War and Democracy

Better late than never...

Comments for Armistice Day:
The Conflict between War Rhetoric and Democracy
An Uneasy "Quiet on the Western Front"
On November 11th, 1918, an armistice was declared, ending the first "war to end all wars." The true result of this ceasefire was felt twenty years later with the outbreak of a second "great" war. In the aftermath of WWII, global economic and political power shifts have ushered in the most violent period in modern global history as independence movements and subsequent civil wars broke out in Africa and Asia, in reaction to the collapse of the last of the European empires. In the nuclear post-war years, two new super-powers came to dominate global politics, the United States and the Soviet Union, thus, the Cold War began. In the Western Hemisphere and elsewhere, violence erupted as the US, fearing the spread of Soviet influence, continued to make its influence felt in Central and South America. Violence also continued in Eastern Europe and Soviet Eurasia, escalating with the collapse of the USSR. The "fall of communism" again created a new power shift internationally, allowing the US to rise to a position of singular dominance, at least in terms of state-to-state interaction.

Through the post-Cold War decades, violence has increased in the territories of US interest and influence, especially those in the Middle East. Turmoil continues today in regions throughout the world as people continue to deal with the fall-out of the post-European colonial era; specifically, in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, as young nations are forced to cope with the implanted concept of "nation-state" and compete on an increasingly global market. Though there has been opposition against the US by nations, as seen with China, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, the majority of violent conflict has come from extremists in the Muslim community in the Middle East.

With the tragic events of September 11th, 2001, self-declared Jihadists, as symbolized by Osama bin Laden, have undeniably declared war on the US. Perhaps ironically, this is just as they had done decades before against the Soviets, then with US support. In reaction to the attacks, the US has declared a "War on Terror."

"And Orwell’s hell, a terror era comin’ through…"
It is often commented by many on the "left," some times with a painfully forced grin, that "George Orwell’s 1984 is not a handbook." This is because of the eerie similarities, and the possibility of increased similarity, that now exist two decades after Orwell’s predicted date. In this period of war, liberty and democracy are being restricted within the US, as the nation, paradoxically, claims to be fighting to bring those very ideals to people who have lived under ages of oppression.

Though it would make for an interesting essay full of inflammatory rhetoric, I am not intending to point out in specific terms which of our liberties have been restricted. Instead, I will argue that the ideology of war necessarily restricts democracy. My examples will focus primarily on WWII, the Cold War, and this new "War on Terror," which I will argue is fundamentally different from previous wars. In my assessment, I will try to avoid grotesque biases.

For the sake of this essay, I will overlook much of the effects of statehood on democracy. Also, I will not make any explicit arguments regarding the differences between radical and elitist democracy, this will be saved for another essay. Therefore, I will assume that the United States represents a democracy, in the fact that its representative political form functions. However, the brand of democracy of the US, that of second-party representation, does predispose it to restrictions of democracy. These vulnerabilities are an important part of my argument; therefore it is necessary to begin by briefly describing the current US political form and its origin through history.

"Land of the Free…"
As with all things in culture, a historical perspective is necessary to understand the current form of politics in the United States. The US independence movement occurred during the same period that capitalism was becoming a major economic ideology; and the influences it had on the US, moving towards and after its revolution, are undeniable. One of the major qualms cited by colonialists against the British Parliament and Monarchy was that of "taxation without representation." Other European Enlightenment concepts had major impacts on the shape of the rebellion and its future governing body; these were the ideals of democracy, liberty, and equality. As a result, a core right of citizenship was the right to vote. However, citizenship was initially restricted, in that the right of suffrage was limited to white landowning males.

Over the next two centuries, the right of suffrage and citizenship was expanded with the enactment of the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments. By the end of the 1960’s, the right to vote in free elections was expanded to all citizens of the age of 18, with the exception of convicted felons. In spite of this widely available ability to participate in the US political process, there still exists British cultural residue in the form of socio-economic stratification and its close link to political power. Though the right to vote is open to all, political office, especially in federal positions, is effectively limited to those of high economic status due to the fact that campaigns cost money. Thus, political elites are often financial elites, and the populace, at large, exercises its political power by voting for an elite candidate, who seeks votes by enticement.

