Why we should never, ever, ever use the phrase, "War on Terror" ?

[kentuck]

I was just watching George Lakoff, the linguist expert, on the Bill Moyers show. His explanation made so much sense that we Democrats should take heed. He explained that there were some "terrorists" that were a threat to our nation but they were not another nation and were only a few thousand in numbers at the most.

However, by saying "war on terror", we permit certain powers to the Commander in Chief - powers that he should not have. And by accentuating "terror", it is fear that knows no bounds. He says Dmeocrats should never use the phrase, "war on terror", but use the word "terrorists" instead. It is more accurate and does not surrender the language to George W Bush and the Repubs.

[CaTeacher]

1. can we say

"war on terra"? I have been using that one quite a bit.

[kentuck]

5. You should not use the word "war" in combination with "terror"..

No. No.

[Cha]

6. Isn't that what I've heard that the bushies say?

I seem to connect the word .."terra" with bush for some reason.

And what does that mean anyway?

[Nite Owl]

7. It's the word war

that gives him the 'power', people feel that they should be backing him during a war.

[kentuck]

14. You give up the right to criticize when you agree it is a "war"..

We should not use that word.

[librechik]

2. also it creates an atmosphere where criticism of the prez is

unpatriotic--an atmosphere that we are allowing and that should end immediately--along with the conceot of this infernal "eternal war."

[Cha]

3. I don't and cringe when I hear some disingenous being

on tv saying it..it's part of the big lie.

[LearnedHand]

4. Thanks for posting this, Kentuck

The linguistic-control policies of this administration really do terrify me (MUCH more so than some vague notion that some Timothy McVeigh might blow up a building again). We need to see much, MUCH more discussion of this insidious control mechanism in the public media outlets.

[calimary]

28. VERY glad to see this guy getting more attention!

He is 100 percent correct about this.

It is IMPERATIVE that we take back the language. That leads to taking back the agenda. And THAT leads to taking back the power over the long term. The republi-CONS started very meticulously and resolutely to build coalitions and feed talking points and getting everybody in lockstep. newt gingrich's GOPAC was issuing guidelines in book form about what positive language to use in describing republi-CONS versus what negative language to use in describing all things Democratic. They have systematically turned the word "liberal" into a dirty word.

We HAVE to fight fire with fire.

This guy also recommends near-genius things like - NEVER USE THE TERM "tax relief," "tax reform," or even the word/concept "taxes." They should be rephrased/reframed as "DUES."

They're the DUES you pay to be part of the United States of America, to enjoy and support all the bounty she has to offer. This is what being a good citizen is all about. I'd bet NONE of the folks who gnash their teeth and rend their garments about how bad taxes are would belly-ache for an instant when their dues bills arrive in the mail from their chi-chi country clubs, or beach clubs, or athletic clubs. But all those fine services offered by those elegant clubs, like the excellent service, the cuisine, the sports facilities, the janitorial staff, the parking attendants, the receptionists, the amenities, and all the assorted privileges COST MONEY. Thus: DUES. It's part of your obligation as a citizen and a participant in this country that you help keep it running. Even that selfish cheap-ass Grover "drown the government in a bathtub" Norquist would scream bloody murder if the city didn't pick up his trash every week.

It's how you phrase things. How you word things. Words can be powerful, suggestive, evocative. They should be USED.

This guy makes almost too much sense. He should be heeded by EVERY Democrat and liberal and progressive on the planet.

[kentuck]

30. It is imperative that we do it....

Because when they talk about clear skies and healthy forests, they are lying. It's Orwellian. We must overcome these lies and deception with the truth and it is not as simple as some might think. We must work hard to free the truth from this bondage.

[Eurobabe]

38. Lakoff ROCKS!

Literally.

Besides teaching at Berkley, Lakoff is a senior fellow with a rather new foundation called the Rockridge Institute (being a Blazing Saddles fan, I'd love to know the story behind the origination of THAT one!) Group of eight scholars got together to stop the political push to the right.

