George Lakoff & Evan Frisch -- Five Years After 9/11, Drop the War Metaphor
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Mon, 09/11/2006 - 11:19am. Guest Contribution
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by George Lakoff & Evan Frisch
Language matters, because it can determine how we think and act.
For a few hours after the towers fell on 9/11, administration spokesmen referred to the event as a “crime.” Indeed, Colin Powell argued within the administration that it be treated as a crime. This would have involved international crime-fighting techniques: checking banks accounts, wire-tapping, recruiting spies and informants, engaging in diplomacy, cooperating with intelligence agencies in other governments, and if necessary, engaging in limited “police actions” with military force. Indeed, such methods have been the most successful so far in dealing with terrorism.
But the crime frame did not prevail in the Bush administration. Instead, a war metaphor was chosen: the “War on Terror.” Literal — not metaphorical — wars are conducted against armies of other nations. They end when the armies are defeated militarily and a peace treaty is signed. Terror is an emotional state. It is in us. It is not an army. And you can’t defeat it militarily and you can’t sign a peace treaty with it.
The war metaphor was chosen for political reasons. First and foremost, it was chosen for the domestic political reasons. The war metaphor defined war as the only way to defend the nation. From within the war metaphor, being against war as a response was to be unpatriotic, to be against defending the nation. The war metaphor put progressives on the defensive. Once the war metaphor took hold, any refusal to grant the president full authority to conduct the war would open progressives in Congress to the charge of being unpatriotic, unwilling to defend America, defeatist. And once the military went into battle, the war metaphor created a new reality that reinforced the metaphor.
Once adopted, the war metaphor allowed the president to assume war powers, which made him politically immune from serious criticism and gave him extraordinary domestic power to carry the agenda of the radical right: Power to shift money and resources away from social needs and to the military and related industries. Power to override environmental safeguards on the grounds of military need. Power to set up a domestic surveillance system to spy on our citizens and to intimidate political enemies. Power over political discussion, since war trumps all other topics. In short, power to reshape America to the vision of the radical right — with no end date.
In addition, the war metaphor was used as justification for the invasion of Iraq, which Bush had planned for since his first week in office. Frank Luntz, the right-wing language expert, recommended referring to the Iraq war as part of the “War on Terror” — even when it was known that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and indeed saw Osama bin Laden as an enemy. Fox News used “War on Terror” as a headline when showing film clips from Iraq. Remember “Weapons of Mass Destruction?” They were invented by the Bush administration to strike terror into the hearts of Americans and to justify the invasion. Remember that the Iraq War was advocated before 9/11 and promoted as early as 1997 by the members of the Project for the New American Century, who later came to dominate in the Bush administration. Why?
The right-wing strategy was to use the American military to achieve economic and strategic goals in the Middle East: to gain control of the second largest oil reserve in the world; to place military bases right in the heart of the Middle East for the sake of economic and political intimidation; to open up Middle East markets and economic opportunities for American corporations; and to place American culture and a controllable government in the heart of the Middle East. The justification was 9/11 — to identify the Iraq invasion as part of the “War on Terror” and claim that it is necessary in order to protect America and spread democracy.
What has been the result?
Domestically, the “War on Terror” has been a major success for the radical right. Bush has been returned to office and the radical right controls all branches of our government. They are realizing their goals. Social programs are being gutted. Deregulation and privatization are thriving. Even highways are being privatized. Taxpayers’ money is being transferred to the ultra-rich making them richer. Two right-wing justices have been appointed to the Supreme Court and right-wing judges are taking over courts all over America. The environment continues to be plundered. Domestic surveillance is in place. Corporate profits have doubled while wage levels have declined. Oil profits are astronomical. And the radical rights social agenda is taking hold. The “culture war” is being won on many fronts. And it is still widely accepted that we are fighting a “War on Terror.” The metaphor is still in place. We are still taking off our shoes at the airports, and now we cannot take bottled water on the planes. Terror is being propped up.
But while the radical right has done well on the domestic front, America and Americans have fared less well both at home and abroad.
What was the moral of 9/11?
