The article portrays many different emotional statements about the 9/11 attacks. Some of the writers that are mentioned and quoted have strong feelings towards the attacks. I find these feelings and comments extremely bias. For example, the statement that was made by Susan Sontag shows extreme ignorance rather than a threat. I feel that her statement to many was not very factual and unfair to say for America as a whole. The comments that were made after the statement hold a strong fear of anger for her from many different prospects. George Bush’s statements and quotes that were portrayed in the article were great examples of fear appeals and even threats. George Bush, in my opinion took his rhetoric after the September 11th attacks to a completely new level; as he should have. One of the statements that I find to show a great example of a threat is; “with us, or… with the terrorists.” The article proceeds to talk about how George Bush took a certain stance on after these attacks separating people in groups of good and evil. At the time of the events, most all Americans as well as George Bush had extreme anger, I feel that he had the right to make the fear appeals and threats that he did to the American Public. He was letting the American public that the enemies were out to destroy more than buildings. I feel that he came across very well with what he had addressed to the public and how he used rhetoric to make his points not only strong and relevant, but to make a large impact on the action we were to take from here on out. The article does a good job expressing how Bush defined such a crisis with a fearful mindset.
The theory of Paranoid Rhetoric is a good way to look at how people with power are their ability to convince an audience in times of crisis. This theory I feel is tricky and very similar to other fear rhetorical theories studied in class. This explanation of Bush's rise to power can also be explained using TMT. Provided with the evidence from the article and living during the 9-11 era I agree that Bush did create a binary world view thus alienating ourselves from many people in the world. I cannot agree that this tactic is good or even ethical. Too many times in history we have seen these binary world views end in slaughter and destruction of humans (Crusades, Inquisition, World War II, Cold War, etc.). But this view of a binary view of good versus evil did not develop until the McCartism when trying to identify who was communist and who was not. I feel as though people such as Sontag who try to question our logic on entering in a war is justifiable is important for a healthy democracy. This is a great way theory to look at how people in power can convince their audience to do their bidding. Similar to Germany in the 1940s Hitler was able to turn the fear of his people into paranoia and hatred towards the Jews. See what can be observed is that after the 9-11, George Bush created a free pass to attack anyone by labeling the enemy in a vague way. By saying people who threaten our liberty, he is able to make anyone a target.
Crane does a fantastic job describing the differences between Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks. He does a good job utilizing qualitative and quantitative research in order to prove the fear that the 9/11 attacks had created. These attacks were unique. They were made on American soil, orchestrated by what President Bush had dubbed at the time a “Faceless Coward”. Just two months after the attacks about 75% of Americans feared another attack. These feelings of fear by the public resulted in political action that, in hindsight, was only justified by the uses of paranoid rhetoric. Bush had created an enemy to the public. It was the construction of a threat, and a fear, which allowed him to invade Iraq. Terms like “Terrorist”, “Evil” and “Enemy” were all words used by Bush to paint this picture. Through other uses of rhetoric, Bush created a link between “Terrorists” and Muslims. Whether he realized it or not, he had constructed Muslims as the enemy. These words devastated the quality of life for Arab Americans. Crane takes his analysis to the next level when he describes that feelings of paranoia often lead to perceptions and actions that have the potential to destroy life. America could have taken 9/11 as a horrifically unfortunate event, and continued on without action. Instead, they acted against the enemy, or the other that they had constructed through uses of paranoid rhetoric. Ultimately, this type of rhetoric constructed an enemy. War against Iraq was justified. In Iraq civilians were being killed without reason. Sound familiar?
This article, “On a Theory of Paranoid Rhetoric” lays out several good points on Bush’s rhetoric following 9/11. President Bush did use rhetorical devises to rally Americans behind his agenda. Whether or not his policy was correct and in this nation’s best interest is another matter entirely. What president throughout our history has not relied on these rhetorical ploys to unite their people in a time of crisis? Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were all know for their liberal use of persuasive rhetoric to sway the masses. Another accusation made in this article is that President Bush inadvertently made the connection between Muslims and terrorists by denying a connection between devout Muslims and terrorists. Other than ignoring the religious side of the terrorist attack completely, there isn’t much else he could do. While this article does offer some insight into the rhetoric behind Bush’s speeches; overall it presents little more than the obvious. In a time of crisis the leader of a nation will invoke support and unity through the use of strong rhetorical devises.
