I was vacationing last week, when President Bush gave his Aug. 22 speech to the VFW national convention, which is mostly known for Bush’s surprising decision to invoke the Vietnam analogy in explaining what’s going on in Iraq. Enough has been written about the holes in Bush’s use of that analogy.
In reading the full text of the Kansas City speech, one sees some of the other rhetorical devices on which Bush has long relied — devices that at this stage of his presidency underscore why so many Americans have come to tune out his arguments. He seems incapable of sincerely acknowledging inconvenient facts. When he pretends to do so, he is dishonest about them. He constructs as his imaginary opponents straw men against whom he cannot lose an argument. He seizes on a simple unarguable theme or frame and uses it ignore the obvious complexity of the situation he is describing.
In this speech, the theme is that freedom is better than tyranny. The words “free” and “freedom” occur 35 times in this text with four additional references to ”liberty.” Apparently, we are asked to believe that his critics are those who oppose the Iraq war because they are wobbly on the freedom-versus-tyranny question.
Right at the top, he frames the Iraq war as a war to spread freedom and then introduces his straw opponents:
“Now, I know some people doubt the universal appeal of liberty.”
Maybe some people do doubt the universal appeal of liberty. Personally, I don’t know many. I’m pretty 
sure that the main reason the majority of the country has lost confidence in the war is not that they doubt the universal appeal of liberty. But that’s the group Pres. Bush chooses for this exercise in debating an absent opponent.
Bush refers later to some who doubted in the 1940s that Japan was a promising venue for democracy. But he doesn’t name any of the current liberty doubters nor quote them so we can understand their argument and fairly judge how well he mops up the floor with them.
I agree with Pres. Bush that freedom is better than tyranny. I also agree with him that there are bad men in the world who wish us harm. These are the key facts and abstractions on which Bush chooses to frame the debate about the wisdom of the war. And within that frame, he vanquishes his unseen, chimerical foes.
A more intellectually honest leader would also want to engage a different group of his critics – to do it with them present and allowed to speak and bring up some things that he might omit. Those would be critics who subscribe to some of these facts and abstractions:
- (Abstraction): Peace is better than war. (I fully understand that some people think war is better than peace. I’m here today to answer their arguments.)
- (Fact): This war was sold to the American people based on false premises of weapons and terrorist connections that didn’t exist at the time.
- (Generalization about human nature): Most folks don’t like to be invaded and occupied by foreign troops.
- The occupation has been bungled by the same administration that is still running it.
- There is no military solution. The political solution isn’t happening.
- Most of the rest of the world, and especially the Arab world, does not accept the U.S. claims of altruistic motives for bringing its soldiers to Iraq.
- The war has reinforced the belief — unhelpful to the U.S. cause around the world — that notwithstanding the U.N. Charter or other international laws and norms, the United States reserves the right to invade and occupy any country for any reason the U.S. deems fit.
I’d be impressed with, and would listen seriously to a president who would honestly address the real facts and arguments and still try to convince the country that the Iraq war is going to be worth it in the end.
What think?
The use of a strawman is more interesting than mere rhetoric. It represents a movement or leader that is at the height of its power.
Consider, for a moment, a leftist candidate using a strawman argument. “Now, I know there are those who are against our children and want to keep them ignorant …” It doesn’t work. There is a presupposition of authority involved in the very nature of the argument.
Naturally, these kinds of things wear thin after a while. There was a time when the line I used above might have worked, but that as 40 years ago. A strong clarity of purpose can defeat this kind of rhetoric. Contrast Reagan with Bush for a moment, and you will see the arc of the movement.
This only works at the height of power, not during the ascendency. Opponents are invented rather than challenge the real opponents. This makes the opposition stronger, and eventually it developes the clarity of argument needed to topple those in power.
These arguments mark the peak because it is all downhill from here. Bush himself is is in danger of becoming the real strawman.
I don’t know if I’d be impressed but I would seriously listen to a president who was wiling to deal with the facts as they are and admit how much he screwed it up. The president’s speech with its analogy to Vietnam was totally confused and inconsistent. He also gets zero points for unwillingness to admit his grave mistakes in the execution and follow up to this tragic war. Because the government has been inconsistent on its real reasons for the war, I’m not sure any president can come up with persuasive, idealistic reasons for “staying the course” whatever that’s supposed to be these days. I think the only hope for Iraq is for the US to pull out starting yesterday and try to obtain perhaps some independent international peacekeeping group/force that would broker a ceasefire between the factions and stabilize the Iraqi government.
