Critical analysis of wartime rhetoric
For as long as I can remember, I have struggled with the war record of the United States government throughout our nation’s history. The founding fathers of this nation, as well as those presidents who have followed their lead, in a struggle to create and sustain a strong central government, often used rhetoric that appealed to the values of property-owning men – the wealthiest and most politically strong segment of the population – to make the case for war against a laundry list of enemies including England, Native Americans, secessionist movements, anti-Capitalist conflicts, and even pro-democratic conflicts. The purpose of this essay is to examine the wartime rhetoric of the leaders of nations, and how those arguments are often logically flawed, and appealing to irrational hopes of the public.
My struggles are fundamentally rooted in my sense of what is ethical, fair, and just. Too often, I feel, we learn our nation’s history from the texts written by the winners in these conflicts. This one-sided perspective tends to present a pro-war rhetoric that attempts to establish a false dichotomy of the United States central government as strong, right, benevolent, and harbingers of freedom, as opposed to the other side who typically gets labeled as vigilante, terrorist, above the law, radical, etc.
In the following clips, I’ve included footage from several pro-war speeches made in the past 60+ years. Most of these speeches were made by American presidents, but to broaden the perspective I’ve included an example of a speech given by Adolf Hitler, included in Leni Riefenstahl’s pro-Nazi film Triumph of the Will. The purpose of its inclusion is to recognize the similar appeals that leaders of nations make when attempting to establish a pro-war rhetoric. As you may witness, many of these messages include coded, if not direct, ethnocentric points of view that establish an us/them dichotomy supporting the use of aggressive force to rid the world of the inherent evil perpetuated by the other. Frequently, these speakers attempt to evoke the notion that there is some divine force, or God, that supports their side in this war.
First, I’ve included a well-known speech, familiar to anyone interested in American history. On December 8, 1941, United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke to the American public about the way that Pearl Harbor, on the previous day, had been “suddenly and deliberately attacked" by the Japanese military. Roosevelt claims that this day was a “date that will live in infamy". Making the point that the attack had clearly been deliberately planned, he claims that the “Japanese government [had] deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continual peace." He provides a laundry list of attacks against other peoples that the Japanese military had also made during the past 48 hours, noting that we were not the only victims against a common enemy. He also states that “the facts of today and yesterday speak for themselves" – this suggests the inevitable, singular interpretation that we are expected to make of this event, that war is the answer. Further, he states, “No matter how long it will take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win." Clearly, he’s attempting to evoke the religious character of the American public. For some reason, I felt that this speech had been filmed as well as recorded for radio broadcast. But in this YouTube clip, the author presents images that correspond with the content of F.D.R.’s speech. The audience can see anti-Japanese propaganda, as well as advertisements that encourage the buying of war bonds, and to “Avenge December 7th". This final message certainly evokes my memory of recent attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001.
Next, we see a speech given by Hitler, taken from Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will. The point in this inclusion is to provide a historical comparison to those messages presented by other American presidents. While Hitler’s ethnocentric vision of a “cleansed" Germany has been universally condemned, his rhetoric is remarkably similar to other speeches we hear made by our own president. In particular, this clip focuses on a speech invoking the national character of the German people, and the character that will live on in the youth of the nation. He states, “We want to be one people, and you, my youth, are to be that people. In the future there must be no ranks or classes, and you must not let them begin to grow in you. We want to see one nation and you must educate yourselves for it." Here, he asserts the need for unity during a time of war, the vision for a future where the German people are free from class definitions, as well as a benevolent sort of fatherly love. Further he claims, “[the German people] must be peaceable and courageous at the same time." Also, he evokes the symbolism of the Nazi flag being “torn from nothing," meaning that this government had been established by the hard work of the German people in a spirit of revolutionary initiative. I feel that all of the above messages are present among most speeches given by U.S. presidents. Much of the time, Hitler appeals to the vanity of his people – a surefire way to gain their wholesale approval. Also, throughout this clip, Riefenstahl contrasts pans of the sweeping crowds of people saluting their leader to medium close-ups of Hitler. Certainly this suggests his authority, and the sheer numbers of those saluting him portray a wide-spread approval of his messages.