The article "On a Theory of Paranoid Rhetoric" is interesting in many ways and proves an essential topic given the setting and time at which the material takes place. It demonstrates how in times of direct panic and turmoil, that people can move very quickly from "what" to "what now." It explains how Bush pointed in the direction of action rather than investigation of the events that occurred. However the article mentions that without any similar historical precedents to lead our decision making that the nation began to rely on something else. I feel that the scale of the attack is an underlying factor in the way Bush decided to go about 9/11. In the sense that 9/11 was an exigence, anyone in the nation could agree with the "bring it on" mentality that the president expressed. Aside from Pearl Harbor there hasn't been an attack on US soil to this magnitude, so for anyone to assume that Bush had a particular and specific way of reacting to 9/11 would be unfair and unjustified. This article makes good points but on the other hand it fails to recognize the outside perspective on why this sort of paranoid rhetoric could be seen as necessary.
Crane's article is by far my favorite we have read. I was 12 years old when the 9/11 attacks happened and I was in a very impressionable stage. Bush's rhetoric served to keep the public, not excluding me, fearful and paranoid. Bush characterized the terrorists as "evil", he described "apocalyptic" consequences and portrayed all American action as inevitable. While some of his rhetoric was necessary and his characterizations of the enemy accurate to some degree, the nature of crisis-time rhetoric is that it will most certainly be exaggerated and it will look for a scape goat. Bush's biggest fault in my opinion would be using the heightened fear of "the enemies of freedom" to limit American freedom in itself. With the country on a patriotic high no one opposed the implementation of the "Patriot Act" which served in turn to successfully impose on our freedom more than any terrorist ever managed to. I don't agree with Crane's criticism of Bush's mention of Islamic ties to the attack. It would have been irresponsible to completely ignore any part of the terrorists' motives. While our country did ignore the fact that we had been occupying the middle east and bombing certain targets, the mention of this by Bush would have sent mixed messages and most likely would have created a lot of distrust in the government that would have prohibited the advancement of any retaliation of justice. Bush had little choice in the use of his rhetoric after the attack. America has been bred feed off of the paranoid rhetoric. The biggest problem was his use of the paranoid rhetoric to take advantage of the American people and the American freedom.
Crane writes the article, "On a Theory of Paranoid Rhetoric" which describes how September 11th was viewed in such a different fear when compared to Pearl Harbor or the Oklahoma City bombing. Though through media Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were viewed the same as too facing and fighting a new enemy. True too some degree they are at both different times and caused by different reasons. Pearl Harbor was a military attack while 9/11 was a threat or result of extremist views of American democracy. 9/11 was much more symbolism than most realized at first because of the ignorance by so many and the "shock and aw" effect by the masses that only defensive responses made sense to so many. Bush did not do a very good job on gathering intelligence, not that he had any, before going to war on terror. Oklahoma City was just some nut-job trying to make a statement that unfortunately took so many lives, but did not make a mass fear appeal like Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Bush's monotone voice and cut throat Texan ways made it easier for people to agree with him on his harsh decisions on retaliation. For many those who wanted and voted for "war on terror" now want to complain for issues that they themselves wanted but would never dare make those decisions. The President of the United States has a difficult job always and no man or woman is perfect, so in that case their is no perfect president only the best of the time. Zarefsky puts it best when he describes the steps from action, shock, and response that take place before war, "Simply put, a crisis (such as war) rearranges the rhetorical ground. he urgency of the situation requires quick response and establishes a presumption in favor of action. There is no time to consider carefully all the arguments and objections that might arise during peacetime. So debate is truncated, Congress gives its blessings without much of the details, and the president takes on the persona of the commander-in-chief. (616)
This article explains how George Bush used paranoid rhetoric in his speeches after the attacks on 9/11. I believe that the author does a great job of explaining this when they explain how President Bush described the terrorists’ intent and motives as “evil” therefore, dehumanizing them to his audience. In doing this, it seems to persuade the listeners to see the terrorists not as equals, but simply as people who want to hurt them and take away their freedom; thus, putting these people in a defensive mindset to protect what is theirs. Although, I would have to disagree with the author on some of the things that they said throughout the article; such as in the final paragraph, “the very use of such rhetoric should be cause for concern.” When saying something like this, I believe that you have to look at the situation from both sides. The use of paranoid rhetoric seemed to be necessary given the situation that the United States was in at the time. The American people were indeed paranoid that there was going to be another attack on their soil; so if the president had no other choice than to protect the country that he was elected to govern.
