the global war on language

Remember when I went off about the upcoming presidential primaries?  You don't?  Well, screw you.

But seriously.  I'm not usually one to read, think about, or quote Time magazine outside of my bathroom, but recently I came across something from that Democratic contender debate thinggy that lightly scuffed off one of the layers on my coal black heart: 

"At a recent debate, Brian Williams asked the eight Democratic presidential candidates to raise their hands if there 'is such a thing as a global war on terror.'  Clinton and Obama raised their hands.  John Edwards was among those who did not.  'This political language has created a frame that is not accurate and that Bush and his gang have used to justify anything they want to do,' Edwards tells Time."

Goddamn!  Thank you John Edwards for being intelligent/brave enough to publicly state this maddening fact.  Also, way to go on being one of the few politicians who actually owned up to your god-awful, jingoism-fueled vote for the invasion of Iraq.  It doesn't fully excuse it, but at least you have the decency to say "I was wrong" without all the annoying hedging and conditional statements with which everyone else seems to pepper their "apologies."

Moving along. 

The language of the Bush administration has been a thorn in my side for years now--so much so that for awhile I had the outline for a research paper marinating in my brain.  But, much like most of my "good ideas," this particular one never saw "the light of day."  Sometimes I like to "use" quotation marks to "excess" for "comedic effect."

But I digress (as usual).  A few years ago there was a distinct semantic shift in the Bush administration--one that sent a red flag screaming up in my head, but which, apparently, no one else seemed to notice.  Or, maybe other people noticed but just didn't care.  In any case, I noticed and I thought it was important.  What I'm talking about here is the shift in language from talking about fighting "terrorism" to fighting "terror"  (as in "the global war on terror").

To say that we're in a war against terrorism is questionable in itself.  How does one fight an "-ism," exactly?  It's not one specific enemy or event or place, it's a series of subjectively defined acts and incidents (and also, I suppose according to Bush, ideas).  Defining "terrorism" as your foe ensures the ability to fight against whomever, whenever, and for as long as you see fit.  In other words, the very definition of the enemy precludes any sort of tangible, definitive end to this particular war. 

Reframing our actions as a war on "terror" (or "terra," if you're from Texas) exponentially multiplies and complicates the inherent problems with Bush's rhetoric.  We are no longer engaged in a conflict against the already relatively intangible -ism, but now find ourselves in a war against an emotion.  How fucked up is that, I ask you?   The potential theatre of war, already bloated by our foe "terrorism," expands even further--reaching into people's homes, hearts, and minds.   Who knew I could be so poetic?

Oh, wait; I did.  And if I was some sort of speech/ad writer for the president--and also it was, like, 1942--I would totally propose the shit out of the following campaign:

Are you feeling terrified?  Well wallow in terror no longer--for I, President George W. Bush, declare war on your transient, intangible feelings!  I shall root out the cause of your fear and deploy a battalion of troops and barbed wire and missiles and such!  We will be victorious in our fight against your fleeting emotional state!  God bless America and huzzah for capitalism!

(Imagine this being said in an old-timey man's voice, with lots of vim and vigor.  And also there probably would be brightly colored patriotic crepe paper streamers.  And a parade with pachyderms and fresh-faced baton-twirling girls with rosy cheeks and cute bobbed haircuts.  And very little cocaine, but probably a lot of drinking.  And maybe some sort of electric, ride-able goat float, just for good measure.  Did I mention a lot of drinking?)

I have more to say on the subject of our current regime's language, but I'll save it for another day.   One can only absorb so many awesome pictures of vintage majorettes strutting their stuff...(But just in case you can't, may I suggest this?)

Comments

[roisin]

goat float.