September 12, 2003
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 PMI don't think Bush has gone far enough in identifying the enemy and beating the drums of war, but he's probably gone as far as public opinion would go with him.
It is possible to change resolution into defeatism. It's easier with the French, but it can be done with anyone if you work at it.
I am coming to the view that the corrosive commentary, hysterical lying and craven appeasement, such as we get from Lutz, is one the verge of becoming a real problem instead of just a form of amusement for realists, like hooting at the lunatics in Bedlam.
Headline in my paper this morning says: "Maui students mark anniversary with sadness, anger, resiliency."
Good. But not sad or angry enough for the long haul.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 12, 2003 2:17 PMThe frustration is that you can't kill this idiocy. The whole crime v. war issue was threshed out immediately after 9/11 and war won, not least because the concept of crime is both entirely inapplicable and insufficient. But even if you drive a stake through its heart and bury it at the crossroads, you can't kill it.
Posted by: David Cohen at September 12, 2003 2:22 PMWhat Harry and David said. I would like to hear one leftist explain how arrest warrants and judicial pronouncments are more effective (and more righteous) than bullets and bombs.
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 12, 2003 3:05 PM"The Patriot Act [has] negate[d] the Bill of Rights."
This is so absurd one doesn't know where to begin. All of the measures in the Patriot Act require a magistrate's approval after showing probable cause. That was the standard BEFORE 9/11 and is the standard AFTER 9/11. No different; nothing new here, folks.
Now, there are some provisions one can legitimately disagree with re informing suspects of things such as monitoring their computer; or whether extending the period that the wiretap or bugging can be maintained before the judge has to be presented with the status of the investigation.
But the fundamental liberty we have of being secure in our homes from unreasonable searches remains today. Law enforcement officials MUST get a judge's approval and show probable cause before they can take any action permitted under the Patriot Act.
Who's using the scare tactics, Mr. Lutz?
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG at September 12, 2003 5:49 PMMy favorite part? "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." What an amazing and wonderful thing is the liberal mind, if it can only encompass "war," as something America does to other people.
Y'all are right, though (yes, Harry too): It's worrisome that this idiocy won't die.
Posted by: Chris at September 12, 2003 6:01 PM