Very interesting Alternet article from last week that I just picked up on looking at the way Bush uses langauge to his advantage. Not in the way he consistantly mangles words and phrases, but in the way he uses domineering language and empty statments to put himself in a nearly unassailable position.
George W Bush is generally regarded as a mangler of the English language. What is overlooked is his mastery of emotional language — especially negatively charged emotional language — as a political tool. Take a closer look at his speeches and public utterances, and his political success turns out to be no surprise. It is the predictable result of the intentional use of language to dominate others.
President Bush, like many dominant personality types, uses dependency-creating language. He employs language of contempt and intimidation to shame others into submission and desperate admiration. While we tend to think of the dominator as using physical force, in fact most dominators use verbal abuse to control others. Abusive language has been a major theme of psychological researchers on marital problems, such as John Gottman, and of philosophers and theologians, such as Josef Pieper. But little has been said about the key role it has come to play in political discourse, and in such “hot media” as talk radio and television.
Bush uses several dominating linguistic techniques to induce surrender to his will.
Of course, this was before his “Bring ’em on” gaffe of last week. How do you explain that one away, aside from pure blundering incompetence?
(via Larry Halff)
