Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Failing to Learn from History; the Neocon's are Back

smooth · 05-04-2006, 02:05 AM

ubertuber, I'm curious if we could work through the following problem inductively: what is the explanation for the direct correlation between the rise in the population's belief of an Iraq-Sept. 11th link and the claims about justifications for the Iraq war?

A direct correlation, in this context, means that as claims for the war increased, so did belief in a link between the two concepts.

Linkage, in this context, is not necessarily physical collaboration between two entities. Links can also refer to mental association between two things. The language used by the administration when referring to Iraq or 9-11 seems intended to elicit mental linkages between the two concepts.

Let's deconstruct some portions of the discursive tactics the administration utilized:
I notice that Iraq is a Nation-State, while Sept 11th is a time.
Do you agree with me that when Iraq and Sept 11th are spoken of, the former is referred to as an agent while the latter is referred to as a time or event?

Referring to an attack as a time, rather than who is responsible for it, cues the listener to listen for, or think about, the action and fill in the actors responsible for it. In this case, according to polls over time, the actors became Iraqis andSaddam Hussein in the minds of a large majority of the population (whas it somewhere between 60 and 70%?).

I don't have direct quotes of explicit links between Iraq and the attack on Sept 11th. I would have been surprised if they had made some given that the hypothesis I'm working with is that the administration was unaware of or knew of no physical link between the two concepts but wanted to create a mental one regardless. If that is true, I would doubt they would use direct links that could, in the future, be disproven (thereby making them susceptable to charges that they actually/explicitly lied to the public).

I remember, however, that during the run-up to the war that I was constantly discussing with a handful of people during which I was correcting them about the lack of a physical link between Iraq and Sept 11th.

I'm not claiming that only leftists recognized their was no physical link between the two. If I'm remembering the polls correctly, 30-40% did not believe Iraq was responsible for the attack on 9-11. It stands to reason that you, as I, did not make that logical coupling. But the empirical evidence is that we are in the minority of the population.

As much as I dislike the use of an implicit concept to steer public opinion to support a war, I recognize another link that is far more problematic. Intentionally or not, the administration is creating a frame of reference to understand these contemporary events. This is one link you recognized and reiterated: a sense of fear.

The threats these events create to our nation's security create a ready-made perspective on other events. This frame gives us a set of linguistic tools to apply to new problems and constrains our thoughts in accordance with the language in play.

We could examine how this new frame (terrorism; national security) is being applied to drug offenders and illegal immigrants, for example. My main concern is that as this military action way of looking at and responding to our foreign threats is applied to domestic threats, we will see an increase in para-military reactions domestically. That is, I don't think it's an unreasonable concern that we might see an increase in centralization of police power and subsequent use of that force domestically.

05-04-2006, 02:05 AM	#72 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	ubertuber, I'm curious if we could work through the following problem inductively: what is the explanation for the direct correlation between the rise in the population's belief of an Iraq-Sept. 11th link and the claims about justifications for the Iraq war? A direct correlation, in this context, means that as claims for the war increased, so did belief in a link between the two concepts. Linkage, in this context, is not necessarily physical collaboration between two entities. Links can also refer to mental association between two things. The language used by the administration when referring to Iraq or 9-11 seems intended to elicit mental linkages between the two concepts. Let's deconstruct some portions of the discursive tactics the administration utilized: I notice that Iraq is a Nation-State, while Sept 11th is a time. Do you agree with me that when Iraq and Sept 11th are spoken of, the former is referred to as an agent while the latter is referred to as a time or event? Referring to an attack as a time, rather than who is responsible for it, cues the listener to listen for, or think about, the action and fill in the actors responsible for it. In this case, according to polls over time, the actors became Iraqis andSaddam Hussein in the minds of a large majority of the population (whas it somewhere between 60 and 70%?). I don't have direct quotes of explicit links between Iraq and the attack on Sept 11th. I would have been surprised if they had made some given that the hypothesis I'm working with is that the administration was unaware of or knew of no physical link between the two concepts but wanted to create a mental one regardless. If that is true, I would doubt they would use direct links that could, in the future, be disproven (thereby making them susceptable to charges that they actually/explicitly lied to the public). I remember, however, that during the run-up to the war that I was constantly discussing with a handful of people during which I was correcting them about the lack of a physical link between Iraq and Sept 11th. I'm not claiming that only leftists recognized their was no physical link between the two. If I'm remembering the polls correctly, 30-40% did not believe Iraq was responsible for the attack on 9-11. It stands to reason that you, as I, did not make that logical coupling. But the empirical evidence is that we are in the minority of the population. As much as I dislike the use of an implicit concept to steer public opinion to support a war, I recognize another link that is far more problematic. Intentionally or not, the administration is creating a frame of reference to understand these contemporary events. This is one link you recognized and reiterated: a sense of fear. The threats these events create to our nation's security create a ready-made perspective on other events. This frame gives us a set of linguistic tools to apply to new problems and constrains our thoughts in accordance with the language in play. We could examine how this new frame (terrorism; national security) is being applied to drug offenders and illegal immigrants, for example. My main concern is that as this military action way of looking at and responding to our foreign threats is applied to domestic threats, we will see an increase in para-military reactions domestically. That is, I don't think it's an unreasonable concern that we might see an increase in centralization of police power and subsequent use of that force domestically. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 05-04-2006 at 02:14 AM..