Politicians' Manipulation

Manipulation is nothing new to politicians. I don't care what party one is talking about: Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals. They've all used manipulation and in great quantities. But, I can't remember an administration using it to the extent that Bush and company have.

Right after 9/11, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft resorted to informal fallacies, the false dilemma in particular, to manipulate the majority into agreeing with them. The false dilemma is where a person makes it sound like there are only two options to a certain predicament, when, in fact, there are more. In this case, Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft made statements such as, "You're either with us or against us" and "You're either with us or with the terrorists." This divided the nation and brainwashed many into believing that those who spoke out against the war or against a decision made by Bush were Anti-American and terrorist sympathizers. This is anything but the case. Just because a person does not agree with the reasoning (or supposed reasoning) behind a war, that does not mean they are an advocate of terrorism. But, these fallacies were very effective in the early portions of the "War on Terror." Bush's approval rating was the highest in history. The mainstream media became his cheerleaders. Anyone who dared question Bush or any decision that he made were labeled Anti-American and told that they should leave the country.

Then came the ever-changing reasons for invading Iraq. Republicans loved to label Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry as a flip-flopper, yet George W. Bush has done plenty of flip-flopping during his presidency. Bush started with linking Saddam Hussein and Iraq to Al-Qaeda. This was later proven to be false, and yet, still a percentage of Americans believe that Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Bush then declared that Iraq had WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction). As was shown with the Iraq-Al-Qaeda links, this was also proven to be false. Then it was said that Iraq had the materials to make weapons of mass destruction. The wording changed ever so slightly each time. After all that was proven to be false, the intention finally dawned upon Bush and company, to spread freedom and democracy. This was another clever attempt by the Bush administration to make the situation appear to be an us vs. them (good vs. evil) duel. For those that didn't support the reasoning, Bush and his followers could speak out by saying, "You don't support freedom? You don't support democracy? What kind of American are you?" It won the Democrats over, but not the common citizens.

In his State of the Union Address on Tuesday night, Bush tried to remove the heat that had been put on him in recent weeks by changing the terminology and definition entirely of what has been referred to as "domestic spying." How did he coin the term on Tuesday night? "Terrorist surveillance programs." This was another sly move by the Bush administration, which will probably ease some of the pressure off Bush. It'll sway some people to believe that the "domestic spying" spoken of in recent weeks and "terrorist surveillance programs" are completely different and they may be more persuaded when simply hearing the new terminology, "terrorist surveillance programs."

Even though the Bush Administration will deny it on all counts, they have used 9/11, the color-coded terror alert system, and Bin Laden tapes at critical times as scare tactics. Bush's approval rating was approximately 90% just after the 9/11 attacks. So, for a while there, the mere mention of 9/11, the terror alert being upgraded one level, or the mention of Bin Laden immediately brought back memories of that dreadful day. In these type of situations, it's common for people to long for security from that same authority figure who led the way during a tragedy. For a time, Bush's approval ratings jumped within a few days of the terror-alert being upgraded or a Bin Laden tape being shown.

Bush and his colleagues have also passed bills with deceptive titles. The USA Patriot Act is such a bill, as it was passed on October 26th, 2001. Again, with the title of the bill being what it is, those who are against it will be told that they are not "patriotic." What does "USA Patriot" stand for? Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. What are some of these "tools?" Allowing the government full access to one's medical records, tax records, and library (book) records. This Act also gives the government authority to break into a person's home without a warrant. They are not obligated to tell this person about the break-in. The person may never know about it. Only Russ Feingold of Wisconsin voted against this bill on October 26th. But, over the course of the past 4+ years, there has been an increasing opposition to the Patriot Act, especially to the few portions I mentioned. Almost 400 communities in the U.S. have shown their displeasure with it. The No Child Left Behind Act is another such bill. In 47 of 50 states, there have been schools who have been outwardly critical of the Act and there have been several lawsuits filed by such schools. The title of the Act may sound warm and fuzzy, but it is not an honest representation of what has and will result because of the bill.

I've heard politicians lie and manipulate before, but not to this extent. Bush did at one time claim he was a "uniter" and not a "divider," but the direct opposite has been shown during his tenure. Anyone who has protested against the war has been labeled by many Bush followers to be "Anti-Americans" or "terrorist sympathizers." Some feel it's a disgrace to the troops, because we wouldn't have our freedoms if it weren't for them. Can't we come to a compromise and realize that both the Conservatives and Liberals are right to an extent? Yes, it's true. Soldiers fought and battled, so that we live freely in this country. But, they didn't fight for censorship. They didn't fight for one voice to be heard and not another. They fought for freedoms and our freedoms are null and void unless we make the most of them. We can argue about the war and political issues all day, but in the end, we don't have to agree and that's the beauty of it. It's not a crime to have a differing opinion than the person sitting next to you or to hold a different belief than the majority. Bush and his administration have been able to use language to manipulate the public greatly in his 5+ years as president. Fortunately, as poll numbers have shown, the manipulation tactics have gotten to be less and less effective as time has gone on. I only hope that trend continues in the next 2+ years.