Next, in a speech given November 3, 1969, Richard Nixon appeals the “Silent Majority" of the American people. This term was created to distinguish a widespread socially conservative public in the United States from the politically radical, leftist ideas of a minority of vocal irrational students and protestors. Here, we only see a brief segment of his speech in defense of his administration’s efforts to end the war in Vietnam. He stresses the importance of “winning" the peace, as opposed to losing it. While he neglects to provide any details about how he intends to follow through with his promise to end the war, he argues that it is imperative that Americans present a unified show of support for his plan. Without this unity, Nixon implies that those Americans would be responsible for their own defeat and humiliation. Following is a transcript of this clip:
So, tonight, to you the great “Silent Majority" of my fellow Americans I ask for your support. I pledged in my campaign for the presidency to end the war in a way that we could win the peace. I have initiated a plan of action which will enable me to keep that pledge. The more support I can have from the American people, the sooner that pledge can be redeemed. For, the more divided we are at home, the less likely the enemy is to negotiate in Paris. Let us be united for peace. Let us also be united against defeat. Because let us understand: North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States; only Americans can do that.
In this clip, from a speech given on March 2, 1962, John F. Kennedy deliberates upon the difficult, but carefully measured choice to continue testing of nuclear arms. Appealing to the public capacity to fear the perceived enemy of the Soviet Union, Kennedy states, “Until mankind has banished both war and its instruments of destruction, the United States must maintain an effective quantity and quality of nuclear weapons. . . [and that] only through such strength can [the United States] be certain of deterring a nuclear attack, or an overwhelming ground attack." Indeed, he suggests that the only way Americans might survive as a people and nation would be through the continued development and production of nuclear weapons. This decision was apparently made while the United States and the United Kingdom were “negotiating in good faith in Geneva, the Soviet Union callously broke the moratorium [by testing nuclear weapons]." He speaks of the Soviets as secretly making preparations for these testings, and that they represented “new threats and new tactics of terror". And while the Soviets tested these weapons mostly in the atmosphere, the United States had determined to minimize the radioactive fall-out by testing underground, and over the Pacific Ocean under the appropriate weather conditions. This distinguishes the United States’ concern for the environment as opposed to a callous, conniving Soviet Union. Given the historical context of this speech, Kennedy did not need to focus his attention on the evil of the Soviet Union, as that had already been established through a series of events following the aftermath of World War II.
Last, we can examine a speech given by President George H. W. Bush on September 11, 1990. Here, Bush argues for why the United States has decided to drive Iraqi military from the nation of Kuwait. He distinguishes Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq, as a “dictator" who “systematically raped, pillaged, and plundered a tiny nation. . . [subjecting] the people of Kuwait to unspeakable atrocities, and among those maimed and murdered: innocent children." Bush contrasts these images with a “small and helpless" Kuwait whose people have been “brutalized". He appeals to how the decision to go to war against Iraq had been “taken into accord with United Nations resolutions, and with the consent of the United States Congress," thereby distinguishing these efforts as legitimate and not aggressive. The clip ends with Bush attempting to appeal to the American public’s hope for a peaceful, lawful future – “a New World Order – a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations." Further, he insists, “Our goal is not the conquest of Iraq, but the liberation of Kuwait," and that this would not be a repeat of the American war in Vietnam.
Regardless of my own political opinions, I hope that this essay helps to distinguish how government leaders appeal to our sensibilities when leading us into war. Although war has the potential to be an inherently tragic decision for all those involved, it is typically portrayed as heroic, inevitable, and necessary for the future security and peace of the world’s peoples. Too often, I feel, the media drops the ball when given the opportunity to critically analyze the logical fallacies of these pro-war arguments, leaving the public with too little information to be truly informed on the subject. This suggests the potential for new Web 2.0 technologies to open up forums for sharing factual information, critical analysis, and new ideas when the issue of war arises. These new technologies might be used to support or challenge efforts to lead the public into war. Hopefully, the public will learn to use these technologies to meet their best personal interests.