In the middle of the 20th century, much intellectual work was done in support of democratic elitism, from the standpoint that it defends liberty. Notably, in his 1959 work, Lipset finds a trend within the working class of a higher disposition towards authoritarianism and restriction of liberty, especially as the authoritarian groups make use of emotionally charged rhetoric. Additionally, a link was found between age and this disposition.

At approximately the same time, studies were also conducted showing a link between economic and educational status and, in 1965, the federal Public Education Act was passed. The hope of this act was to grant opportunities to all US youth by developing them as a highly skilled workforce, allowing the US to maintain competitiveness in the global market economy. It was also in the 1960’s that voting taxes were abolished and the voting age was lowered to 18 years of age, in reaction to the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement (24th and 26th Amendments).

Besides granting political power through suffrage rights, the US political system protects the populace by setting limitations on the government’s power. In terms of defending civil liberties, the US Constitution explicitly outlines freedoms of the people in the Bill of Rights. In this group of amendments, the government is very specific in the freedoms it grants for two major reasons. First, by making these freedoms known to all, the people are safe from wrongful infringement by the state. Secondly, by being specific, the state instills order, as opposed to the vague anarchic concept of freedom espoused by open self-determination. Additional Constitutional protections of democracy are the "separation of power" and the system of "checks and balances." By dividing power of action and approval between different federal branches, the US federal system avoids the possibility of totalitarianism by preventing any one branch from individual determination of policy.

In general, democracy is considered government "of the people," or in other words, a political arrangement that maintains the responsiveness of the state to its people, so long as the people participate in the process. Therefore, to the extent that it functions, the US can be considered a democratic state, in that its people are represented through their vote and limits are placed on the state, concerning legitimate use of its power.

In spite of this political structure, examples of undemocratic behavior have been exhibited by the US, in times of crisis. Specifically, the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, the McCarthyist period, and the recent use of Guantanamo Bay for the imprisonment of US citizens and other global citizens, under the authority granted by the USA PATRIOT Act, are striking examples of the usurping or restriction of civil liberties. Further, the Bush Administration’s declaration of "with us or against us" is the sanctioned restriction of citizens’ right to free speech and public discourse, protected by the Constitution.

Such actions create schism which increases the risk of further abandonment of democratic principles. Though this is so, these actions were taken with the permission of the public, whether by second-party congressional representation or outright popular support. How does this happen? What is the relationship between national crises, specifically war, and democracy?

The Fiddle and the Drum
In order to speak of war and war propaganda, the central concept of the "enemy identity" must be explored first. It can be argued that an enemy is any individual or group whose actions conflict with one’s own actions, or those of one’s social group. This conflict can be one of direct opposition or of competition. For the sake of this argument, my focus is on inter-social enemies, as articulated on the international level.

In 1999, Meyer and Murray published their findings regarding the fall of the Soviet Union and the transference of distrust and hostility onto a new "enemy." They hypothesize that the enemy identity is a necessary concept, psychologically, and that, therefore, the loss of an enemy forces one to find, or create, another. Continuing, they suggest that there are two major interpretations of the concept of enemy and its necessity. As has been stated, they hold to the psychological perspective which suggests that an enemy is needed to displace one’s own negative traits of fear and hostility. The alternative viewpoint, promoted by Chomsky and others, is that enemies serve the political purpose of mobilizing the populace in support of some specific state agenda, which tends to remain tacit.

Though the Meyer-Murray study did not prove anything conclusive, it did make interesting suggestions, specifically that there is a trend between the intensity of hostility and its continuation. Also, the limitations of the study helped to point out other aspects of the enemy identity that they were not able to test. For example, they admit that "[their] analysis assumes that the target for transference would be a country, but it is conceivable that the target is a more free-floating threat such as the fear of terrorism." They also accept that, since the time frame of their investigation (1988-1992) saw no direct threat against the US, "it is possible that the psychological dynamics that lead to transference might involve more interactions with actual conditions in the international environment to spark the phenomena" (no emphasis added). I, on the other hand, am able to write from a historical standpoint which can explore both of these variables.

