Great analysis of Bush's "mastery of emotional language"

[ima_sinnic]

This was in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on July 13th; I looked back and didn't see it mentioned here. Brooks shows how a large part of Bush's political success is "the predictable result of the intentional use of language to dominate others":

P-I Focus: Power of presidency resides in language as well as law
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
July 13, 2003

By RENANA BROOKS
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST

<snip>

. . . Dominators use empty language to conceal faulty generalizations; to ridicule viable alternatives; to attribute negative motivations to others, thus making them appear contemptible; and to rename and "reframe" opposing viewpoints.

Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech contained 39 examples of empty language. He used it to reduce complex problems to images that left the listener relieved that George W. Bush was in charge. Rather than explaining the relationship between malpractice insurance and skyrocketing health care costs, Bush summed up: "No one has ever been healed by a frivolous lawsuit." The multiple fiscal and monetary policy tools that can be used to stimulate an economy were downsized to: "The best and fairest way to make sure Americans have that money is not to tax it away in the first place." The controversial plan to wage another war on Iraq was simplified to: "We will answer every danger and every enemy that threatens the American people." In an earlier study, I found that in the 2000 presidential debates Bush used at least four times as many phrases containing empty language as Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Senior or Gore had used in their debates.

Another of Bush's dominant-language techniques is personalization. By personalization I mean localizing the attention of the listener on the speaker's personality. Bush projects himself as the only person capable of producing results. In his post-9/11 speech to Congress he said, "I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people." He substitutes his determination for that of the nation's. In the 2003 State of the Union speech he vowed, "I will defend the freedom and security of the American people." Contrast Bush's "I will not yield" etc. with John F. Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

The word "you" rarely appears in Bush's speeches. Instead, there are numerous statements referring to himself or his personal characteristics of folksiness, confidence, righteous anger or determination as the answer to the problems of the country. Even when Bush uses "we," as he did many times in the State of the Union speech, he does it in a way that focuses attention on himself. . . .

<snip>

Poll after poll demonstrates that Bush's political agenda is out of step with most Americans' core beliefs. Yet the public, their electoral resistance broken down by empty language and persuaded by personalization, is susceptible to Bush's most frequently used linguistic technique: negative framework. A negative framework is a pessimistic image of the world. Bush creates and maintains negative frameworks in his listeners' minds with a number of linguistic techniques borrowed from advertising and hypnosis to instill the image of a dark and evil world around us. . . .

see more here--great stuff: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/130534_focusecond13.html

[daleenyc]

1. i hate 9/11

i hate 9/11 nowadays not because it was a tragedy, but because the prick in the white house uses it as an excuse for every thing he does.

the pricks's rationale for everything from taxes, deficit, human rights, environment, war, etc., is 9/11. 9/11's lost its real meaning and that's a real tragedy.

[indepat]

3. But never forget that this tregedy gave him his much-needed

trifecta and now the-then sacroscant, albeit mythical, social security trust fund will likely be raided to the tune of several trillion dollars and the Federal debt increased another several trillion dollars, all just so he can reward patrons. But look at the silver lining: surely a few of those trillions of dollars will trickle down to the little people.

[Az]

2. Emotional appeal is also a hallmark

of those without the intellectual capacity to reason the entirety of the matter out. Thus it is not necissarily mastery of emotional language. It may well be that the chimp is too stupid to form a structured appeal to logic.

[daleenyc]

4. don't ever underestimate your opponent

this is how fascism works. it appeals to the populace's sense of nationalism to achieve its agenda. as we have all witnessed, it can be very powerful.

[BurtWorm]

5. Democrats can use this "strength" of Bush's to slit his throat

<begin cite>

All political leaders must define the present threats and problems faced by the country before describing their approach to a solution, but the ratio of negative to optimistic statements in Bush's speeches and policy declarations is much higher, more pervasive and more long-lasting than that of any other president.

Let's compare "crisis" speeches by Bush and Ronald Reagan, the president with whom he most identifies himself. In Reagan's Oct. 27, 1983, televised address to the nation on the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, he used 19 images of crisis and 21 images of optimism, evenly balancing optimistic and negative depictions. He limited his evaluation of the problems to the past and present tense, saying only that "with patience and firmness we can bring peace to that strife-torn region and make our own lives more secure."

Bush's Oct. 7, 2002, major policy speech on Iraq, on the other hand, began with 44 consecutive statements referring to the crisis and citing a multitude of possible catastrophic repercussions. The vast majority of these statements imply that the crisis will last into the indeterminate future. There is also no specific plan of action. The absence of plans is typical of a negative framework, and leaves the listener without hope that the crisis will ever end.

Contrast this with Reagan, who, a third of the way into his explanation of the crisis in Lebanon, asked the following: "Where do we go from here? What can we do now to help Lebanon gain greater stability so that our Marines can come home? Well, I believe we can take three steps now that will make a difference."

To create a dependency dynamic between him and the electorate, Bush describes the nation as being in a perpetual state of crisis and then attempts to convince the electorate that it is powerless and that he is the only one with the strength to deal with it. He attempts to persuade people they must transfer power to him, thus crushing the power of the citizen, the Congress, the Democratic Party, even constitutional liberties, to concentrate all power in the imperial presidency and the Republican Party.

<end cite>


Here's what the Dems need to do. Start using light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel language: "The 'president' says there is no end in sight to the crisis, and asks us to trust him and his men to find their way through. 'Don't ask questions, America. Don't worry your pretty little head. The Bush team is on the case.' But the truth is, there is a way out, and, no thanks to the Bush team, we are already finding it. It begins with the realization that our 'enemies' are smaller in number and less well-equipped than we are in this so-called war. We are going to prevail. We are prevailing even now, not through the absurd, secret, ultra-opaque 'crisis-management' of the Bush team, but through our own strength as a people; through our firm belief in liberty and refusal to dispose of it; through our reassuring connections with each other and the world. We, the people, are leading our way out of the darkness, despite every effort of the 'president' and his men to keep us out of the light."

[ima_sinnic]

9. yes, "there is no specific plan of action"

That seems to sum up the real crisis. Somebody needs to come up with a <i>plan</i> for getting out of the quagmire; something that will be so straighforward, level-headed and sensible that B*sh's non-plan will look pathetic/ridiculous/fraudulent by comparison.

Who could be up to that task? Howard Dean?

:smoke:

[BurtWorm]

10. I don't know who is up to that.

The only person who has the presence and charisma to lead such a charge that I can think of is Bill Clinton.

;(

[Bandit]

6. "borrowed from advertising and hypnosis"

This has to be the answer. Hypnosis, no other explanation can suffice when most of America goes against their own interests to launch us to war and recession. Everything Bush* does is Anti-American but the masses follow blindly. This is the best explanation I have heard to date but now how to snap the people out of it?

[BurtWorm]

7. Kick

:kick:

[BurtWorm]

8. :kick:

:kick: