying. And obviously, this is my interpretation.)
Party Rally of "loyalty" in Nurnberg. Loyalty, of all things, after the revolt [against Hindenburg]. Always have the cheek to claim the opposite. The Fuhrer: [This is the] Order [of government] for a thousand years. Once more the fantastic number. Once more against "irresolute intellectualism."
Goebbels speech about propaganda. Propaganda "must not lie." It "must be creative." – "Fear of the people is the characteristic feature of the liberal conception of the state." We practice an "active influencing of the people complemented by a systematic long-term education of a people." "At certain times statesmen must have the courage also to do unpopular things. But the unpopular has to be prepared for in advance, and its presentation must be properly formulated, so that the people understand it.." On the eighth [of September]: "We must speak the language the people understand. Whoever wants to talk to the people, must, as Martin Luther says, listen to what people have to say."
Once again the Fuhrer appeals to "heroic instincts." The subordinate leaders emphasize once again: "Adolf Hitler is Germany."
10:10:44 PM  | |
|
|
|
|