I intend to argue that the enemy identity is both psychological, to the extent that its effects are on the individual, and political. I will further argue that it is as a state construction that the enemy identity is given true value. Finally, I will argue that the manner in which it is constructed is undemocratic.

As I have defined it, the concept of enemy is necessarily a social construction. While I do agree that there are psychological aspects of the enemy identity, both as scapegoat and cognitive short cut (Meyer-Murray), I suggest that the individual’s freedom to grant it these values is limited. If one were held in total isolation from others, how could one project one’s faults on a group, or even another individual? Further, how could one develop the enemy identity as a part of an explanation of social dynamics? Finally, it is not the individual, but the state that grants the enemy identity its true value, simply because states, not individuals, wage war. This can be seen even with dictators, such as Hitler and Napoleon, since their power to wage war depends on their ability to mobilize the state and its military.

Due to their dependency on restricted acceptance, in the form of citizenship, I propose that territorial states are predisposed to projecting the enemy identity on other states. This trend can be seen through out the historical evolution of the state, from ancient city-states to modern nation-states. For states with expansionist economies, the definition of citizenship is based heavily on clearly defined competitor states. When a state reaches a position of singular power, citizenship becomes broad and heterogeneous, paradoxically making the need for the enemy identity even more intense. An additional complication arises when the state has a standing professional military. This can be seen in the growth of the Roman Empire, from the small city-state to the great territorial state. At the same time, since its definition of citizenship becomes less strictly defined, the definition of "enemy of the state" becomes more ambiguous. This situation creates instability within the state. I posit that this progression towards instability occurs even if territorial control is not directly imposed by an occupying force. This trend can be seen in the development of the US, through the 20th century.

The American Century
For the sake of brevity, I will suggest that through the 19th century, US expansionism was balanced by other global and hemispheric powers. This can be seen in its western expansion and resultant wars with Mexico and Native Americans. With the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary, the US declared that its influence over the western hemisphere was not to be challenged by European powers. The Spanish-American War further solidified US dominance over the western hemisphere. However, hemispheric influence was still balanced by the fact that the European powers maintained other global influence. Though the US became a recognized global power during WWI, it quickly returned to its isolationist tradition afterwards. The event that catapulted the US onto a truly global stage was WWII.

It is easy to see that Japan was considered an eminent threat towards national security with the attack on Pearl Harbor. For Germany, the relations between the US and the other Allies made the Nazis an eminent threat, as well. Thus, these nations were readily accepted as enemies and the US went to war with popular support. In the aftermath of the war, the US and Stalinist Soviet Russia emerged as the two remaining global powers. This was largely due to the fact that these two nations suffered the least amount of damage to their economic industrial infrastructure-the US because it was separated by an ocean on either side from the conflict and the Soviets because they were able to rebound and skewed international perception. Though the two nations were "uneasy bed partners," the Soviets were not considered an eminent threat, initially, after the end of the war.

With the sudden eruption of communist revolts in Latin America, the rise of Maoist China, and the misperception of Soviet power resulting in the nuclear arms race, the Soviets became the mortal enemy of the US. For decades after, both nations impressed upon other nations their hegemony to either undermine the influence of the other or to bolster their own control. Eventually, the Soviets over-stretched themselves and internal pressures as well as the cost of a long expensive bloody war with rebels in Afghanistan caused total collapse of the USSR in 1989.

Logically speaking, as Meyer and Murray posit, China should have been the new "red" enemy. Like the Soviets, China was a nuclear military power and had a similar communist government. Further, through the 90’s the US, whether unilaterally or in the service of the UN or NATO, had a trend of military and economic interventions based on humanitarian reasons. As more attention was being paid to China by humanitarians, there developed a growing trend of popular opposition in the US. This was seen especially in the increase in popular support for Tibet and challenges against Chinese human rights practices. In spite of popular opposition based on humanitarian principles and the trend of intervention officially based on humanitarian principles, there was no real conflict with China. Though they did grow strained towards the end of the decade due to relatively minor incidents, the overall trend of US-China relations actually improved, especially in terms of trade. This holds with a second trend in international affairs of increased economic globalization, which explains the reemergence of an old enemy.