Cranes article on Bush's speech on September 20, 2001 takes a very negative stance on the content of the speech. He calls the speech paranoid rhetoric. I disagree that it was "paranoid" rhetoric as an incomparable attack had just occurred. He also makes the point that the Bush administration makes many references to "good" and "evil" which over-simplifies the situation. Crane vilifies bush and the bush administration claiming they use religion where religion was not relevant. throughout the article Crane makes negative judgements and hateful criticisms. As I remember 9/11, people felt violated, scared, and angry. Bush did a pretty good job holding the country together and assuring armed forces would defend our country and bring justice. If he had not done this, I can only imagine Arab persecution and retaliation. could have been much worse.
Crane’s article, “on a theory of paranoid rhetoric”, goes over President Bush’s use of paranoid rhetoric after the September 11th attacks. A good example is offered about Bush’s paranoid rhetoric when Crane discusses the President’s argument about the attack. Bush expressed that the nation’s enemies were “out to destroy, not just buildings and individual lives, but ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’”.
with an 83% favorability rating, Bush’s method of explaining the attacks were obviously successful in its attempt to play on the public’s fear and anger. However, Crane is not arguing whether or not Bush’s paranoid rhetoric was successful. Crane’s goal is to show how Bush used this rhetoric through “textual analysis of Bush’s September 20th address to the nation”, and to argue that the American people’s interpretation of September 11th was based on the President’s “definition of those events”.
By reading over the article, it’s clear that Crane takes a rather negative stand-point of Bush’s use of paranoid rhetoric, saying at one point “such a paranoid expression of events…. Set the stage for unnecessary and incorrect conclusions” – implying that Bush’s definition of the September 11th attacks was flat out wrong and led to an equally wrong outcome. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that I agree with this particular point of view, but I do see where he is coming from and I do relate to parts of his argument. I might agree with the idea that Bush, to put it politely, was not entirely correct in his response to the situation. But I also think that saying he was wrong might be a step too far. Even though he was president and the man charged with deciding the course we take, I believe he was also suffering from the immediate fear and anger that everyone else was feeling at the time. Though some may say this is not a good enough reason, it at least should be taken into consideration. Simply put, I am in the fuzzy grey about how I feel about Crane’s article.
The author of the article "On a Theory of Paranoid Rhetoric" seemed to take a rather extreme and almost radical perspective on Bush's September 20th address and the culture he supposedly created. To think of our entire lives as designated by God and Devil terms is, to me, dangerous. Bush's rhetoric was rational in its approach, but i do think that with his address he centralized all of the mixed emotions that had become irrational and gave them a target, eye for an eye. However, I do not deem it appropriate to label the terrorist "evil" or devil, because that takes away from the personal aspect and makes the irrationality easier to reach a moment of paranoid pandemonium. As I mentioned in class, I just kept referring back to the Pearl Harbor attack and what transpired afterwards. While that and the attacks on 9/11 were a huge and scary blow to our egos and civilian lives, it did not justify our paranoid actions. Obviously you can tell that I am in both agreeably and disagreement with the article at hand. The author seemed to really reach for every accusation she made. I disagree with the author in the sense that, no I do not think that his rhetoric was the result of the countries paranoia towards Muslims, but that his address merely stated a fact of observation. Bush was clearly approaching this through his religious paradigm and touched on every aspect of the attack while presenting a solution in a rational way.
The article, “On a Theory of Paranoid Rhetoric,” provides a clear explanation on forms of political discourse. In particular, this article examines the use and theory of paranoid rhetoric. Paranoid rhetoric is explained by exemplifying its principles and phases in President Bush’s address to Congress on September 20, 2001 following the 9/11 attacks. The conclusion makes a statement, which accurately portrays much of American society in terms of media, news cycles, and our reactions to political discourse. This article states, “When faced with a choice between rational explanation and a vivid fantasy, Americans are just as likely to choose the fantasy, if it is presented correctly.” Unfortunately, this often does not lead to victory. Hofstadter defines paranoid style as a “feeling of persecution is central,” and triggered by “catastrophe of fear of catastrophe.” The Bush Administration was able to instill fear and paranoia into the minds of Americans after 9/11 by making us believe there is no option but to retaliate or the lives of millions of Americans and other peoples would be threatened. Bush’s main themes that he used in his address that accurately depict the principles of paranoid rhetoric include: the use of binaries, a construction of the enemy as “evil,” the notion of a changed world or turning point in 9/11, the use of apocalyptic imagery, and an implicit call to action (13). Bush uses binaries such as “good” and “evil” in his speech. He also utilized the “us” versus “them.” The article notes his idea that, “you are either with us or with them (the terrorists). He makes 9/11 exemplify a turning point. He also implies we have to fight to a finish. By suggesting the terrorists are “enemies of freedom” constructs a new meaning of the enemy as “evil.” Bush utilizes many paranoid rhetoric tactics that caused Americans to engage in this fantasy for an immediate victory, and that no other option was but to win. Unfortunately, this obviously did not happen and has caused many deaths and loss of trillions of dollars. It has made life for U.S. Arabs more difficult. The repercussions triggered by U.S. actions post 9/11 could not have easily been predicted. Paranoid rhetoric is still used often in political discourse, but may not always, if ever, lead to a positive outcome.