His American Legion speech was just as alarming.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060831-1.html
Highlights:
“When terrorists murder at the World Trade Center, or car bombers strike in Baghdad, or hijackers plot to blow up planes over the Atlantic, or terrorist militias shoot rockets at Israeli towns, they are all pursuing the same objective — to turn back the advance of freedom, and impose a dark vision of tyranny and terror across the world.”
“The war we fight today is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. (Applause.) On one side are those who believe in the values of freedom and moderation — the right of all people to speak, and worship, and live in liberty. And on the other side are those driven by the values of tyranny and extremism — the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest. As veterans, you have seen this kind of enemy before. They’re successors to Fascists, to Nazis, to Communists, and other totalitarians of the 20th century.”
“The status quo in the Middle East before September the 11th was dangerous and unacceptable, so we’re pursuing a new strategy.”
…it goes on and on, filled to the brim with strawmen and failed attempts to connect the conflict to 9/11 and great wars of the past. He also cuts back and forth between Iraq and Iran.
Overall, the VFW speech takes the cake. The whole Quiet American misread is stunning and I think it will be the thing in the speech that gets remembered by history when all is said and done. The guy who didn’t go to Vietnam is the guy who gets his country stuck in another war and then says the real problem with Vietnam is that we left too soon.
Gump, you do understand that when he talks of the anti-freedom side, he’s talking about actual terrorists and people who are trying to impose Sharia law worldwide, don’t you?
(Abstraction): Peace is better than war. (I fully understand that some people think war is better than peace. I’m here today to answer their arguments.)
>The framers of the Declaration of Independence and Washington had to deal with this preconception. So did Lincoln. And Roosevelt. And Truman. And Kennedy. The truth is that as a general principle, peace is better than war. In the real world, however, where war (official or guerrilla) is the instrument of those who challenge the basic rights of others war is sometimes better than peace. The question in my mind: Is THIS war better than peace. Bush is attempting to make his case.
(Fact): This war was sold to the American people based on false premises of weapons and terrorist connections that didn’t exist at the time.
>I must decline to agree, based on the incompleteness of the assertion. I could agree only if the statement read: “This war was sold to the American people based on beliefs then widely held with good reason some of which were subsequently determined to be suspect at best.”
>My appointment is here, so I have to leave. More later.
Peder:
I forgot. They hate us because of our freedom. It’s a good thing our military has anti-idea weaponry.
You are quite right to be afraid. First they’ll come for our airport taxi cabs. Then they’ll stop checking out bacon at local Targets. The next thing you know, my wife will be wearing a burka if and when I decide to let her out of the house.
These people clearly have something wrong with their brains if they don’t curl up and purr at the sweet caress of the universally appealing Lady Liberty. (Never mind the M-16 and Bible that she’s holding.)
In all seriousness, the bad man does indeed want to hit us, but lets not pretend that he has the intent or the means to do so because of a deep ideological desire to replace the 10 Commandments, Declaration of Independence, Hop on Pop (or whatever apple pie pixie dust that gets your socks of) with 72 virgins, Mohamed, and a bowl full of falafel.
Of course, we could provoke such a conflict. Maybe that wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Let’s start talking about this war in terms of ideology and nuclear holocausts. Let’s completely frame the damn thing with ‘evil doers’ and names of monsters long gone. Let’s do it!!! Let’s just cut to the chase and get it over with!!! Why deal with all of the fear and tricky questions that make our heads hurt? We already have Afghanistan and Iraq on the move, let’s open up Iran and Syria and get the sucker really going!!! These people want to kill us and convert our God. Let’s do them in!!! Let’s roll!!!
In super-duper-I-really-mean-it-seriousness, I would appreciate a discussion about the type of freedom and democracy we are aiming for with our grand misadventure. Liberal vs. illiberal; open vs. closed; republic vs. full democracy; and so on and so forth. I’m a big believer in natural selection and I believe that there is a cultural cognate to the biological phenomenon. If you follow the analogy, we’re conducting a chemistry experiment and we may be working with the wrong materials. Is our intent clear? Is it clear in light of our actions? Can a state with a ginormous military be a benevolent hegemon while being constantly at war? Will Bill Kristol be permanently banned from all media outlets? Let’s even accept that we’ve whipped up a hornet’s nest in Iraq. What is our realistic assessment of a) how our actions affect world wide terrorist actions that have a legitimate chance to cross our shores, b) what connection, if any, do the current batch of evil doers have to the people who attacked us on 9/11, c) if none, how long will our current operation take and how long will it distract us from the ultimate pursuit of the guys who got us almost 6 years ago, and d) what is the cost benefit calculation for such an equation (i.e. when does (did) the current endeavor become harmful to the ultimate purpose of getting a hold of the 9/11 folks? Is it even feasible to maintain such a monomania on the guys who pulled of 9/11?