The fact that January 1, 1994 saw both the ratification of NAFTA and the rise of the Zapatistas peasant revolt is not a coincidence. The late 90’s were characterized by two opposing forms of globalization, that of industrial-elitist globalization, embodied by the WTO, and peasant/people’s globalization, which included widely varying groups with tactics ranging from nonviolence to terrorist attacks. US reaction to this opposition also varied, ranging from ignoring the conflict to legal action to retaliatory military action. Though the US was a major actor, most opposition was expressed against specific NGO’s, such as the World Bank and the IMF, and multi-national corporations, such as McDonald’s and Nike. Because the threat was not felt directly in the opinion of the public, it was seen as mostly a conflict between the "left" and the "right." Administrative change and the tragic events of September 11, 2001 changed this view, in many ways.

Fairly immediately, the Bush administration abandoned the open policy of tolerance for a defensive "with us or against us." Public outcry led to the declaration of a "War on Terror." It is three years into this war and the risks are becoming more and more apparent. Because of this administration’s strong adherence to war ideology, as seen in the president’s self-declared, ala Karl Rove, status as a "war time president," and its willingness to exert force, often usurping the public’s right to power by direct action or by indirectly over-stepping bounds, it can be said that the current trend in US politics is that the people are held responsive to the state. This is undemocratic; however, it is not entirely surprising, when one considers previous wars against major national enemies and the propaganda used to build public support.

As can be seen in the media, the current phase of the War on Terror is one of intervention in the Middle East. This intervention is with the consent of Congress, and thus the nation. The current use of military force for the War on Terror is in "Operation Iraqi Freedom," with the objectives of removing the regime of Saddam Hussein and replacing it with a democratic government. This comes after a 2001 campaign in Afghanistan, which left a pro-American interim government, which still remains in power, after the national elections in October of this year. Though the original objective of capturing Osama bin Laden has not been fulfilled, the growth and trade of opium has reemerged, and it remains to be seen how responsive the new Afghani government will be to the public, the US declared victory in this campaign. In Iraq, violent conflict between Coalition forces and insurgents continues, even though a victory was officially declared in May of 2003.

The Eagle, the Hammer and the Scythe, the Crescent and the Star
If one examines the relationships between the US and Russia and the Arab world, one can find very specific similarities. I propose that these similarities are the very reasons that "middle eastern terrorism," not China, replaced Soviet Russia as the current major national enemy of the US. Additionally, in order to understand how these three cultures conflict one needs a totalistic view of their interaction. The source of conflict goes far beyond simple competition for economic resources to a long history of competition for hegemony in the Arabian Peninsula and surrounding territories. For the US, the beginnings of this conflict were the result of post-WWII power transference from Europe to the US and also, by extension, have their roots in the failed Roman conquest of the region. For Russia, the interaction was the result of Cold War expansion, but also has its roots in Turkish, Ottoman, and Mongol occupation of the region.

If one examines the interaction of allies and contrasts it with the interaction between enemy one would find that clear communication is a central requirement for positive cultural exchange. It could be argued that there is communication required to promote the enemy relationship, as well. This difference is often the result of cultural difference, specifically and most apparent is that of linguistic mutual unintelligibility between languages. Between Russia, Arabia, and the US, there are three distinct linguistic families, those of Slavic, Semitic, and Germanic (with historical Romantic influences). Interestingly enough, the Slavic, Germanic, and Romance languages are all spawn of Indo-European. China and the US are also separated linguistically, however. Therefore, linguistic separation does not fully explain the conflict between cultures. If one takes into consideration the overall history of cultural contact between groups, one can find a more complete explanation of the conflict. As previously stated, I suggest that the most current source of conflict between these three groups is the result of previous European relations. In order to accept this possibility, one must assume that, due to historical ties between the US and the European powers, the US inherited the European global role in the wake of the Second World War.

