Bush uses fear language to gain support

Shocked by the events of Sept. 11, 2001, many rational Americans became dominated by a primitive instinct driven by anger, hate and fear.

In "Why We Hate," Rush Dozier, a famed scientist and journalist, wrote: "Serious threats, such as the attacks on Sept. 11, strongly sensitize the limbic system. This tends to shift society as a whole toward primitive limbic reasoning with its hasty generalizations, stereotyping, us-them distinctions, and raw emotions - particularly anger and hate."

It is not a coincidence that one year and one day after the attacks, President Bush announced in his address to the United Nations, "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations and a threat to peace." Later in this address, he said, "We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind."

Why was the timing of this address important? Americans, having reflected on the horrors of Sept.  11 the day before, recalled the fear present in those attacks. Driven by fear, they were more likely to support Bush in his push for disarming Iraq. In the quote above, Bush said  we must choose between fear or progress. Having intimately experienced fear in the remembrance of Sept. 11, Americans definitely would choose progress. Bush did not distinctly state the connection between the Sept. 11 attacks and Iraq in this speech. As seen in his later speeches, however, he knew the importance of making the connection and trying to prove it to others.

Throughout his war speeches, Bush has shown that he is very aware of the power of fear in motivating people. A brief look at his speeches shows a repetitious use of words such as "terror," "mass destruction," "immense risks" and "threat." In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush said, "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."

Words like these are designed to evoke the primitive fear response as mentioned by Dozier. This primitive response is driven by instinct and not rational thought. People are not supposed to question when they are afraid; rather, they are expected to lash out. And Bush, through supporting a war in Iraq, provided the perfect venue for those driven by fear, a fear created by the Sept. 11 attacks and expanded through the rhetoric of the president.

In the end, Bush's fear rhetoric and incessant push for war in Iraq won out. Yet this should not discourage us from learning from his behavior. As responsible citizens of a country based around open discussion, we must resist the power of manipulative language and tell our politicians that we won't stand for it. We need to escape the primitive, post-Sept. 11, Bush-manipulated culture of fear in order to make rational decisions about what is right for our nation and our world.