Anyone who has listened to the rhetoric about the Iraq War from the administration and the war's supporters in the media should have noticed the occasional change in the language used to argue for the war's justification. I would say the most common language used today is the language of victory and defeat.
I don't often hear anymore the moral arguments for our invasion of Iraq, such as the threat posed by Saddam's regime in aiding terrorism or pursuing weapons of mass murder, or the prudence of our spreading democracy throughout the Middle-East. Though there are those who still hold adamantly to the those justifications, but they're not the majority. The popular language now is that of victory and defeat.
As early as December of 2005, President Bush mentioned the defeatist attitude and established the rhetorical binary of victory and defeat for talking about Iraq. He was for victory; those who opposed our actions in the Middle East were for defeat. Search the websites Townhall.com or Human Events and you'll find a good number of articles from dutiful subjects repeating the victory/defeat binary.
Like most any binary used to categorize everyone into one side or the other, the binary of victory and defeat is false while expressing some truth. Nevertheless, it is a very effective manipulation of language in the political arena. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others have taken full advantage of the binary in their charges against those who, in their words, "own defeat" or have "bought defeat" or have "taken hold of defeat."
I find it very fascinating that these pundits think of victory and defeat in Iraq in terms of ownership. A revealing metaphor, that.
Language shapes the way we perceive and interpret reality. Controlling the language allows one to control the thinking and seeing of those who uncritically adopt that language.
Pages