One perspective that can shed light on the European-Russian conflict is the geopolitical perspective. In his book The American Century, Donald White discusses the influence of this ideology on the events leading up to and resulting from WWII. Essentially, geopolitics looks at geographic control, and subsequent control of resources, as a strategic advantage, allowing for the growth of a state. Because further explanation of this theory and power politics goes beyond the scope of this essay, I will suggest simply that geographic control is an essential part of state growth. This can be observed in the tendency toward expansion and incorporation of hinterlands as a state grows, also leading to an increase in economic and political control over a region. For Europe and Russia, state conflict, as was discussed earlier, is the result of the contest for the areas of the Elbe River valley and the fertile lands to the west. In my interpretation, the strategic value of these lands is the same reason why much of the land was former Roman territory. Additionally, this territory grew in economic strength during the Industrial Revolution because of the wealth of available resources. Thus, control of Europe allows a state access to great expanses of agricultural territory and resources necessary for strong industry, as well as access to major trade routes.

Before WWII, Russian control had been contained at the Elbe. In their attempts for expansion, Nazi Germany sought control of the entire European peninsula and to prevent conflict with its potential competitors (Russia and the US). Initially, Germany had a treaty with Russia and the US had taken a stance of neutrality. After Hitler broke his treaty with Stalin, once the balance of military power became more balanced, the war between Russia and Germany became a competition for conquest. At the close of the war, Soviet forces pushed west to reclaim land lost to the Nazis and made efforts to further expand. This western expansion was seen as a threat by Europeans and the US and efforts were made to contain the expansion, ultimately resulting in the Iron Curtain and the splitting of Germany and Berlin into an east and west. As the US and the Soviets came to be, for all intents and purposes, sole competitors, the conflict between these two states grew to dangerously absurd proportions. The Cuban Missile Crisis best embodies this absurdity. This crisis also showed that, due to the fact that the result could be the annihilation of humanity and most of the life on earth, when truly put to the test, neither side truly wished for direct conflict. This can be seen in increased focus on second-party control and competition for territory in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East in the wake of resolving the crisis-which, as a side note, essentially ignored Cuba and Castro, with the exception of the US declaring that it would not invade Cuba again, even though it maintain military control of territory on the island.

In terms of economic growth, control of the Arabian Peninsula, especially the Persian Gulf, was a central cause of Russian and US contention for this region. Though this is only speculation on my part, I would posit that from Greek conquest to British and French control "Western" interest in this region has always be economic, at their core (whether seeking to eliminate competition or to take control of trade routes). From the perspective of industrial geopolitics, the Arabian Peninsula possesses two strategically valuable qualities, oil and access to the Indian Ocean. The values of both of these traits are somewhat self-explanatory, oil is the lifeblood of industry and a global power must have quick access to any part of the world. In light of technical changes since WWII-those of ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines, nuclear aircraft carriers, and other technologies-it is hard not to argue that the geographical importance of the region has more to do with its petroleum resources than any other reason. With this in mind, it is easily understood that hegemonic control of the region is economically profitable, from the standpoint of invading forces. Since the thwarted Roman attempts to conquer the territory, the people of the Arabian Peninsula and the surrounding Persian Gulf areas have had a long tradition of opposing foreign rule. In all of these conflicts, their struggle has been for autonomy. This is not intended to look with naïve optimism at the results nor is it my intent to support the tyrants which have manipulated and profited from this tendency. However, I believe that it is this history of open opposition to imposed hegemony of foreign powers which is perceived by the US as the greatest threat of this region, especially when taking into account US dependence on petroleum. Bin Laden has been quite clear on this concept, saying that their opposition is against what they perceive (justifiably so) as US imperialism, pointing to the fact that other democracies such as Sweden have not been targeted.

From the standpoint that the US holds a singular position in the global power structure, it is not other states but terrorists which pose the largest threat, since they are not easily definable entities with organized bureaucrats and diplomats who can sit and talk things over. Terrorists threaten the central notion of the state, that of legitimate monopoly on violence. Taking into account the threat perceived by the US and the ignorance which both cultures have of each other, due to linguistic separation and the widespread lack of effort toward understanding, it is understandable that the replacement enemy is "Islamic terrorism." This highlights the first major difference between wars the US has fought in the past and the "War on Terror," this war, at least in its current form, is a cultural clash with no clearly defined enemy state.