To Osama bin Laden, the moral was simple: American power can be used against America itself. This moral has defined the post 9/11 world: the more America uses military force in the Middle East, the more damage is done to America and Americans.
The more Americans kill and terrorize Muslims, the more we recruit Muslims to become terrorists and fight against us.
The war in Iraq was over in 2003 when the US forces defeated Saddam’s army. Then the American occupation began — an occupation by insufficient troops ill-suited to be occupiers, especially in a country on the brink of a civil war, where neither side wants us there.
The number of lives lost on 9/11 is currently listed as 2973. As of this writing 2662 Americans have been sent to their deaths in Iraq, a Muslim country that did not attack us. At the current rate, within months more Americans will have been sent to their deaths by Bush than were murdered at the hands of bin Laden.
9/11 was a crime — a crime against humanity — and terrorism is best dealt with as crime on an international level.
It is time to toss the war metaphor into the garbage can.
The war metaphor is still intimidating progressives. To come out against “staying the course” is to be called unpatriotic, weak, and defeatist. To say, “no, we’re just as strong, but we’re smarter” is to keep and reinforce the war metaphor, which the conservatives have a patent on.
It is time for progressives to jettison the war metaphor itself. It is time to tell some truths that progressives have been holding back on. What has worked in stopping terrorism is just what has worked in stopping international crime — like the recent police work in England. What has failed is the war approach, which just recruits more terrorists. In Iraq, the war was over when we defeated Saddam’s army. Then the occupation began. Our troops are dying because they are not trained be occupiers in hostile territory on the cusp of a civil war.
Bush is an occupation president, not a war president, and his war powers should be immediately rescinded. Rep. Lynn Woolsey’s resolution to do just that (H.R. 5875) should be taken seriously and made the subject of national debate.
I am suggesting a conscious discussion of the war metaphor as a metaphor. The very discussion would require the nation to think of it as a metaphor, and allow the nation to take seriously the truth of our presence in Iraq as an occupation that must be ended. You don’t win or lose an occupation; you just exit as gracefully as possible.
Openly discussing the war metaphor as a metaphor would allow the case to be made that terrorism is most effectively treated as a crime — like wiping out a crime syndicate — not as an occasion for sending over a hundred thousand troops and doing massive bombing that only recruits more terrorists.
Finally, openly discussing the war metaphor as a metaphor would raise the question of the domestic effect of giving the president war powers, and the fact that the Bush administration has shamelessly exploited 9/11 to achieve the political goals of the radical right — with all the disasters that has brought to our country. It would allow us to name right-wing ideology, to spell it out, look at its effects, and to see what awful things it has done, is doing, and threatens to keep on doing. The blame for what has gone wrong in Iraq, in New Orleans, in our economy, and throughout the country at large should be placed squarely where it belongs — on right-wing ideology that calls itself “conservative” but mocks real American values.
Metaphors cannot be seen or touched, but they create massive effects, and political intimidation is one such effect. It is time for political courage and political realism. It is time to end the political intimidation of the war metaphor and the terror it has loosed on America.
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
George Lakoff is a Senior Fellow at the Rockridge Institute, the author
of Whose Freedom? and Don’t Think of an Elephant!, and Professor of Linguistics.
Evan Frisch is Rockridge Institute's Technology Strategist and responsible for expanding our capacity to empower the progressive community online.
© 2006 The Rockridge Institute, www.rockridgeinstitute.org
» login or register to post comments | printer friendly version | Send to friend
Ford WAS our 38th President
Submitted by privateman on Mon, 09/11/2006 - 5:43pm.
