Rhetorical Coercion in the Iraq War
Reading “Fixing the Meaning of 9/11”
two weeks ago it was (and still is) my favorite reading we have done for class
so far because of how instantly and powerfully I believed in the Krebs and
Lobasz’s point that the Iraq War was allowed to be fought because of rhetorical
coercion done on the part of the Bush Administration.
Last weekend when my parents were
here for Parents’ Weekend, I remember sitting with them at G-Man and explaining
to them this point from the reading. When I got to the points about the
rhetoric that George Bush used when communicating to the public about this
issue, specifically his use of the world “evil” and his rampant “moralistic
binaries” (as Krebs and Lobasz call them), my mom instantly agreed and said how
often ex-President Bush would do this and constantly reinforced it to the
American public. Once I explained the concept of rhetorical coercion in this
case to her, it instantly made sense to her, and she doesn’t have any political
science or international relations background. The argument Krebs and Lobasz
here is very simple and straightforward. Because of the extreme polarization
Bush used, it made it very difficult for many Americans to not be reasonably
coerced. As the reading points out, ex-President Bush tapped into the 60-75% of
Americans who at the time believed in Satan.
This also extended to politicians
because they would receive tremendous backlash from their constituents if they
didn’t represent what their people wanted. Now obviously it is a politician’s
job to represent his or her constituents but if they could’ve made their own
informed decision about the Iraq War and did not have to worry about public
accountability, the war wouldn’t have happened. Democratic politicians were backed
into a corner so to speak from other reasons as well. One point that Krebs and
Lobasz brought up that I thought was particularly interesting was this: It is
better to overreact than underreact in a situation like this—if a politician
underreacts and another disaster happens, the backlash is exponential. In
addition, politicians can’t look “soft” in the face of terrorism. At the end of
the day, the number one concern for most politicians is getting re-elected.
This rhetorical coercion put Democratic politicians in a position where they
either followed what the Bush Administration was doing or risked getting
re-elected. We all know how this turned out.
I very strongly believe Krebs and
Lobasz’s point that the reason the Iraq War was allowed to start and did not
face opposition from Democratic politicians is that they faced rhetorical
coercion from the Bush Administration. I think that their reasons for the Iraq
War are the most logical compared to the other theories we read about in class.
Victoria,
ReplyDeleteI think you make a very good point, I too believe that Kerbs and Lobasz make a very compelling argument for the start of the war. I think it is interesting how you say that the only option that the politicians had were to agree to the war or risk re-election. The disaster of 9/11 put politicians as well as the community into a very difficult position in which our country had never been before. We were so shocked that terrorists were able to have such a huge impact on such a powerful nation that it was hard to go against public opinion and doubt that war was the right answer to this disaster. Going against this consensus one risked being seen as a terrorist sympathizer, or not caring about the safety of our country. Now looking back, it is easy to say that the war was a huge mistake, however, at the time vulnerability and emotion ruled the decision. The Bush administration played a huge part in feeding into this fear and feeling of helplessness through the language they used and the facts that they chose to make available to the public.
Leah,
DeleteI absolutely agree with your points! You're very right when you say how looking back it's easy to say that the war was a huge mistake, but I think that if more people went against the consensus and more politicians were more critical and voiced their opinions more during this time, we would not have ended up in the Iraq War.
Victoria,
ReplyDeleteI think you would find this short story called "The Braindead Megaphone" very interesting. It discusses how we as the American Public have been dumbed down by the media to discuss events as important as the presidential election in the same way we would discuss Miley Cyrus' latest scandal. So by the time of 9/11 we were using the same language that we had been using to discuss the OJ Simpson case as whether or not we should be invading Iraq. While Bushs' use of rhetorical coercion had a large impact in itself, it was also the media that fed into fear inflation of the public. The media lacked discussion about the morality of the invasion as well as just basic intelligence on the situation. America formed their beliefs just on 9/11 without looking at the entire situation and the actual capabilities/intentions of Iraq. It caused us to correlate terrorism with Muslim people and call Iraq "evil."
http://as1020.pbworks.com/f/saunders-braindead.pdf
Madeleine,
DeleteYou do make a good point about the media's lack of critique about the war, but I feel as though the media didn't have much a choice either without risking backlash just as the politicians feared it. Also, the media's main goal is to make money, so if they could raise profits by feeding into this panic (causing people to worry and stay glued to their TVs for instant news or constantly reading the paper for news updates) they're going to do it regardless of their beliefs.
I'll definitely check out that article and I'm excited to read it! Thank you!
You say that "This rhetorical coercion put Democratic politicians in a position where they either followed what the Bush Administration was doing or risked getting re-elected." I don't believe that those were the only two options that Democrats faced. The Krebs and Lobasz article also talks about how the media's uncritical presentation of the republicans' case would have made it impossible for a democratic argument to even receive sustained coverage. Democrats had the option to vocalize opposition, and although they didn't, it is not necessarily due to the risk of re-election. Like Leah said, after 9/11 everyone was in a state of fear and no one wanted to be seen as soft in the face of terrorism. Bush made arguments that were compelling enough to minimize any opposition that the democrats would have put forth. While it may be true that some democratic politicians were focused on their re-election, I believe that a much more likely explanation is the fear that was felt after the terrorist attacks left people in a state of shock, leading to unusual behavior.
ReplyDeleteEmma,
ReplyDeleteI do think people were in a state of shock but I think one of our politicians' jobs is not to be so blinded by emotions like the American public can sometimes be. I think it is their job to be more rational, and I think they most definitely could've handled this case more rationally but because of Bush's rhetorical coercion and arguments, Democrats weren't able to do that without looking "soft" or worried about getting re-elected. The American public was scared, but the Bush administration definitely took advantage of that and played up the vulnerability of the country, especially with the polarization rhetoric and the use of the word "evil." But I do understand your points.
I think you both have interesting points, but in general I agree with Victoria. I believe the Bush administration used the fears of the general public to enforce their political goals and the Democrats were not really left with a choice although some leading Democrats may have had objections to the war. It is interesting to observe how powerful the media and the politicians' will to be reelected were in the onset of this war.
ReplyDelete