Lakoff, along with Peter Singer (Author, President of Good and Evil) of Princeton are among my favorite people to see interviewed these days. They make mega-sense.

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/newsletter/archives/rrnews.4.04.pdf

[Murdock]

8. Its an Oxymoron..

By its very nature, "Terror" is an unwinnable war, no matter who we invade, no matter how long we stay there there will always be "Terror" somewhere. "Terror" is never going to sit down at a table and sign a peace treaty so its an open ended invitation to strip citizens of their constitutional protections.

[kentuck]

15. We are fighting "terrorists" but we are not fighting "terror"...

And it is not a "war". It is a manipulation that is treasonous at best.

[Nite Owl]

9. Saw him earlier and

he should really be holding emergency meetings with all the Dems. This is what the Repukes are so good at, intimidating and driving points with coordinated wording. It's about time we fight them on this.

[kentuck]

16. I agree.

And Lakoff mentioned Luntz and how he used Orwellian terms... But the difference is that they use them to deceive. We must use them to get to the truth.

[NightOwwl]

34. Nite Owl

What a clever name. :hi:

[ClassWarrior]

10. Great post, kentuck.

I usually refer to the war on "concept."

[cliss]

11. Thanks, kentuck.

I loved it when Randi Rhodes said, "they've declared war against an EMOTION". Terror is an emotion. How can you declare war on that?

As usual, she has crystal-clear insight. I had to agree with her. There are some excellent web sites which delve into this little ruse. I recommend Counterpunch.com, Fromthewilderness.com for starters. Many other excellent web sites which clarify this little game.

[Spiffarino]

12. Language matters

Some may argue that it's just semantics, but it truly matters. Words give us mental pictures that stick with us. Using the word "terror" instead of "terrorists" removes any chance of a successful conclusion to the war. We can possibly defeat terrorists, which are people; we can never defeat terror, an emotional state.

This is NOT an accident, folks. The Bushites know exactly what they are doing.

[kentuck]

19. Absolutely ...

And when we add the word "war" to the "terror', it gives Bush the power as CiC to send our troops into countries like Iraq illegally and takes away our right to criticize, less we be called "unpatriotic".

[NightOwwl]

24. Terrorists are people; terror is an emotional state.

We can never defeat terror.

Great point gtrump. I'll be using that phrase a lot.

[kentuck]

13. Another interesting example he gave was the word "rich"....

We should not say the phrase "tax the rich" because people see "rich" as a good word and used as an adjective at time, but instead, use the word "elite". "Elite" does not have a positive image in the minds of voters.

Also, he said that when Repubs use the phrase "tax relief", it is picked up by people as relief from a burden or discomfort, in this case, relief from taxes.

Also, instead of saying "trial lawyers", we should emphasize that John Edwards is in "people protection law" - to protect them from corporations and people with powerful influence...

[ClassWarrior]

21. Yup - he's a People's Lawyer!

Not a corporate lawyer.

[pbg]

41. maybe not...

A few more years of this economy and 'the rich' might get people's blood boiling.

[scarletwoman]

17. That was a WONDERFUL segment!

I was already familiar with Lakoff's work, which I greatly admire.

Will the Dems take heed? Sadly, I very much doubt it. In fact, I was alternately thrilled and despairing while watching that segment. Thrilled because he was laying it out so clearly, and despairing because I know the idiot Dem party hacks will TOTALLY ignore something as sensible and effective as Lakoff's counsel about re-framing the language.

Makes me just wanna tear out my hair...

And the Moyers interview with Kevin Phillips -- WOW!

sw

[kentuck]

22. I agree scarletwoman....

The Democrats must take heed. But the Repubs' objective in using phrases like 'America is safer' over and over is to imprint it on listeners minds, but to do it to deceive. But, Democrats cannot say "America is NOT safer" because it will have the same impact as Nixon saying 'I am NOT a crook'...Interesting!

But Democrats must use the language to filter the truth out of the deception.

[scarletwoman]

27. That's what re-framing is all about.

Instead of using a negative, "America is NOT safer", you re-frame it altogether: "The Iraq war has created MORE terrorists."