/While I agree with Citizen Over 50's honorable belief that the opposition to the Bush regime needs to be more pro-active and less "gentlemanly" and accommodating, he loses substantial credibility when he asserts that Ford was "injected" "unconstitutionally" into the presidency. /Needless to say, Gerald Ford, while never "elected," became president through constitutional means. The 25th Amendment to the Constitution grants the president the ability to appoint his vice president, with advice and consent from Congress. This is exactly what happened with Richard Nixon. Spiro Agnew resigned; Nixon nominated Ford, and Congress--the elected representatives of the people--confirmed him to the position. Thus, when Nixon himself resigned, Ford assumed office, as per the 25th Amendment. If Speaker Carl Albert rose to power after Nixon's resignation, THAT would have been an unconstitutional coup. /Now, Citizen Over 50 may claim that since President Ford was never elected to the position, he was thus "injected" into the office. But because Congress is made up of elected members, the people had a say in Ford's nomination. And he was confirmed to the vice presidency by a vote of those elected public servants. Therefore, Gerald Ford became the 38th President of the United States through totally legal means that abide by our democratic principles of representative government. /On a side note, I agree with the citizen above. Ford should never have pardoned Nixon. It was a selfish act--a cheap political tactic to prop up the new Ford administration--and ignored the public will to investigate Nixon's crimes. Some may disagree, citing Nixon's poor health and the fact that he probably could never have had a fair trial. But Nixon should have been tried for all the crimes he committed while in office--from Cambodia to Watergate--because NO president is above the law.
» login or register to post comments
"War on Terror" (sic) is a Bushism
Submitted by verite on Mon, 09/11/2006 - 3:39pm.
We always knew that. As Pilger said "War IS terror" Stealing minds thro' language cannot be prosecuted by law, so we need to start with the first crime... the attacks on 11/9/06 And ask all the unanswered questions. Why was evidence removed illegally from the crime scene...so quickly, especially at the Pentagon Building...how could these failed, half-hearted trainee "pilots" execute such skilled flying moves...and why for example allegedly fly 280° around the Pentagon Building to hit an unoccupied section... where is all the debris from this huge aircraft... how come all the security video has been hidden...how could the mobile calls from the highjacked aircraft work at 7,000 feet.. what was in the big crate carried out hidden by a blue tarp.... why was the hole so small and lower than the 40 foot high aircraft.. how come WTC Building 7 collapsed (as in a controlled demolition)although only subject to minor fires... $7 billion x 2 insurance to a new landlord of 2 months...? etc.
» login or register to post comments
"War on Treeor" is a bushism
Submitted by willymack on Mon, 09/11/2006 - 6:29pm.
In otherwords, what REALLY happened on 9/11?, and who REALLY did it? Hint: it wasn't the patsies depicted as the "Terrorists".
» login or register to post comments
who REALLY did it?...
Submitted by verite on Tue, 09/12/2006 - 4:17am.
All the evidence and lack of it... shows it has to be "an inside job", if you will excusez mon americain. Who has access to a drone? Who can land and hide the missing Flight 77 (that was supposedly flown into the Pentagon.) Duck Cheney's orfice was right in line with the direction this plane was supposed to come from but the plane went right round to hit the empty section that was being renovated. How come this not even half-trained failed "pilot" learned this at a school run by a Dutch ex-crook with links to the CIA? Who can interfere with the evidence at the scene of the crime .. then call it a "war" to terrify the impoverished US populace into lambs for the slaughter? Who can delay scrambling USAF jet fighters then divert NORAD * away * from the hijacked planes? Who had access to Building 7 to place charges that is normally a 4 week operation at least? The twin towers themselves, on "collapsing," their steel frame already neatly chopped into sections just the right length for the trucks that were to be used to cart them away... a long way away. Who profited by the stock futures market from the event? Who and his close friends profited most from the disaster? (Just asking.) Make a list yourself and the chances are we all know who did it. Most Americans are too far gone on mickey mouse corporate media to face the horrific reality that is most obvious to observers who do not speak English on a daily basis. It is the only explanation I can think of unless we get nutritional. Almost... as the British are too embarrassed that their FPP "democracy" system got them "Saddam can attack us in 45 minutes" Bliar as a leader....too embarrassed to prosecute their Prime Minister for his war crimes resulting from the USUK attack. Merci mes copains.
» login or register to post comments
Left Gatekeeping
Submitted by Chris Rose on Mon, 09/11/2006 - 5:08pm.