Crane’s article, “On a Theory of Paranoid Rhetoric” highlights President Bush’s and his administrations rhetoric in response to 9/11. Days and weeks after the attacks many Americans still had questions of why, how and who? Crane shows that the strategic use of rhetoric by the administration not only answered all of the questions Americans had but reinforced their attitude of retaliation – to respond to the terrorists who committed these acts of crime on U.S. soil. The rhetoric that Bush uses paints a binary picture of ‘good vs. evil’. He explains who Al Qaeda is and their agenda. He insists that if we do not respond to the attacks then Al Qaeda will look to attack again, “ they are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction… they are enemies of freedom” Bush’s rhetoric identifies the actions and explains what retaliation needs to take place, but his rhetoric also reinforces American attitudes that going to war is the right decision. As the elected leader of our country, our trust is in his decision and his speech informs America that this is the right choice, “[we] are a country awakened to danger, and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger; and anger to resolution. Whether we bring enemies to justice, or justice to our enemies, justice will be done”. His words strengthen Americas attitude to fight the war against terror. Polls showed that Americans were 80% in favor of going to war against Afghanistan.
The article portrays many different emotional statements about the 9/11 attacks. Some of the writers that are mentioned and quoted have strong feelings towards the attacks. I find these feelings and comments extremely bias. For example, the statement that was made by Susan Sontag shows extreme ignorance rather than a threat. I feel that her statement to many was not very factual and unfair to say for America as a whole. The comments that were made after the statement hold a strong fear of anger for her from many different prospects. George Bush’s statements and quotes that were portrayed in the article were great examples of fear appeals and even threats. George Bush, in my opinion took his rhetoric after the September 11th attacks to a completely new level; as he should have. One of the statements that I find to show a great example of a threat is; “with us, or… with the terrorists.” The article proceeds to talk about how George Bush took a certain stance on after these attacks separating people in groups of good and evil. At the time of the events, most all Americans as well as George Bush had extreme anger, I feel that he had the right to make the fear appeals and threats that he did to the American Public. He was letting the American public that the enemies were out to destroy more than buildings. I feel that he came across very well with what he had addressed to the public and how he used rhetoric to make his points not only strong and relevant, but to make a large impact on the action we were to take from here on out. The article does a good job expressing how Bush defined such a crisis with a fearful mindset.
ReplyDeleteThe theory of Paranoid Rhetoric is a good way to look at how people with power are their ability to convince an audience in times of crisis. This theory I feel is tricky and very similar to other fear rhetorical theories studied in class. This explanation of Bush's rise to power can also be explained using TMT. Provided with the evidence from the article and living during the 9-11 era I agree that Bush did create a binary world view thus alienating ourselves from many people in the world. I cannot agree that this tactic is good or even ethical. Too many times in history we have seen these binary world views end in slaughter and destruction of humans (Crusades, Inquisition, World War II, Cold War, etc.). But this view of a binary view of good versus evil did not develop until the McCartism when trying to identify who was communist and who was not. I feel as though people such as Sontag who try to question our logic on entering in a war is justifiable is important for a healthy democracy.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great way theory to look at how people in power can convince their audience to do their bidding. Similar to Germany in the 1940s Hitler was able to turn the fear of his people into paranoia and hatred towards the Jews. See what can be observed is that after the 9-11, George Bush created a free pass to attack anyone by labeling the enemy in a vague way. By saying people who threaten our liberty, he is able to make anyone a target.