It's all about telling the truth, and telling the truth using DIFFERENT language than the lies you are refuting. When you keep using the same words as the liars, you are actually just reinforcing the lies.

It's SO effective and brilliant! But will the Dems make use of this? I don't think they're capable of climbing out of their reactive rut and start being PROactive anymore... :-(

sw

[kentuck]

29. Exactly !

Because they lie with such "good" words, we must tell the truth "differently" in order to be heard. But, what they do by deception is nothing less than evil.

[ILeft]

18. The Democrats/Kerry should make this guy a top advisor

The evildoers have Newt and amoral think tank academics burning the midnight oil to "win." Pay this guy a million bucks a month till the election, with a bonus if we win.

[thebigidea]

20. they should take Israel's lead and redub it a "Peace War"

It would be a great combination of Bush's competing "I'm a Wartime President!" and "I wanna be a Peacetime President...." sales pitches.

Short, confusingly Orwellian, grimly ironic: Peace War. Now available at a severe discount.

[ItsThePeopleStupid]

23. I think the idea that we are at war is ingrained...

besides, there is truth to it. But I like "war on Islamic extremists" (neutral) or "war on religious extremism", which can be turned against our own Taliban.

I *never* say "war on terror"--it's really stupid, and it conjures up images for me of a bunch of scared people being pursued by an angry mob with pitchforks...

[kentuck]

26. No. The word "war" takes away your rights and gives power to the CiC...

under the guise of deception. Yes, we are threatened by "terrorists" or extremists and we must fight them. That does not mean we surrender our rights as AMericans and give the Commander in Chief the right to invade another country just because he feels like it...

[Martin Eden]

25. I always put it in quotation marks

When you write "war on terror" it references the subject while implying that the phrase is a misnomer.

[Kanary]

31. It was a great segment, and very similar to what victims of abuse

have needed to learn............ not to keep defending oneself, but to turn the tables.

It was interesting that he said the DEMs, including Kerry, were still letting the REpugs set the terms.

Wonder when we're going to outgrow that......

Guess we have to get fed up with being abuse victims, first......

Kanary

[msmcghee]

32. NOW just ended here in the Seattle area.

IMO what Lakoff had to say was probably the most important, valuable information that Dems and progressives could possibly hear. We should have heard it 25 years ago because they were telling us all along.

I especially appreciated his explanation that we on the left have this infatuation with facts and logic. We believe that if we just expose people to the truth - they will vote for us. It's not true folks.

Meanwhile (for the last 30 years) the pukes have been engaging in sophisticated marketing, like the framing techniques that Lakoff described so well, that causes millions of Americans vote against their interests every election.

The sad part of this is that they've been telling us all along how it's done. Remember Gingrich's list of words that all pukes were supposed to associate with liberals? They were telling us how they did it.

But for some reason, we feel that it is beneath us to have to sell our values. I really hope someone in the Dem leadership watched that show and understands the huge importance of what Lakoff said.

Unfortunately, the fact that they haven't picked up on this by now, tells me that their mindset will not accept this information. It will not fit easily into our liberal world-view where marketing is somehow considered cheating.

[kentuck]

33. Excellent point you make....

facts and logic are not enough. We Democrats tend to believe that facts and logic are all we need. It is not true. Thanks msmcghee!

[msmcghee]

35. Always on the sunny side . . n/t

[calimary]

36. Lakoff is brilliant. Frankly, it gives me some encouragement to read

some of the posts on this thread. Gradually, more people are discovering this strategy. Which will eventually mean a "dual use" win for us - as the enemy realizes 1) we are ONTO them and their game; and 2) we are turning their game around and making it work for ourselves. (And I LOVE turning their phrases around and using them as weapons).

It might be interesting to try "campaign against terrorists." NOT the word "war" or the word "terror" for all the many valid reasons cited here. You do NOT cede the advantage to the opponent.

Also: stressing words like "elite" rather than rich is VERY good. There is no greater group of elitists than these republi-CONS.