Why are the media conspiring to cover-up these unanswered questions? Especially the so-called "left" or "progressive" websites such as this one? When we know now beyond doubt that this administration is capable of lies that result in death (i.e., The Iraq War), why do we give them the benefit of the doubt on 9/11? Why won't BUZZFLASH ask some of the tough questions highlighted in your post?
» login or register to post comments
Why won't Buzzflash ask zee tuf questions?
Submitted by verite on Tue, 09/12/2006 - 4:46am.
Good question that person ! Well I suppose BF just copies stuff other volk say. ..... And maybe you are right BF..some volks might be frightened to face the BIG lie at home because they have become terrorized by the fascisti chez nous....while quite happy to look at domestically indigestible matter such as USUK massacres in Iraq, eg in Fallujah ( via Dahr Jamail) The third USUK massacre about to happen there BTW. (But don't mention the DU). ... The reality is we face Faschism with a capital F... as described.. it is corporate Faschism where profit become God and it is the arms/oil cartel who runs and wants to own everyone. .... The American dream has become a global nightmare. Wellbeing at home depends on a privatized war machine that targets the poorest on earth. This is just tooo much reality for the average GI Joe to take. It is almost that simple... Mind you there are real Amerikan heroes out there.. like any number if you do a search at yahoo for 9/11 truth. The knowledge is there, self-evident, AND almost at the risk of sounding Rumsfeltian...looking at evidence that is there.. and that is also not there... we know who is hiding it.
» login or register to post comments
Outstanding Analysis, Uncertain Prescription
Submitted by stevehigh on Mon, 09/11/2006 - 3:20pm.
Yeah, that is fucking ay how the Reps did it, all right. And without even a kiss.
But sixty days out, the time is past for telling our party leaders how to win the midterm elections. We are either going to win with them or not at all.
Personally, I think the line taken by John Kerry within the last 24 hours is too good to let drop:
If George Bush is such a great 9/11 hero, then how come Osama is still running around Afghanistan like a fucking hamster?
Bush crippled the police action in Afghanistan--screwed up our chance to get even for 9/11--and now Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. It's urgent to get troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, and the only way to do it is to kick the rubber-stamp Republicans out of Congress.
Now is that tough? I'm sure I could invent my own campaign message, and I'm just egotistical enough to think it would be better than anything Rahm and Chuck with their army of consultants and market researchers could ever do.
But, just to be a good team player, I think I'll let them call the signals for the next few weeks.
After all, isn't that why they get the big bucks?
--Steve
» login or register to post comments
Anthrax 2001
Submitted by Musing on Mon, 09/11/2006 - 2:24pm.
We are supposed to believe that no terrorist attacks have occured on American soil since 9-11. But I believe that the Anthrax attacks were terrorist attacks. 1. Offices of politicains were targeted 2. Government buildings (postal sorting offices were also targeted) 3. The deaths caused were not of targeted individuals - who are thereby essentially innocent. 4. The attacks spread fear. These acts of terrorism do not fit well with the "War on Terror" metaphor. Most inconveniently the Anthrax seems to be a strain made in the USA (with whom should we engage in war). It is FAR easier to say no acts of terrorism on USA soil since 9-11, and sigh with relief that Saddam did not arm a future band of terrorists with mysterious ephemeral potions. Er, let's forget this one.
» login or register to post comments
Anthrax 2001
Submitted by willymack on Mon, 09/11/2006 - 7:25pm.
Guess who was targeted? Two Democrats, Tom Daschele and one other, whose name I forget. They opposed the Iraq War. What a coincidence!
» login or register to post comments
War vs International Crime
Submitted by obhaas on Mon, 09/11/2006 - 1:24pm.
What a clarion bell this essay has rung! How duped we are by the language of "war" and the right wing radicals who have done so much harm! Crime committed in the name of God or Islam is the same as crime committed in the name of ideology or the theft of oil. Thanks. Bernard
» login or register to post comments
Congratulations
Submitted by Satirist on Mon, 09/11/2006 - 12:30pm.