Crane does a fantastic job describing the differences between Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks. He does a good job utilizing qualitative and quantitative research in order to prove the fear that the 9/11 attacks had created. These attacks were unique. They were made on American soil, orchestrated by what President Bush had dubbed at the time a “Faceless Coward”. Just two months after the attacks about 75% of Americans feared another attack. These feelings of fear by the public resulted in political action that, in hindsight, was only justified by the uses of paranoid rhetoric. Bush had created an enemy to the public. It was the construction of a threat, and a fear, which allowed him to invade Iraq. Terms like “Terrorist”, “Evil” and “Enemy” were all words used by Bush to paint this picture. Through other uses of rhetoric, Bush created a link between “Terrorists” and Muslims. Whether he realized it or not, he had constructed Muslims as the enemy. These words devastated the quality of life for Arab Americans. Crane takes his analysis to the next level when he describes that feelings of paranoia often lead to perceptions and actions that have the potential to destroy life. America could have taken 9/11 as a horrifically unfortunate event, and continued on without action. Instead, they acted against the enemy, or the other that they had constructed through uses of paranoid rhetoric. Ultimately, this type of rhetoric constructed an enemy. War against Iraq was justified. In Iraq civilians were being killed without reason. Sound familiar?
ReplyDeleteThis article, “On a Theory of Paranoid Rhetoric” lays out several good points on Bush’s rhetoric following 9/11. President Bush did use rhetorical devises to rally Americans behind his agenda. Whether or not his policy was correct and in this nation’s best interest is another matter entirely. What president throughout our history has not relied on these rhetorical ploys to unite their people in a time of crisis? Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were all know for their liberal use of persuasive rhetoric to sway the masses.
ReplyDeleteAnother accusation made in this article is that President Bush inadvertently made the connection between Muslims and terrorists by denying a connection between devout Muslims and terrorists. Other than ignoring the religious side of the terrorist attack completely, there isn’t much else he could do.
While this article does offer some insight into the rhetoric behind Bush’s speeches; overall it presents little more than the obvious. In a time of crisis the leader of a nation will invoke support and unity through the use of strong rhetorical devises.
The article "On a Theory of Paranoid Rhetoric" is interesting in many ways and proves an essential topic given the setting and time at which the material takes place. It demonstrates how in times of direct panic and turmoil, that people can move very quickly from "what" to "what now." It explains how Bush pointed in the direction of action rather than investigation of the events that occurred. However the article mentions that without any similar historical precedents to lead our decision making that the nation began to rely on something else. I feel that the scale of the attack is an underlying factor in the way Bush decided to go about 9/11. In the sense that 9/11 was an exigence, anyone in the nation could agree with the "bring it on" mentality that the president expressed. Aside from Pearl Harbor there hasn't been an attack on US soil to this magnitude, so for anyone to assume that Bush had a particular and specific way of reacting to 9/11 would be unfair and unjustified. This article makes good points but on the other hand it fails to recognize the outside perspective on why this sort of paranoid rhetoric could be seen as necessary.
ReplyDeleteCrane's article is by far my favorite we have read. I was 12 years old when the 9/11 attacks happened and I was in a very impressionable stage. Bush's rhetoric served to keep the public, not excluding me, fearful and paranoid. Bush characterized the terrorists as "evil", he described "apocalyptic" consequences and portrayed all American action as inevitable. While some of his rhetoric was necessary and his characterizations of the enemy accurate to some degree, the nature of crisis-time rhetoric is that it will most certainly be exaggerated and it will look for a scape goat. Bush's biggest fault in my opinion would be using the heightened fear of "the enemies of freedom" to limit American freedom in itself. With the country on a patriotic high no one opposed the implementation of the "Patriot Act" which served in turn to successfully impose on our freedom more than any terrorist ever managed to.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with Crane's criticism of Bush's mention of Islamic ties to the attack. It would have been irresponsible to completely ignore any part of the terrorists' motives. While our country did ignore the fact that we had been occupying the middle east and bombing certain targets, the mention of this by Bush would have sent mixed messages and most likely would have created a lot of distrust in the government that would have prohibited the advancement of any retaliation of justice.
Bush had little choice in the use of his rhetoric after the attack. America has been bred feed off of the paranoid rhetoric. The biggest problem was his use of the paranoid rhetoric to take advantage of the American people and the American freedom.