"Haven’t you heard? It’s a battle of words…"
It can be said, with justification, that war propaganda is simplistic in nature and designed to make emotional, rather than intellectual, arguments. These two characteristics make for a more effective means of mobilizing the populace than complex economic or political strategic arguments based on data and building premises. Often, the propaganda, whether rhetoric or images, seeks to quickly and easily identify the enemy; this establishes an "Us/Them" mentality. Thus, distinguishing features, such as nationality and ethnicity, are exaggerated to caricature proportions. In addition to this, vilification is used, so that popular disdain for the enemy is increased. This process essentially dehumanizes the enemy. With the use of slogan-like rhetoric and heavy repetition, the image of the enemy as threatening monsters becomes ingrained in the public psyche. By doing so, the state overcomes the natural tendency of humans towards cooperative action and justifies the use of violence, because the enemy is no longer seen as actually human. With the use of information technology, the process of spreading these images through the public occurs almost effortlessly.

In his 1996 article, Russell explores the interesting link between technologies of war and of pest control and its subsequent link in the metaphors and characterizations in WWII propaganda. He concludes that by the end of WWII, humanity is faced with the uncharted territory of having the ability to not only annihilate many natural pests, such as mosquitoes and lice, but also to annihilate national pests, and by extension, its self. Essentially, our technology has caught up with our rhetoric. This strange dilemma is exemplified most clearly by the end of the Pacific Theater. In Japan, traditional senses of honor were used to develop an overall policy of non-surrender. In the US, propaganda established the policy of total victory. Unfortunately for thousands of Japanese civilians, the US had developed the technology to support its total victory ideal and ultimately used the first and second nuclear weapons ever used in a war.

Understanding this reality of possible annihilation, two propaganda campaigns were needed during the Cold War. One was the standard vilification and promotion of patriotism. The second campaign addressed the reality of nuclear war, or more accurately, concealed the true reality of a nuclear war. I also suggest that there were three phases of these campaigns which can be divided as the "Red Scare" phase, the post-60’s Anti-war Movement phase, and the Reagan phase. This can be seen in the medium of cinema, which presents both public and private interpretations and reaction to propaganda, with the differences seen in the films of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), Dr Strangelove (1964), Apocalypse Now (1979), Wargames (1983), Rock IV (1985), and finally, Iron Eagle (1986). The era began with the belief in the "duck and cover" method and bomb shelters to "insure survival" of a nuclear war and the promotion of the arms race, and ended with public support for disarming.

In looking at the internal conflict of the US during the Cold War, I infer that the turmoil of the 60’s led to an increase in social awareness. This awareness continued to grow through the following decades and caused a curtailing of the powers of the state. This can be seen in the increase of political and social tolerance, beginning from the McCarthyist 50’s. Thus, the US was able to survive the years of social unrest and address problems because the government returned to a responsive position; contrast this with Soviet stagnation, corruption, and ultimate collapse. I believe that this trend explains the relatively stable years after the fall of communism. In the latter decades of the Cold War, social "wars" were declared on problems such as poverty, drug abuse, pollution, disease, and in defense of human rights. This shift represents a shift in the public and political arenas, the state became more socially aware as the public became more socially aware. Though this is true, the state sought to maintain some of its previous power at the same time through the continuation of war ideology. This trend can be seen in the rhetoric of the late 80’s regarding terrorism as a growing threat and the policy of intervention discussed earlier. A clear example of this is seen in US intervention in Latin America, especially Columbia.

The War Declared and the War Fought
In response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, the US declared a "War on Terror." This war is especially dangerous to democracy because of its inherent ambiguity. Not only is the enemy an open concept, the length of the war is indefinite, possibly unending. When this is coupled with the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive Strike and strict "With or against us" ideology, it is clear that the state, especially the executive branch, takes a position of self-determination, with respect to policy and action.

