I've been noticing a troubling conflation of ideas in the media and political dialog lately. This issue was brought home forcefully during the debate last Tuesday, when the candidates sparred on their relative friendliness towards the Jewish people. The brief exchange was prompted by Tim Russert questioning Obama whether or not he would "reject" the support of Louis Farrakhan. Obama spoke about his strong Jewish support, the need for a revival of the black-Jewish alliance, and his generally pro-Israel stance before Hillary intervened to turn the issue into a matter of semantics by demanding that he should not only "denounce" but "reject" the Nation of Islam leader's support. Obama conceded the point, had a laugh, and the moderators moved on.
This little skirmish didn't carry much substantive weight in the debate; Farrakhan's endorsement isn't an important policy issue, nor is it a major attack point. But the language used in the scuffle underlined a pernicious conflation of "anti-Israel" with "anti-semitic" that is common in today's political dialog. Throughout the brief exchange, "anti-semitic and anti-Israel" were bandied about as if they meant the same thing. It is important we remember that they do not.
Glenn Greenwald's post from yesterday made a very interesting point. Drawing from recent survey data, Greenwald argues that positions that are taken to be "anti-Israel" in America, such as the need for direct talks with Hamas, are actually supported by a sizable majority (64%) of actual Israelis, the people whose lives these policies are actually affecting. The article underscores the increasing divide between the positions of right-wing Jewish groups in the US and actual Israeli citizens. Many positions that are labeled "anti-Israel" over here, then, are actually more in line with the consensus on the street in Tel Aviv. "Anti-Israel" is a creation of American hard-liners.
So this first term, "anti-Israel," is problematic on its own. The troubles don't stop there however; "anti-Israel" is increasingly being paired up with a twin concept, anti-semitism, and this I believe to be an even greater problem.
Let's break this down: many of the positions that are labeled anti-Israel (complexities aside) are simply criticisms of Israeli policy in regard to the Palestinian territories. As mentioned, direct talks with Hamas is often cited as an anti-Israel position; many people feel that the dismantling of the West Bank settlements also fits into this category. For a more complete look at the contemporary socio-political dynamics in Israel, see the recent Economist article. So "anti-Israeli" positions, barring the extreme notion of denying Israel the right to statehood, are really just positions that are critical of the Israeli state. Anti-semitism, on the other hand, is critical of the Jewish people as a race and a culture. It is hateful and driven not by policy particulars and political philosophy but by blind fear and ignorance. Conflating these two concepts, then, is in essence equating criticism of Israeli policies with hatred of Jews.
This sort of rhetorical trick reminds me all too well of the "Support the Troops" slogans that you still see spangling the bumper stickers of cars. This successful if intellectually dishonest propaganda campaign conflates support for Bush's failing policies with support for the rank-and-file soldiers on the ground. If you're critical of the war, then you must be against the poor soldiers who are risking their lives every day because of this selfsame war. It's a ludicrous proposition.
In the political discourse, words are potent messengers. Let's make sure that blatantly manipulative phrases like these are kept in check with a healthy dose of criticism. If you've identified any other crafty wordplay in the world of media and politics, post them into the comments section.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Well, for starters, let us take a look at the "Change" slogan of the democratic party. As a fundamental idea, Barack Obama's camp began using the term to draw support from the populace's fatigue over the political climate in Washington. Then it started working. Then Hillary and John Edwards jumped on the Change Expressway. What this did was generate a Republican criticism over the over-use of jargon. But is that not the Republican doctrine? A fine example is the term "terrorism." Terrorism, by definition, is the use of terror as a means of coercion. We fine Americans, however, have taken it to mean a hostile act initiated by a rebellious and stateless faction. Calling up the FBI and saying you're going to put Anthrax in drinking water is terrorism. Flying a plane into a building is, on a very large scale, guerrilla warfare. One of the side effects of the use of the term "terrorism" comes from its partnership with the word Islamic. Islamic pertains to a person who practices the Islamic faith, or a person who recognizes Mohammed as the messianic prophet of the Abrahamic God and follows his teachings. By using the word "Islamic terrorist" we are then isolating nations of people and distorting their religious faith as a means of social harm. The truth is, the term "Islamic terrorist" really means "someone who practices the teachings of Mohammed and coerces their opponents with fear." The truth of the matter is that the distortion of reality that the American government practices is really terrorism in itself, from a certain point of view. And to come full circle, this is why Washington fears "change."
... cont'd.
Since we're on the topic of terrorism, there's a frightening similarity between what the government calls "terrorism" and what happens when angst-ridden kids walk into a shopping mall with an automatic weapon. It's the same style of fighting (see: guerrilla warfare), but it doesn't get the same title. Why is that? Because it would be near impossible to nurture the American "holier than thou" persona if we're guilty of the same atrocities as those "damned A-rabs." How is a school shooting any different than a car bombing? Well, from what I can tell, shootings require access to sensitive weaponry while a bomb can be constructed with household cleaners. So really our terrorists are better equipped. But no, they're not terrorists, because if any red-blooded American citizen would sink to such a level it would permanently compromise the false sense of security that sedates the populace daily. No, it is absolutely necessary to constantly satiate the public with this political spin. Imagine the panic that would ensue should people realize that there are hundreds of white-bred gun-toting psychopaths hanging out in forests and getting tight off cheap whiskey.
I'll leave you with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAm5EBCaL2I
Very interesting point, Ruxton. Your semantical analysis really brought to attention the misuse of these ubiquitous phrases. It seems these phrases and words are entirely inadequate to do justice to the reality of the situation.
Insightful comments, all. Ruxton, that Keith Obermann link that you posted really cuts to the hypocritical core of the current FISA debate - thanks for including it.
The word "terrorism" and "the war on terror" are perhaps the two most interesting verbal tricks in the modern political lexicon. As you point out, we must remember that terrorism is a strategy, not an ideology. As the intelligent right-winger Pat Buchanan put it, calling what we're in right now a "war on terror" is like calling WWII a "war on blitzkrieg" - it doesn't address the causation and instead simply targets the method. "Islamic terror" presents further problems, as you point out.
And again, you nail the issue on the head when you talk about American exceptionalism in the concept of terror. If we are torturing our citizens, spying on people without warrants and a host of other atrocities, do we really have the moral high ground? As much as the word "terrorism" has come to be associated purely with the "Islamo-fascist" variety, we need to be on the lookout here at home for fear and intimidation masquerading as national security. After all, isn't exploiting people's fear for political gain the very definition of terrorism? Olbermann got to heart of this when he used the use "fascism" to describe what's going on. I'm glad we have something in the mainstream media speaking about this with such urgency and outrage.
Seriously though. Until we come to grips with a few basic facts our species is ultimately doomed. People don't like to be the bad guy! We're all the protagonists of our personal life stories, and as a result we don't like to be wrong. When our progeny, being our over-glorified tadpole with years of ingrained psycho-trauma that we've caused, walks into a school and shoots up the place we don't tell it like it is. We make up excuses, we ask where we went wrong, we try to analyze catalysts to the problem and try to fix them. We try to put a stop to bullying. We try to halt bad parenting and child abuse. Does it not occur to anyone that this same approach could be employed to stop guerrilla attacks against the Western world? It's the same cry for help. A better funded cry for help, but it's still a people declaring their right to be recognized, and you can't fault someone for that. You can sure as hell fault their actions, but not their desire to be heard.
Post a Comment