RSS
Home
Bushisms and the dark art of political language
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
It was popular to make fun of George W. Bush. Around the country and the world, people derived many chuckles and enjoyed plenty of dark snickering at the expense of public utterances by Bush. Never had a President of the United States been so openly mocked by his own subjects.
Maybe it was because of when he claimed his opponents "misunderestimated" him. Or it could be because he said OB/GYN's could not practice their love with women. It could have been his notion that families "is where wings take dream." Possibly, it was his admission that "I'm...not very analytical. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things." Or, the reason could have been his declaration that "I"m the master of low expectations." Entire books have been compiled purely of what came to be known as "Bushisms."
Most of the so-called "Bushisms" were symptoms of the garden variety politician mush mouth syndrome. With few exceptions, politicians are people who love to talk. People who love to talk tend to talk a lot. People who love to talk and tend to talk a lot do not possess adequate filters between mind and mouth. Thus, they say more stupid things. Even silver-tongued Barack Obama recently stated his desire to make health care more "inefficient." Not to mention his unfortunate "calibration" of words that led to the Beer Summit. Dan Quayle seemed to not be paying attention to what he was saying most of the time. The professorial Bill Clinton pondered the meaning of "is." Most districts in the nation have their own local victim of the syndrome.
A great number of people are absolutely terrified of public speaking and will go to great lengths to avoid doing so. In my years as a public high school teacher, more than a few students accepted a 0% on an assignment rather than having to give a speech to the class. I wonder how many people who suffer from this malady created web sites cataloguing Bushisms.
It wasn't just fumbling words that got Bush in trouble. The religious overtones in his speeches offended many who saw it as an attempt to suppress debate and an effort to remind the public that the United States is indeed a Christian nation. Bush affronted a large portion of the Muslim community in the United States with his use of the term "Islamic Fascism." They argued that the two terms were incompatible.
The dark paths of war did not shake Bush's habit of awkward speech: "No question that the enemy has tried to spread sectarian violence. They use violence as a tool to do that." It is these redundant wastes of breath that leave the listener mystified.
Consider these two discordant comments:
"The vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and bring them to justice."
"Iraq has got people there that are willing to kill, and they're hard-nosed killers. And we will work with the Iraqis to secure their future."
Bush seemed to assume that the point he was making was obvious, so there was no need to actually vocalize it in its' entirety. We know what the president was trying to say, but it was hard to get past the mangled syntax. A favorite Bushism of this writer: "I have said that the sanction regime is like Swiss cheese. That meant they weren't very effective." Yes, unfortunately there are times when Swiss cheese is not very effective.
There were also statements that were simply regrettable. Bush validated his cowboy reputation by commenting "Bring them on" in response to insurgent and terrorist threats, not exactly a statesmanlike retort.
After the Feds faced sever criticism for their shoddy response to Hurricane Katrina, Bush attempted to encourage the embattled FEMA director, telling him "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." Ten days later, Mike Brown resigned.
There are two distint versions of George W. Bush as public speaker, although the continous malaprops did not fade away. The dividing line is the tragic event that gave him his purpose: 9/11. Before that day, Bush was still groping for the Big Idea that would define his presidency. After the terrorist attacks, Bush's preternatural self-confidence dovetailed perfectly with his belief that a true leader is required to make firm decisions with no equivocation. The War on Terror was his time to put that belief into practice.
Bush was adept at the emotional aspects of language. Specifically, he excelled at negative portrayals of potential outcomes. The well-worn tactic of dominance through the use of fear proved effective once again as Bush consistently referred to "a new kind of war" that contained imminent danger, no boundaries, and no time limits.
Politicians of all stripes have done their part in instilling a learned helplessness in the electorate. Democrats are characterized by a mothering attitude, enabling behaviors by promoting government programs as a cure for all societal ills. Republicans, conversely, are inclined to take the cold, strict fatherly approach, preaching self-reliance as the key to success in life. Both avenues of communication can evoke a strong effect of showy, demeaning sermonizing.
Those who gleefully derided Bush as the dumbest president in the history of the nation suffered from an extreme case of confirmation bias. No matter what Bush said, his detractors twisted it to conform to their preconceived notion that Bush was an idiot. His enemies did not seem to care that Bush was in on the joke, and that he relished the divisiveness. On a trip to the Hel, Poland, he quipped, "Bush goes to Hel. That's what a lot of people want." In his view, the polarizing nature of his presidency signaled that he was a strong leader who was willing to take a stand.
Bush's supposed lack of curiosity was actually an offshoot of an effort to maintain a real or imagined connection to the fabled "Middle America." While his folksy mannerisms elicited disdain amongst those who prefer their presidents to be more polished, Bush attempted to speak a lowest common denominator language. Walter Shapiro observed the bond that Bush strived to create with the segment of the population that found "nuanced complexity synonymous with dithering inaction." This affectation helped Bush defeat both Al Gore and John Kerry, two tiresome pontificators.
Hunter S. Thompson described politics as "the art of controlling your environment." This is done by a deliberate endeavor to create a desired reality, or at least the perception of one. Language is the single most effective tool toward accomplishing this goal. Once in a while, it has the ability to electrify and inspre the masses. Far more commonly, it is a dark art of self-preservation achieved through deception.
Related Articles:
Comments