Congratulations Frisch and Lakoff; Your dissection of the modus operandi of this administration is as concise, to the point, and accurate as any essay I have read on any bloggers sites. Less and less people are being fooled by the tactics of the neo-cons, and although this is no doubt occuring from the simple observation of their failures, the political conflagaration of words employed by this government could in itself provide for an entire college course. The military industrial complex needs an enemy and needs a war, but there are still good people left in America who can fight the good fight and work for change. Sacrifice can be exchanged for greed.
» login or register to post comments
Typical Lakoff
Submitted by Citizen over 50 on Mon, 09/11/2006 - 12:24pm.
I can't read this guy because he beats a point to death. We get it George!!!!! I fell asleep trying to read his book. He states, " Bush is an occupation president, not a war president, and his war powers should be immediately rescinded." I say Bush is a tyrant and a fascist dictator. He should be deposed and all the laws his Organized Criminal Enterprise has foisted upon this nation should be immideately rescinded including his appointments to ANY office OR BENCH. They should all be arrested and tried for treason. America has a stupid habit of being overly "polite" and allowing these people to skulk back into the cracks of our society to regroup and come back. It matters not if we win this election. It matters not if we win the entire government back... IF WE CONTINUE THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE OF PARDONING THESE CRIMINALS AND LETTING THEM GO. When they were pardoned by Ford (who was an unconstitutionally injected president) and THAT was deemed acceptable... we lost the country. CARL ALPERT WAS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AND AS SUCH SHOULD HAVE BECOME PRESIDENT WHEN NIXON STEPPED DOWN. When our country accepted the whitewash of the Assination of President Kennedy, and the whitewash of Watergate and the selection of an unlawful President....Gerry Ford, and we moved forward to the Iran Contra Whitewash.... we set the table for this complete and total takeover of our nation. In the name of being "gentlemenly" on the floor of the House and Senate, our representatives have handed over our nation to the enemy. We are occupied. As for language and it's use to control us? We have accepted the term "WAR ON DRUGS" as an excuse to allow our government to jail anyone who in any other country would be called a "POLITICAL PRISONER" or a "PATRIOT" and we continue to use the term WAR ON DRUGS..... WHY has Lakoff not seen this? Lakoff is not a genious.... he is an English teacher. Get real people. We are beyond the language game.... we are in phase three where we must decide about a revolution. My generation in the 1960's was NOT AFRAID to stand up to the criminals in office and not afraid to use the term REVOLUTION. Why are you all afraid to fight for your country? Are you all that fatted and soft? I suggest you choose your meeting points around the country to celebrate your election victories. When they are stolen by Diebold this time at least you will all be gathered when you get the news. We have moved beyond the place in our history where mere words are controlling us. These guys have many agencies to control us. They have a complete and far reaching police state replete with professional assassins. Are we to be reduced to peasants while we argue about language?
» login or register to post comments
drop the war metaphor
Submitted by clear on Mon, 09/11/2006 - 12:10pm.
The Bush Administration has been all talk and very little action. Sure, we have troops on the ground in Iraq, but what has been done for security at home? We're wasting billions to stir up terrorism, when we could have been spending it on real security measures at home, or, as Lakoff and Frisch suggest, take steps that are legal and effective to wage counter-terrorism. But no, W had to go for the big spectacle, whether that was going to be effective or not. Same with Katrina. "We'll do whatever it takes" to rebuild. That's gone swimmingly. Some compassionate conservative. It's really interesting that ABC has their 9/11 farce coming out, and some Iraqi unit had a change of command ceremony; all right before our election; and let's not forget the new bin Laden and al-Qaeda tapes. Everybody is trying to influence our election. Why wouldn't bin Laden want Republicans re-elected? They continue to give him such great recruitment opportunities. If Americans don't start seeing through all this crap, we'll be saying "Sieg Heil" to W. If we ever needed an illustration of the Peter Principle, it's this nitwit, back when he owned the Texas Rangers, maybe even before. He's an example that anyone can become President, even an incompetent fool.
» login or register to post comments
drop the war metaphor
Submitted by willymack on Mon, 09/11/2006 - 7:31pm.
Doncha know it's all about money? The more, the better. These greedy bastards just can't get enough; they "need" more and more, and then wonder why they're not happy.
» login or register to post comments
