Rhetoric of Bush speeches: purr words and snarl words.

PRESIDENT George W. Bush has, to put it in terms used by S.I. Hayakawa, learned to purr when some of his policies might make opponents snarl.

Hayakawa wrote about the use of purr words, terms that make people feel good about the subject being addressed and even at times the speaker, and snarl words, terms that make people react negatively.

These terms, on both ends of the spectrum, are usually on a fairly high order of abstraction. They might even represent higher order ideals, which are difficult to define and vary from user to user. Specifics and operational definitions are usually lacking. You have to work to bring these terms down to lower levels of abstractions by asking, "What do you mean?"

In both the State of the Union address and his inaugural speech, President Bush loaded up on purr words, but used snarl terms when talking about terrorists and others he opposes.

Purrrring

    As a new Congress gathers, all of us in the elected branches of
    government share a great privilege: We have been placed in office by
    the votes of the people we serve. And tonight that is a privilege we
    share with newly elected leaders of Afghanistan, the Palestinian
    territories, Ukraine, and a free and sovereign Iraq.

    Two weeks ago, I stood on the steps of this Capitol and renewed the
    commitment of our nation to the guiding ideal of liberty for all.
    This evening I will set forth policies to advance that ideal at home
    and around the world.

Certainly, Bush looks modest and humble when he talks about a great privilege. That privilege of serving is extended to a free and sovereign Iraq.

Bush reminds us that he renewed the commitment of our nation. To what you might ask? Well to the guiding light of liberty for all. And, in his speech, he set forth plans for policies that advance that ideal at home and around the world.

All the boldfaced terms have positive connotations. They are intended to make us feel good about our humble leaders, our nation, and ourselves. Who can argue with a country being free and sovereign?

A country that makes a commitment demonstrates courage and compassion for others. And, who wouldn't follow a guiding light of liberty?

You could fill this entire issue of ETC with such terms from just these two of Bush's speeches. But, when you start to search for the terms' referents, to bring the language down to a lower level of abstraction, you have to start asking some questions.

When Bush says he was placed in office by the votes of the people he serves, is he acknowledging the sovereignty of all voters, or just those who elected him? Is it more of a privilege for Republicans to serve their constituency than for Democrats to serve theirs, in Bush's set of priorities? Most experts say the election in Iraq is only a first step. The 275 people elected are in office primarily to write a Constitution and then hold another election. Insurgents still blow up people and things daily. Freedom from fear, economic struggles, and clashes of ethnic sub-cultures seems a long way off.

As for the commitment of our nation, some would argue we are over-committed, as we slip deeper into debt at least in part because of the cost of the war, while more American soldiers die each week.

When you analyze the guiding light of liberty for all, you have to ask questions like: Who's holding the light? What form will liberty take in various countries? Will we impose our form of government on countries in the name of liberty? Later in his speech, Bush addressed the latter question when he said the goal was not to force countries to adopt our government style. Will his actions reflect this intention or the one implicit in his earlier statement?

The last bold-type statement above, the one about policies that "advance that ideal [of liberty for all] at home and around the world," might require the most questioning. Just how does Bush plan to advance that ideal, which remains rather vaguely defined, at home and around the world? Will he use military force in Iran and Korea? Will we support totalitarian regimes in some nations, such as in Saudi Arabia, and condemn them in others? Will we open schools in Iraq and elsewhere while closing them in this country? At home, will we "fix" Social Security and deplete the fund more quickly than it is dwindling now?

When you ask these questions, you often leave yourself open for accusations of political bias. But, that should not deter you. Asking the critical questions, especially those that start with who, what, when, where and why, is the start of taking control of the symbols of political rule rather than allowing politicians, be they Republicans or Democrats, to use them to manipulate you.

Snaaarling Too

Bush also used his share of snarl words. For example:

    In the long term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by
    eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of
    murder. If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in
    hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that
    terror will stalk America and other free nations for decades.

    The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and
    terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom.

Radicalism and ideologies of murder are not good things. Thinking about them can scare you. Of course, both Republicans and Democrats tried to convince you last fall that they could best protect you. George W. was apparently more convincing.

Despair, hatred, tyranny and terror also are scary things. And, who wants to be stalked? But, hope and human freedom, a couple of purr words, can eliminate all those nasty things. We're just not sure yet of exactly how.

It's hard to disagree with ideas formulated by these rather vague terms. They are examples of affective language, designed to appeal to emotions, which often can be very effective in swaying public opinion and manipulating thinking and feeling.

Visual language can also be very effective in manipulation. Perhaps the most moving part of the State of the Union speech came with the embrace between the Iraqi woman and the American mother who had lost her son in the war. It looked genuine and spontaneous.

But, if I might exercise my cynical side, was it coincidence that the two women sat a row apart? I think not. And, does it make you uncomfortable when people who have gone through pain and suffering are used as symbols by any politician? It's become a regular technique in these big speeches.

Neither Bush's State of the Union nor his inaugural speech was strong on details. You didn't really learn how he plans to "fix" Social Security, reduce the deficit, provide affordable health care, or exit from Iraq without leaving a civil war behind.

Some of those details will be included in the actual proposals Bush sends to Congress, in the priorities of his budget and his actions as Commander in Chief. They won't be as evident as the rhetoric in his speeches. You'll have to dig into media reports, and perhaps even beyond them to access actual administrative and legislative proposals on line or available through the Library of Congress.

How many of you will actually take the time to do that? Not many. Politicians, not just George W. Bush, but others too, know that. They leave the details to the insiders, and use snarl and purr words to spin their ideas and sway public opinion.

GREGG HOFFMANN*

* Gregg Hoffmann is a veteran journalist and retired senior lecturer in journalism and media literacy at UW-Milwaukee. He covers politics and business for Wispolitics.com and WisBusiness.com. His book, Mapping the Media, deals with snarl and purr words.