September 5, 2005

source: Non Sequitur

(if you are easily offended by political opinion – cover your ears and your eyes. For the rest of us….)

After seeing this cartoon, I started thinking about the role of language on government policy and public opinion. I am sometimes troubled by the use of rhetorical language by the government, which is many times simply echoed by the media. One sample of the exploitation of language is the use of the word “evil”.

I believe such terminology can skew public opinion regarding government policy, and here is why. It is well known that the ‘war against terror’ has been defined as a fight of ‘good versus evil’. This means that anything done against the ‘evil’ enemy is, by definition, ‘good’. Evil enemies do not need protection under human rights, since they are devoid of any humanity. Most importantly – evil people are basically just that, evil. They hate America because they are evil, and commit horrendous acts because they are evil.

Basically, I think this type of oversimplification of the problem of terrorism leads to the thinking that evil people are just born that way. No matter what happens around them, they will grow up to hate America. Sort of like some weird genetic disease that occurs in a small percentage of Middle Eastern men. The solution in this case is clear: eliminate the carriers of this ‘evil’ gene. The 'fight-them-over-there' mentality. Simple. Unfortunately, this viewpoint prevents any type of analysis regarding the political and social roots of the problem of terrorism.

This use of words is not new, however. In the 80’s we fought against the ‘Evil Empire’, a.k.a. the soviets. There is the ‘axis of evil’, etc......

I believe - the government needs to stop dealing with terrorism and poverty as if they were genetically transmitted diseases. They are not. They are symptoms of deeply rooted social problems. I think it would be much better to treat these underlying problems instead of trying to suppress the symptoms.

But again – that’s just my opinion