RHETORICIAN, HEAL THYSELF:

The Rhetoric of Fear: Unraveling the message behind the president's pronouncements since the terrorist attacks (William D. Lutz, September 7, 2003, Newsday)

Had Bush labeled the attackers murderers, he would have stripped them of a philosophical or religious rationale for their criminal acts and deprived them of any justification under any law. They would be held up as common criminals, violating criminal laws common to all nations. They would be stripped of the dignity of calling themselves "patriots," "martyrs" or "soldiers in a holy war." They could be hunted by the international community as criminals, just like any other criminal, deprived of any moral covering for their acts of murder.

Bush, however, chose a different rhetorical route. He chose not the rhetoric of crime but the rhetoric of war, even the rhetoric of permanent war: "Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen." Indeed, "Our war on terror . . . will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated." Thus we are engaged in a war without end, for how can anyone ever know that every terrorist has been found?

By Jan. 29, 2002, when Bush gave his State of the Union Address, he added to the rhetoric of permanent war the rhetoric of fear. He opened his speech with the assertion that "our nation is at war," and he did not mean this metaphorically but literally, even though there has been no declaration by Congress. He used the words "terror," "terrorist" and "bioterrorism" 30 times. He depicted a world that is a terrible and dangerous place where "our worst fears" have been confirmed. "Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes, are now spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs, set to go off without warning," he said.

We are threatened "by the world's most dangerous regimes." We face "ruthless killers who move and plot in shadows," presenting us with a danger that will not soon pass but will last "long into the future." In using the rhetoric of war instead of the rhetoric of criminal law, Bush induces fear not among the attackers but among those who were attacked. To Orwell's world of permanent war Bush adds permanent fear.

Bush has perfected the rhetoric of fear and permanent war, justifying a wartime military budget, using the Patriot Act to negate the Bill of Rights, promoting any and all proposals, and invoking special wartime powers.

As Ralph Waldo Emerson famously opined: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." A rigid consistency is particularly foolish in a columnist or writer of opinion, robbing them of the ability to entertain readers, explore uncertain ideas, and change their own minds. However, at a minimum, we have a right to ask that they be consistent within the four corners of a given essay, a test which Mr. Lutz fails miserably.

This is, after all, a column about how the President has used inflammatory rhetoric, exaggeration, etc. to stoke the fears of the American people and get them needlessly concerned about the terrorist threat posed by al Qaeda. Let's grant for the nonce that if true this could be a bad thing and the President should tone it down. However, speaking of fear-mongering with no basis in reality, look at the assertions that Mr. Lutz makes: that the Bill of Rights has been "negated", that any and all proposals are supported, and that the President has taken on (key the spooky Theremin music) "special wartime powers".

Unless there are US troops quartered at your house, maybe we can agree that one last tiny speck of the Bill of Rights survives the negation, eh?

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 12, 2003 1:24 PM