Crane writes the article, "On a Theory of Paranoid Rhetoric" which describes how September 11th was viewed in such a different fear when compared to Pearl Harbor or the Oklahoma City bombing. Though through media Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were viewed the same as too facing and fighting a new enemy. True too some degree they are at both different times and caused by different reasons. Pearl Harbor was a military attack while 9/11 was a threat or result of extremist views of American democracy. 9/11 was much more symbolism than most realized at first because of the ignorance by so many and the "shock and aw" effect by the masses that only defensive responses made sense to so many. Bush did not do a very good job on gathering intelligence, not that he had any, before going to war on terror. Oklahoma City was just some nut-job trying to make a statement that unfortunately took so many lives, but did not make a mass fear appeal like Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Bush's monotone voice and cut throat Texan ways made it easier for people to agree with him on his harsh decisions on retaliation. For many those who wanted and voted for "war on terror" now want to complain for issues that they themselves wanted but would never dare make those decisions. The President of the United States has a difficult job always and no man or woman is perfect, so in that case their is no perfect president only the best of the time. Zarefsky puts it best when he describes the steps from action, shock, and response that take place before war, "Simply put, a crisis (such as war) rearranges the rhetorical ground. he urgency of the situation requires quick response and establishes a presumption in favor of action. There is no time to consider carefully all the arguments and objections that might arise during peacetime. So debate is truncated, Congress gives its blessings without much of the details, and the president takes on the persona of the commander-in-chief. (616)
ReplyDeleteThis article explains how George Bush used paranoid rhetoric in his speeches after the attacks on 9/11. I believe that the author does a great job of explaining this when they explain how President Bush described the terrorists’ intent and motives as “evil” therefore, dehumanizing them to his audience. In doing this, it seems to persuade the listeners to see the terrorists not as equals, but simply as people who want to hurt them and take away their freedom; thus, putting these people in a defensive mindset to protect what is theirs. Although, I would have to disagree with the author on some of the things that they said throughout the article; such as in the final paragraph, “the very use of such rhetoric should be cause for concern.” When saying something like this, I believe that you have to look at the situation from both sides. The use of paranoid rhetoric seemed to be necessary given the situation that the United States was in at the time. The American people were indeed paranoid that there was going to be another attack on their soil; so if the president had no other choice than to protect the country that he was elected to govern.
ReplyDeleteCranes article on Bush's speech on September 20, 2001 takes a very negative stance on the content of the speech. He calls the speech paranoid rhetoric. I disagree that it was "paranoid" rhetoric as an incomparable attack had just occurred.
ReplyDeleteHe also makes the point that the Bush administration makes many references to "good" and "evil" which over-simplifies the situation.
Crane vilifies bush and the bush administration claiming they use religion where religion was not relevant. throughout the article Crane makes negative judgements and hateful criticisms. As I remember 9/11, people felt violated, scared, and angry. Bush did a pretty good job holding the country together and assuring armed forces would defend our country and bring justice. If he had not done this, I can only imagine Arab persecution and retaliation. could have been much worse.
Crane’s article, “on a theory of paranoid rhetoric”, goes over President Bush’s use of paranoid rhetoric after the September 11th attacks. A good example is offered about Bush’s paranoid rhetoric when Crane discusses the President’s argument about the attack. Bush expressed that the nation’s enemies were “out to destroy, not just buildings and individual lives, but ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’”.
ReplyDeletewith an 83% favorability rating, Bush’s method of explaining the attacks were obviously successful in its attempt to play on the public’s fear and anger. However, Crane is not arguing whether or not Bush’s paranoid rhetoric was successful. Crane’s goal is to show how Bush used this rhetoric through “textual analysis of Bush’s September 20th address to the nation”, and to argue that the American people’s interpretation of September 11th was based on the President’s “definition of those events”.
By reading over the article, it’s clear that Crane takes a rather negative stand-point of Bush’s use of paranoid rhetoric, saying at one point “such a paranoid expression of events…. Set the stage for unnecessary and incorrect conclusions” – implying that Bush’s definition of the September 11th attacks was flat out wrong and led to an equally wrong outcome. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that I agree with this particular point of view, but I do see where he is coming from and I do relate to parts of his argument. I might agree with the idea that Bush, to put it politely, was not entirely correct in his response to the situation. But I also think that saying he was wrong might be a step too far. Even though he was president and the man charged with deciding the course we take, I believe he was also suffering from the immediate fear and anger that everyone else was feeling at the time. Though some may say this is not a good enough reason, it at least should be taken into consideration. Simply put, I am in the fuzzy grey about how I feel about Crane’s article.