These are some of the things I think we should be talking about.
PS: Just in case someone is keeping cosmic score, I have nothing but the highest respect for Thomas Jefferson, Dr. Seuss, the makers of apple pie and tasty falafel.
Comment (cont)
(Generalization about human nature): Most folks don’t like to be invaded and occupied by foreign troops.
>True enough, if that is their perception. The French didn’t seem to think so as WW-II was pursued to conclusion. The Germans didn’t have much choice, but have since resisted our attempts to leave at times. We pretty much gave up on “occupation” after Panama, but if one chooses to take the view of the enemy in Iraq we may be back at it again. I don’t think we are, though we are being accused. Question: if we left, does it seem likely they (the Iraqis) would like us more or less?
The occupation has been bungled by the same administration that is still running it.
>True enough. Are we still bungling it? Different question, very politicized just now.
There is no military solution. The political solution isn’t happening.
>Nobody EVER said there was a “military solution” except for the displacement of Saddam, which was accomplished long ago. An argument might be made that it would have been better to leave at that point and let them kill each other off until either Iran or Saudi Arabia took over what was left and the Kurds were exterminated. Not a strong argument, though, in my humble opinion. The present position, though it seems to me the lesser of two bad options, is to TRY to make it work a while longer. May change when Petraeus evaluates.
Most of the rest of the world, and especially the Arab world, does not accept the U.S. claims of altruistic motives for bringing its soldiers to Iraq.
>Most of the rest of the world did not accept Galileo, either, but that did not mean he was wrong. Then again, he did not have huge oil reserves to keep in open markets, so…
The war has reinforced the belief — unhelpful to the U.S. cause around the world — that notwithstanding the U.N. Charter or other international laws and norms, the United States reserves the right to invade and occupy any country for any reason the U.S. deems fit.
>I believe we do reserve that right. Furthermore, I venture every country on earth does, too. The question is motive:
–Territorial aggression (Lebensraum)? Not applicable here.
–Religious fervor? Not very likely.
–Naked exercise of power to intimidate the rest of the region or world? Could be. Russia has acted out of such motives several times since the UN Charter was drafted, and it’s happening in Timor.
–Fear of imminent threat against its own people? I suspect most would move on that basis, even if allies feared financial harm because of ties with the old regime under attack (e.g. France on Iraq). If that IS our motive, and it is valid, then world opinion is pointless. Not one country has ever come to our aid since Lafayette, and likely would not today. Instead they would likely cluck like the old maids criticizing at a wedding in a recent ad, and celebrate the collapse of threatening world commercial competition, leaving us to die in the resulting wasteland. We need, however, to introspectively reexamine our motives. Probably, however, just before elections is not the time for that. Just AFTER elections has a better chance of objectivity.
As to the overall topic, I have a distinct dislike over the concept that I might have to live under shariah. and I’m pretty clear that no-one denies that a very effective effort is being made in parts of the Islamic world to make that happen. While not necessarily buying in to all the arguments Bush presents, I lean toward “better safer than sorrier.”
On one point I do agree: this will be the definitive struggle of this century, if past history of these Islamic uprisings teaches accurately.
“I lean toward ‘better safer than sorrier.’”
If there’s anything our foreign policy needs at the moment, it’s definitely a militaristic version of Pascal’s Wager. Let’s fight faith with faith. Git r done!!!
I don’t think you can ignore the ideological portion of this fight. There are motivated and violent people out there that are using terrorism to try and push an Islamic government that would involve massive loss of freedom as it’s seen here in the West. I’m not terribly afraid that it’s coming to Minnesota anytime soon (the ideology I mean, I hope the terrorism stays away forever) but this element is very real in Iraq and other parts of the world. I don’t have to agree with everything that Bush says to understand that this is a real phenomenon.
FWIW, I think that our secular freedoms will have a much bigger impact in Muslim countries than any appeal from other religions. Our movies, music and TV will win many converts to a more Western way of life. I’m not looking for a religious war but I think it’s stupid to ignore that element of it.
> I don’t think you can ignore the ideological portion of this fight. There are motivated and violent people out there that are using terrorism to try and push an Islamic government that would involve massive loss of freedom
Well, I think we can minimize it, at least. Do we expect that these terrorist intend to install an islamic government here? I seriously doubt anyone is willing to say that. So what we are doing is to either protect someone else’s resources (that we want) or out of the kindness of our hearts.