Further, their assertions can be turned on their heads by turning those assertions into QUESTIONS. Not only do you challenge the assertion on its face, you also VERY subtly reinforce the idea that what the enemy says SHOULD BE QUESTIONED. From "we are safer" to "ARE we really safer?" And then VERY quick, not-too-wordy sentences, quickly to drive home a good sharp point. "Making the world hate us does NOT make us safer." "Lying to the world does NOT make us safer." "Lying to our troops does NOT make us safer." "Sending our troops to die for a lie does NOT make us safer."

Repetition. Rhymes. Brevity. Alliteration. Visualization words - wording that paints pictures. All VERY good tools.

Remember Johnnie Cochran and Muhammed Ali. You remember THEM because they were glib, because they turned such clever catch phrases. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee." "Rope a dope." Remember the guidance of such modern-day poets as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton - and their MEMORABLE, clever, engaging way of using and manipulating the language. Manipulate? Heck, they dance it around the room as though it were a waltzing partner. But what winds up happening when they do? People remember what they said. And they repeat it, maybe to themselves, maybe to friends. They chuckle at its cleverness, the way the phrase glides off the tongue. It's silky, wickedly clever, amusing, easy to repeat, and MEMORABLE. It winds up in the headlines. It gets picked up by others and repeated as a slogan. It gets quoted by radio and TV commentators. Then it starts to seep down into the national consciousness. Then, you've made your point. Then, you've won.

It starts small, folks. If enough of us start doing it, that's enough. When we start, we become like so many apostles getting their marching orders from Christ - to go out and spread the word. Hey, one of the biggest organized religions in Earth history started as a franchise with just 12 guys. In painting class, we learn that only a little teeny bit of a strong color introduced to a mass of white paint can have a VERY dramatic change on that whole wad of white. It only takes a little bit. It's the trim-tab effect that Buckminster Fuller described - using the metaphor of turning a huge ship. You start with this little bitty trim-tab on the edge of the rudder of that big ship. You'd assume that turning that big ship is a MAJOR undertaking. But all you need to do is to adjust the angle of the trim-tab at the end of the rudder, which does not take much effort at all. You change the trim-tab, you then affect the angle of the rudder, which also changes. And when you've changed the direction of the rudder, you can turn the boat.

It starts small.

But look, Lakoff was on TV, talking. How many people just here on this forum either saw it, or have heard about it? And after that, how many of THOSE people took seriously what they've heard and have resolved to put it to use? With how many more people - who could wind up with the same reactions and resolve?

It starts small. And it gets BIG. And then we win.

[kentuck]

37. Excellent post, calimary !

I would have found the use of language by the Repubs quite admirable if they had done it in an honest and truthful manner, rather than lying and deceiving in order to gain politically. For example, their 'Clear Skies Initiative' is nothing but an excuse for pollution. 'No Child Left Behind' is really no child's behind is left. And so forth...It will take someinventive thoughts, such as yours, to overcome their well-thought out, but deceptive and dangerous, words to define their policies...We have to find a new way to tell the truth. Simple facts and statistics cannot compete with the new propaganda of the Republicans.

[Eurobabe]

39. problem is directly tied to American's lack of critical

reasoning skills.

Many are more content to watch the flickering shadows on the cave wall and take that as reality, than to think for themselves.

I think Logic and Philosophy should be MANDATORY curriculum in all schools, starting young.

But that might upset the elite?

[leesa]

40. Absolutely! A bogus "war" just like the war on communism

It's only purpose is to allow aggression against other countries so that we may control their sovereignty and steal their resources.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

42. Agree completely...

This is one of the reasons I try to never refer to what is going in Iraq as a "war" but label it properly as an invasion.

Words do matter.

[pbg]

43. Rhetoric

George Bush is fighting the War on Terror...
He's also fighting the War on the Environment--
the War on Old Europe--
the War on Science--
the War on the NAACP--
the War on Overtime Pay--
the War on Medicare--
the War on Balanced Budgets--
the War on a Free Press--
the War on America's Honor--
and the War on America's working people and middle class.