In forming a nation-state, the public abdicates its right to legitimate violence, granting the state a monopoly on the use of force. The use of force which is not state sanctioned is called terrorism. Because terrorists pose a threat to the state’s power and authority, they are considered "enemies of the state." In dealing with these enemies, the US has a policy of non-negotiation, both at home and abroad, due to the understood lack of legitimacy. Thus, in one such conflict, there is no possibility of compromise or treaty. There is no end for a war on terrorism, since the only possible end is total victory, which is impossible by the very definition of terrorism.

The danger of defining the enemy of a war as being "terrorists" or "terrorism", instead of an opposing state, is the redundant nature of terminology. Instead of being explicit in defining the enemy group, the declaration of the terrorist as the enemy is essentially a mathematic identity-the enemy of the state is an enemy of the state. Since, as I argued earlier, the enemy is a state construction, this grants undemocratic power to the state and opens two possible risks. At home, the enemy could be defined as any political opposition. Abroad, it opens possibility of never-ending war, by allowing the state to label any group "terrorist" and declare one war after another. The risk of such power and abuse of such power is exemplified by the current war in Iraq. Essentially, the state is granted the use of national resources, most notably those involved with military power, to pursue its own agenda.

I do not presume that their intention was malicious, however, in promoting their war ideology and spreading its supporting propaganda, the Bush Administration exploited specific vulnerabilities of the US public. I think that it is a fair assessment to state that the culture of the US is a society of capitalism and consumerism. Though these terms imply a specific economic arrangement, they also suggest underlying trends and characteristics, specifically of a strong emphasis on efficiency and mass homogeneity. These characteristics can be seen articulated by the institutions of mass media and commercialism. The transference of commodities, including ideas, is carried out by enticing the public to consume through advertisement. Because efficiency determines whether the "sale" is successful or not, advertisement does not generally aim at allowing the consumer to make a fully informed, though-out decision, since this process takes time. Advertisement, therefore, seeks to promote quick decision making by emphasizing emotionality. As its form suggests, war propaganda is a type of advertisement, specifically promoting the product of war.

The Bush Administration has run a very successful ad-campaign, and continues to do so, today. They have used very specific rhetoric and have utilized media outlets in very intentional ways, with the end effect of spreading their product (that of war propaganda) and preventing or stifling competition. At the center of this success is the rhetoric which opened the ability to manipulate the further spreading of their ideology. From the very first address and press conference on the 11th, the Administration’s rhetoric has had an emphasis on emotional content, over intellectual content. This was done by utilizing the tragic imagery of the terrorist attacks and by employing the terms "patriotism," "freedom," "liberty," and "democracy" calculatedly. More over, it has been designed to create distinct identification of friend and foe, as has been discussed earlier. Finally, opposition has been suppressed in two major ways: first, by employing the previously mentioned terms which are synonymous with loyalty to the US, most would-be opponents have been dissuaded from speaking out, for fear of appearing "unpatriotic;" secondly, any other internal opposition has been essentially discredited by employing the left/right distinction and claiming that those on the left are "out of touch with the mainstream America," a claim which does have some basis in reality. Through strategic application of this rhetoric, the Bush Administration has been able to influence the actions of the press, of the other federal branches, and of the public at large.

For obvious reasons, Rupert Murdoch’s Clear Channel twenty-four hour network, Fox News, will be excluded from my assessment. For the other news networks, I am not excusing their lack of effort to reveal all sides of the story. I beg to differ with those labeling mainstream news networks as having a "liberal bias," I tend to agree with comedian/social commentator Jon Stewart, when he said in a 2004 CSPAN interview that the media has a "lazy bias." From the very beginning, the media, for the most part, failed to hold the federal government accountable for the security failures that led to the attacks of September 11th. This failure can be seen in the fact that, still, no official has publicly admitted responsibility, nor has any public official lost office because of failure to perform their job of protecting the US public. In fact, it can be seen that those who have lost positions of authority have done so because conflicts of policy more than any other reason. Further failure of the media to perform its role in a democratic society is exemplified by the fact that President Bush was reelected in 2004, in spite of having broken the over two centuries of US tradition of no war without justification. This is a criticism of the news networks themselves, not of the journalists who were not given the opportunity to report their findings. Though print media, in the form of newspapers and online sources, has tended to be more critical, the unfortunate truth is that the television is the dominant media outlet in the US.

