Linguistics of Terror

Orchinus increases the ability to debate the language that Rove & Co. are trying to reinject into the debate concerning liberals being "weak on terror:"

I've made this point several times previously. The recent resurgence of the "liberals are weak on terror" theme -- inspired, no doubt, by the Bush administration's reported panic over its sinking poll numbers and the steady drumbeat of worsening news out of Iraq -- makes it even more pertinent.

Most people with real experience in combating terrorism are perfectly aware of this. They know that, before 9/11 Bush did not take terrorism seriously (and if there was any question of that, we need only reflect briefly on the remarkable record of inaction -- except, of course, for brush-clearing on the Bush ranch -- after the Aug. 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing). They also know that after 9/11, he hasn't approached it seriously either. Bush has chosen instead to use "terra" as a club for advancing his political agenda while continually undermining and ignoring the difficult and intricate work that fighting terrorism in a serious fashion requires.

Then he quotes extensively from favorite, noted, and very effective domestic terror investigator and expert FBI Agent Mike German:

Well, you know, basically the problem in 9/11 was the American public had no idea how dysfunctional the F.B.I. counterterrorism program had become, but now we're under this intelligence model, we actually know even less about what the government is doing to protect us from terrorism. You know, there's less accountability in the F.B.I., and I certainly know that there are problems, and I reported those problems to Congress, but so far, Congress hasn't been able to even get to the bottom of what I reported to them over a year ago.

So, there's just no oversight, and those things are really the problems. And until we fix what is internally wrong in the F.B.I., I don't think it's going to change. I think that we're still at great risk. You know, the 9/11 Commission found that the big problems were the F.B.I. had a poor ability to analyze intelligence that was coming in from the street, that they didn't share information well, and they didn't have a computerized system to share information, even among agents. And just last week, the 9/11 Commission discourse project came out and told us that -- gave us their report card, and it was that the F.B.I. still doesn't have an analytic capability, it still isn't sharing information in the intelligence community, and it still doesn't have a computer system. That's four years after 9/11.

Orchinus concludes by saying:

The reality: When liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attack, they wanted to prepare an effective, nimble response combining military action with intelligence-gathering and law enforcement, as well as addressing the root causes of terrorism; conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and simply prepared to sell George W. Bush as a "war president."

Turns out they were pretty good at that.

And so we're left with this empty vacuous reality: that the Right has built a construct of War based soley on symbolism and language games. This should provide us some answers as to exactly what Rove's methodology was last week when he reinvigorated the game of language debates: He knew that the only loser in that debate would be the "Liberal," and the Democrats that fell in line. It was, in a way, the perfect trap. Built out of nothing more than the convenience of timing and some sallow language.

Rove knew that, with everything in the in the Democrats' advantage, he had nothing to lose, and everything to gain, and that, really, he could recapture the terms of the debate relatively easily. It worked.

George Lakoff gives us the point-by-point:

When the Democrats took the bait, Rove reeled them in. Here’s what he achieved:

1.Rove changed the context of discourse, from Bush’s disaster in Iraq, to support for Bush in the wake of 911.
2.The Democrats had had the Republicans playing defense; Rove put them on offense and the Democrats on defense.
3.With the words “savagery” and “attack”, Rove evoked the frame in which war is the appropriate response. He thus made Bush the heroic Commander-in-Chief in the war frame, while making “liberals” wimps for wanting to deny Bush unlimited war powers.
4.Rove thus evoked the conservative branding of liberals as weak and conservatives as strong.
5.When the Democrats attacked Rove for his remarks and defended themselves, they wound up expressing support for Bush’s going to war after 911, and with it implicit support for Bush’s position in Iraq.
6.Rove made putative Democratic weakness the issue, and by negating the frame, the Democrats played right into his hands.
7.Moreover, using the word “liberal” and not “Democrat”, Rove made it look like any Democrat attacking his remarks was a lily-livered liberal, and that the party had been taken over by weak-kneed chickens – anyone against Bush’s use of the military.
8.This enabled the right-wing message machine to go to work, attacking the Democrats as being controlled by naïve unpatriotic weaklings – MoveOn,org, Howard Dean, George Soros, Michael Moore.
9.Rove, of course, stood tall and strong, sticking by his guns, with a loud chorus of supporters.
10.This enabled Scott McClellan, the administration mouthpiece, to call for a nation debate on conservative – liberal philosophy, beginning with the handling of 911.

So it never was about the factuality of what he was saying for Rove. It never is. It simply was about the power structure of the time period. What I mean by that is this: He who owns the TERMS of the debate owns the debate.

With the Social Security plan dumping on itself, Iraq trudging along and leaving American bodies in its wake, Iran turning more conservative and North Korea only flirting with bait but not biting, with John Bolton's nomination twice-deconstructed and with Frist's multiple failures of leadership, American politics was firmly in the hands of the Democrats. The owned the Debate.

Globally, with Live8 coming up around the bend and a global sense of both liberal empowerment and compassionate righteousness without the input of the American Conservative, the situation was generally bleak for the Conservative Ideal. This is what people like Rick Santorum react to: the threat that Liberalism will dominate his perspective.

And so Rove deftly wipes all of that away with a one-sentence stroke... Or tries to.

The good news is that it seems to have not been a complete restructuring of the debate. Apart from some howlings of Limbaugh et. al, the Left seems to have moved right along. I say keep moving.