Does our engagement in this event overseas (as it’s not here) have potential to make people more angry than pleased with us? Certainly, there are ways of engaging the known enemy that have lower risk of this. Are we actually doing this?
Your point about western culture cuts both ways. Some people see the permissiveness as a threat. Remember that a large number of the hijackers were western educated, so they apparently did not like what they saw.
My point we need to be honest about why we are doing this, and focus on what we can do to help. It’s more like surgery than jackhammering, and so far we’ve tended toward the latter. If we have genuine interests, dancing around them because we are too cowardly to be open about it will only cause mission creep away from the specific goal. We can’t have that. The potential for pissing people off unnecessarily becomes too great, and the next generation will have reason to hunt for payback. Not good.
I think we should all cut to the chase with the talk about ideology. I didn’t spend all those years in Catholic school for ideology (crickets). What ideology means in this context is religion, plain and simple. I don’t think there is any question about that.
Now that we’re up front and open with what we’re talking about, what is the best way to confront not just what is commonly called radical Islam, but the slightly less flavorful faith of the Muslim ‘main street’ (if, at all, a meaningful difference can be agreed upon)? I think there are two basic ways in which we can address what I do agree is at the heart of the issue (aside from a mistake war conducted on false premises, ridiculous logic, huckleberry-esque planning, and massively incompetent maintenance.)
1- Sludgehammer. A continuous war for reasons from WMD to freedom to puff the magic dragon to what ever the hell you can get people to still sign up for, all cooked up in the name of bringing loosely formulated quasi-secular concepts (quasi as in delivered by noted 10 Commandment and Jesus the Religious Philosopher enthusiast Mr. Bush and his separation of church and state hatin’, creationism lovin’, Terri Schiavo usin’ political party) like freedom and democracy. We’ll throw around words like ‘ideology’ and ‘Islam is a religion of peace’, but what we’re really engaging in is a war against a specific religious faith that some practitioners have chosen to utilize a more literal take on and which probably holds more appeal to ‘moderate’ Muslims than does anything Uncle Sam has to offer.
2- Work to ‘moderate’ Islam. To borrow an argument from Sam Harris, moderate in this context means working towards a society in which large portions of Muslims forsake large parts of their religious text and beliefs. They don’t need to get rid of them all together, they just need to be like the majority of western Christians that pick and choose politically advantageous biblical directives from books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy and then claim that they are ceremonial law subject to modern disregard. After all, who among us doesn’t enjoy not being put to death for cursing our mother and father during our lifetimes (among many other noteworthy exceptions)?
I agree that a large part of the general problem in the Middle East has to do with religion, specifically faith in something so hopelessly militant and self contradictory, which also happens to be viewed by millions as the literal and inerrant Word of God. This is indeed a problem. However, if we are going to fight a religious, sorry, ideological battle, I don’t think Iraq is the best way to go about this. I want people to stop believing that the Koran is the unedited and inerrant Word of God. I want Muslims to stop believing that a conversion from Islam should be punished by death. I want the idea of internal and external jihad ending in either the death or conversion of non-Muslims to be relegated to the religious dustbin. These are insane ideas that are not only incompatible with western culture, but with the entire interconnected world at-large in a nuclear age.
All of this being said, you have to think clearly about the probabilities involved with desirable and theoretical outcomes. Possibility for worldwide caliphate and Sharia law in Minnesota: less likely but just as insane as thinking you have to kill people who leave the faith.
Just to play the devil’s advocate, does the fact that the United States is so hooked on religious faith itself make it hard for us to deal with a faith (sorry, ideology) that is a couple of hundred years back on the outward violence meter? Why aren’t our fundamentalists more like Islamic ones? What does this say about our faith vis a vis reason and the absence of religion? Doesn’t ‘religious moderate’ mean someone who just doesn’t pay attention to all of the BS? If we pick and choose our religious preferences for social/political purposes, isn’t the death of God all but assured? Have we ourselves lost the moral high ground of secular democracy when it comes to promoting world wide democracy? Exactly why is it a religion of peace? That’s all I have off the top of my head.
“and then claim that they are ceremonial law subject to modern disregard.”
should read: and then claim that offer neither poltiical outrage or indignation are ceremonial law subject to modern disregard.”
It’s hard to write lengthy comments on this thing.
that they offer…good lord, brain farting and fat keyboarding away
[…] the radio this morning, I thought I’d better use it to illustrate that straw man pattern that I wrote about last week. Let’s just unpack that paragraph a little […]