That being said, the Bush Administration has developed their propaganda campaign in such a way to utilize the media. In addition the pressure to assimilate discussed earlier, this administration has maintained continuity in their message. If one were to observe the various Secretaries and members of staff during press conferences, press coverage of presidential appearances, and presidential addresses, one would notice similar rhetoric, even identical terms and phrases, used by the members of this administration. This trend allows for the maximum exposure of the Bush Administration’s ideology. This is not a new trend, previous administrations also maintained homogeneity of rhetoric and ideology; however when coupled with the members’ refusal to allow legitimate questioning by the press (as seen in press conferences with Sec. Rumsfeld) and the use of rhetoric described earlier, the Bush Administration has indirectly usurped the 1st Amendment right to a free press. Though, as I suggested in the previous paragraph, the fault does not rest solely on the presidency.

By the fact that Congress is the direct representation of the US public in the federal government, its vulnerabilities are exemplary of those of the public. Because of the system of checks and balances, these vulnerabilities have opened the Judicial Branch to manipulation, as well. More so than the press, which is ideally an objective critic, Congress was susceptible to the streamlining of support and suppression of opposition. Primarily, this risk comes from the two-party system which, in itself, does much to silence legitimate political opposition to the mainstream by preventing a dissenting opinion from having national vocalization. I would suggest that this lack of voice arises from a failure of organization on the part of the dissenters; however that is another essay topic. Secondly, as public officials, I would suggest that Congresspersons have increased pressure toward public displays of nationalism and loyalty; these are expressed through their vote in various bills. Thus, the Bush Administration was able to capitalize on an overall Republican Congressional majority and their use of rhetoric to further promote their agenda.

The clearest example of the manipulation of Congress yielding judicial effects, and subsequently effects on the rights of citizens, is the USA PATRIOT Act. Overlooking the events which led to certain amendments to the bill being passed by a Congress that was not given adequate time to debate and deliberate, the dilemma of a Congressperson is apparent in the very title of the act. It is obvious that it would look unfavorable to vote against an act that declares itself as "patriotic," especially when the public was being told that its purpose is to aid in the fight of terrorism and the insurance of their security. Another example of manipulation is the appointment and approval of members of the Judicial Branch, leading to further expression of partisanship, for example, the appointment of Mr. Ashcroft as Attorney General and the controversy regarding various "litmus tests" for Supreme Court Justices. Also, the streamline of support in Congress for the presidency led to granting President Bush the power to use force in Iraq, thereby establishing the dangerous precedent of Preemptive Strike.

In all of this, the Bush Administration has manipulated the public, so that we have willingly abdicated our right to a government that is held accountable to us. We have chosen, admittedly uninformed, to accept what we have been sold, as can be seen in an election won by the "moral vote," as opposed to assessments of and accountability for the performance of the Bush Administration. This is not to say that all US citizens have bought in, the 2004 election proves just the opposite. There exists very bitter division, even if superficial, within the US, today. However, this level of schism hinders open debate, a very necessary part of any healthy democratic society.

If the US government were really in favor of democracy, it would be promoting democracy by example and granting moral support of popular movements conducive to democratic regimes. A state cannot in itself, however, be a democratic entity; only a society can, because democracy is a cultural product. Thus, the US needs a cultural shift, if it is truly devoted to the ideals of democracy, liberty, and lasting peace.

An Eye for an Eye Leaves the Whole World Blind
War, by its very nature, is a destructive dividing force. The only way to overcome its effects is to increase human interaction and interconnectedness. If we, as a global community, refuse to accept the enemy-identity, choosing instead to see each other as merely brothers and sisters with opposing viewpoints, as Gandhi has suggested, we can come together in the true spirit of democracy and open debate in order to embrace our differences and resolve our conflicts. This is within our abilities as a species.