I’ve done plenty of work in political communications, so I can appreciate the importance of carefully-chosen words as part of an effective pitch, but I’d feel a little more comfortable about the Bush administration if they didn’t quibble over rhetorical choices quite this much.
Last fall White House aides were grappling with a seemingly simple question that had eluded them for years: what should the president, in his many speeches on the war on terror, call the enemy? They were searching for a single clean phrase that could both define the foe and reassure Americans who were confused by a conflict that had grown much bigger than Osama bin Laden. But the answer was anything but simple. Some academics preferred the term “Islamism,” but the aides thought that sounded too much as if America were fighting the entire religion. Another option: jihadism. But to many Muslims, it’s a positive word that doesn’t necessarily evoke bloodshed. Some preferred the conservative buzzword “Islamofascism,” which was catchy and tied neatly into Bush’s historical view of the struggle.
But when national-security adviser Steve Hadley called the CIA, the Pentagon and the State Department, the experts nixed the idea of a single phrase for a war that was so complex. “There was a conscious desire not to use just one definitive word, because there wasn’t a perfect word,” recalls Michael Gerson, Bush’s chief speechwriter at the time (and now a NEWSWEEK contributor). The result was a rhetorical mishmash. “Some call this evil Islamic radicalism,” Bush explained, “others, militant jihadism; still others, Islamofascism. Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam.”
Well, I’m glad they cleared that up.
Nevertheless, why is the White House so fascinated with word choice here? One gets the distinct impression that more time is spent considering talking point language than actually crafting an effective counter-terrorism strategy or plan for the future of Iraq. As Kevin Drum put it, “Winning the war has always been secondary to winning elections.” And, apparently, one wins elections by picking the right slogans.
It seems to be something of a pattern.
* We recently saw a protracted debate over word choice between the “Global War on Terrorism,” “Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism,” and “World War III.”
* About a year ago, when the fight over the most conservative of Bush’s judicial nominees was reaching the boiling point, Republicans decided they didn’t like the phrase they had already come up with: the “nuclear option.” It started a protracted, mind-numbing discussion, and media hand wringing, over whether the tactic was the “nuclear option,” the “constitutional option,” “filibuster reform,” or one of the other less-offensive names the GOP could come up with.
* Earlier this year, the administration soundly rejected any talk of “domestic surveillance” or “warrantless searches,” and badgered reporters into referring to the president’s “terrorist surveillance program.”
* School vouchers are “opportunity scholarships” or part of a “school choice” effort. Social Security privatization is “reform.” The estate tax is the “death tax.”
It’s never about policy; it’s about sales pitches. If a policy isn’t working or is unpopular, the Bush gang could consider a change in direction, but they clearly prefer finding words that poll better.
I guess I should give Republicans credit — they can’t govern, but when it comes to carefully-worded slogans, Dems just aren’t in the same league.