The author of the article "On a Theory of Paranoid Rhetoric" seemed to take a rather extreme and almost radical perspective on Bush's September 20th address and the culture he supposedly created. To think of our entire lives as designated by God and Devil terms is, to me, dangerous. Bush's rhetoric was rational in its approach, but i do think that with his address he centralized all of the mixed emotions that had become irrational and gave them a target, eye for an eye. However, I do not deem it appropriate to label the terrorist "evil" or devil, because that takes away from the personal aspect and makes the irrationality easier to reach a moment of paranoid pandemonium. As I mentioned in class, I just kept referring back to the Pearl Harbor attack and what transpired afterwards. While that and the attacks on 9/11 were a huge and scary blow to our egos and civilian lives, it did not justify our paranoid actions. Obviously you can tell that I am in both agreeably and disagreement with the article at hand. The author seemed to really reach for every accusation she made. I disagree with the author in the sense that, no I do not think that his rhetoric was the result of the countries paranoia towards Muslims, but that his address merely stated a fact of observation. Bush was clearly approaching this through his religious paradigm and touched on every aspect of the attack while presenting a solution in a rational way.
ReplyDeleteThe article, “On a Theory of Paranoid Rhetoric,” provides a clear explanation on forms of political discourse. In particular, this article examines the use and theory of paranoid rhetoric. Paranoid rhetoric is explained by exemplifying its principles and phases in President Bush’s address to Congress on September 20, 2001 following the 9/11 attacks. The conclusion makes a statement, which accurately portrays much of American society in terms of media, news cycles, and our reactions to political discourse. This article states, “When faced with a choice between rational explanation and a vivid fantasy, Americans are just as likely to choose the fantasy, if it is presented correctly.” Unfortunately, this often does not lead to victory.
ReplyDeleteHofstadter defines paranoid style as a “feeling of persecution is central,” and triggered by “catastrophe of fear of catastrophe.” The Bush Administration was able to instill fear and paranoia into the minds of Americans after 9/11 by making us believe there is no option but to retaliate or the lives of millions of Americans and other peoples would be threatened. Bush’s main themes that he used in his address that accurately depict the principles of paranoid rhetoric include: the use of binaries, a construction of the enemy as “evil,” the notion of a changed world or turning point in 9/11, the use of apocalyptic imagery, and an implicit call to action (13). Bush uses binaries such as “good” and “evil” in his speech. He also utilized the “us” versus “them.” The article notes his idea that, “you are either with us or with them (the terrorists). He makes 9/11 exemplify a turning point. He also implies we have to fight to a finish. By suggesting the terrorists are “enemies of freedom” constructs a new meaning of the enemy as “evil.” Bush utilizes many paranoid rhetoric tactics that caused Americans to engage in this fantasy for an immediate victory, and that no other option was but to win. Unfortunately, this obviously did not happen and has caused many deaths and loss of trillions of dollars. It has made life for U.S. Arabs more difficult. The repercussions triggered by U.S. actions post 9/11 could not have easily been predicted. Paranoid rhetoric is still used often in political discourse, but may not always, if ever, lead to a positive outcome.
Crane’s article, “On a Theory of Paranoid Rhetoric” highlights President Bush’s and his administrations rhetoric in response to 9/11. Days and weeks after the attacks many Americans still had questions of why, how and who? Crane shows that the strategic use of rhetoric by the administration not only answered all of the questions Americans had but reinforced their attitude of retaliation – to respond to the terrorists who committed these acts of crime on U.S. soil.
ReplyDeleteThe rhetoric that Bush uses paints a binary picture of ‘good vs. evil’. He explains who Al Qaeda is and their agenda. He insists that if we do not respond to the attacks then Al Qaeda will look to attack again, “ they are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction… they are enemies of freedom”
Bush’s rhetoric identifies the actions and explains what retaliation needs to take place, but his rhetoric also reinforces American attitudes that going to war is the right decision. As the elected leader of our country, our trust is in his decision and his speech informs America that this is the right choice, “[we] are a country awakened to danger, and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger; and anger to resolution. Whether we bring enemies to justice, or justice to our enemies, justice will be done”. His words strengthen Americas attitude to fight the war against terror. Polls showed that Americans were 80% in favor of going to war against Afghanistan.