Download Political Rhetoric: Wartime Propaganda

Political Rhetoric: Wartime Propaganda
Propaganda was originally defined as “the dissemination of biased ideas and opinions, often
through the use of lies and deception.” The word propaganda has since evolved to mean mass
suggestion or influence through the manipulation of symbols and the psychology of the individual.
Propaganda is the communication of a point of view with the ultimate goal of having the recipient come to
“voluntarily” accept the position as if it were his or her own.
Some characteristics of propaganda are:
1. Its strong ideological bent—a strong bias to the left or right in politics. Propagandists are not
trying to be neutral or objective; they have an agenda to advance.
2. Is institutional in nature—is practiced by organized groups, whether is it the government, political
lobbies, private corporations, religious groups, or social movements.
3. It involved mass persuasion; often using the mass media to advance its message. For example,
gossip passed from one person to another would be characteristic of propaganda. But a
corporate rumor sent via e-mail would be.
4. Tends to rely on ethically suspect methods of influence. Results come first and ethics comes a
distant second. Because of this characteristics, most of us look down our noses (or hold them)
when the word propaganda is mentioned.
Words are weapons in warfare. Words affect how people think and about themselves and about
others. War is probably the time of the greatest language manipulation, when people are most likely to
deceive others, least able to negotiate, and are under the most intense emotional stress—of fear and
anger—with the greatest dangers of loss, death, and destruction.
Propaganda is often used as a general attack word to label any claims or charges from
opponents, rivals, or critics. Here, however, two terms are used with specific meanings:


War propaganda—refers to persuasion targeted at an internal audience; to bond one’s own
group, to build morale (a belief in “being right” and “being able”), to get people to agree, to get
involved, to silence internal opposition, to incite to action, and to channel that response.
Psychological warfare—refers to persuasion designed to demoralize or terrorize an external
audience; the “other”—the outsider; the foe, the enemy. Both kinds of persuasion pose a real
danger today and we must on guard for their use.
Unlike all previous eras, television now gives persuaders quick access to huge audiences, and
powerful new weapons are rather easily available to all nations, small groups, and individuals. After World
War II, during what we call “peace-time” (1945-2001), some 25 million people have been killed in “small
wars” consisting of local conflicts about dominance, territory, ethnic, and religious issues. All of which
were justified by the words used by persuaders.
War propaganda can often be deliberately manipulated by professional persuaders (speakers) to
create a thermostat effect; calculated to heat up or cool off a crisis. However, once started, sometimes
war propaganda can get totally out of control (a wildfire effect) with unpredictable, long-term effects.
Years after a crisis, individual zealots may still base their hatred of others on outdated ideas from earlier
propaganda. Certain beliefs and attitudes, emotions and feelings, can rather easily lead to seriously
harmful actions. There are many crazy people in the world, mentally unstable and angry about real or
imagined problems.
If our goal is to resolve conflict, to lessen tension, to counter irrationality and promote peace, then
it helps if we understand how language has often been used in warfare. From observation and history,
consider this basic premise: people intensify their own good and downplay their own bad; and in
aggression, people intensify others’ bad and downplay others’ good. Applied to the war propaganda of
any nation or group, these concepts are useful to sort out and to analyze common, predictable patterns in
form and content:
Intensify Own Good










All people claim virtue and seek justice. Persuaders often repeat these key themes to justify their
cause (our nation, our leaders, our policies, our actions are right, and just); to bond the group
together (themes of unity, loyalty, and pride); to focus energy for action (join, work, fight). Words are
used to resolve the will, to stir the feelings, to trigger action. Basically: what to believe, what to feel,
what to do.
Rhetoric of the haves (established governments or strong rivals such as the USA and the USSR
during the Cold War) stresses defense and protection of what they have. Fear is the key emotion,
while loss of fear is the key threat.
Rhetoric of the have nots (the poor, the dispossessed—like rebels, revolutionaries, and terrorists)
stresses change or relief. Anger is the key emotion, and continued deprivation is the key threat.
Such ideas can be expressed by direct claims (such in praise words) or by indirect suggestions by
means of words, images, music, and other nonverbal signals associated with things already liked like
home, family, religion, and god for the intended audience.
Stories (narratives) like rumors, books, movies, etc present their characters as heroes, role models
for others to imitate their virtues like loyalty, bravery, and endurance. These heroes’ actions consist
of such behavior as fighting hard, working, and obeying orders.
Intensify Others’ Bad
Verbal aggression, words used to stir emotions (anger, resentment, disgust, fear) to incite people to
hate others and to seek revenge, is often the most intense form of war propaganda.
Everyone has predictable fears about such things as death, destruction, loss of possessions, loss of
freedoms or territory. Persuaders on either side can intensify such fears in order to excite, bond, and
direct their own group to action (to fight, to work, to seek revenge).
In war you can expect intense name-calling—attack words—and images associated with depicting
the enemy as either diabolical or inhuman. They are often depicted as savages, animals, or
monsters. Horror stories are told via rumors, books, movies, speeches; and atrocity photos are often
shown that reveal their evil deeds, atrocities, and bloody victims.
In war all armies kill people, they destroy, and commit atrocities. But people tend to believe the worst
about their enemies—even the “big lie”—if repeated often enough.
Urgency and danger are intensified by warnings using the language of extremes, absolutes of
impending doomsday scenarios. In short, the greater the threat, the greater the need for a war, or a
higher military budget.
Downplay Own Bad
 Omission is the primary way people downplay their own weaknesses; or bad. Governments can
conceal, cover-up their bad (errors, crimes, problems, weaknesses, any unfavorable information) by
means of secrecy, censorship, controls to ban the press or internal critics; silencing eliminating, or
making the opposition disappear. The degree of omission varies; even in peacetime some societies
are very closed and others are relatively open.
 Euphemisms are common to downplay one’s own weaknesses or bad behavior. These softer words
lessen or sweeten, they minimize, understate, blur or obscure the bad behavior.
 Denials (saying it’s not so) can include both deliberate lying to others and self-deception. Wishful
thinking, alibis, and excuses are ways people downplay their own bad behavior. For example,
denying that something is bad or not that bad, or denying any responsibility or intent. Things like “I
didn’t do it…or I didn’t mean it.”
 Confusion can mask or hide problems; often called a smokescreen effect. Confusion can be
accidental through careless errors. Or language also can be deliberately used to cause confusion. It
can lead to ambiguity, vagueness, unfamiliar words, contradictions, or anything that can distract,
confuse, or overload the audience.
Downplay the Other’s Good
 Neglect is the primary way people downplay others’ good behavior. Many people are highly
egocentric and ethnocentric. They simply disregard, ignore or lack concern for other groups,
strangers, foreigners. In war, people often know very little about their opponents’ culture, history,
customs, beliefs, or family life. Nations often ban the music, art, literature, pop culture (television or



movies) of any favorable aspect of the opponents.
Intolerance. People often deny by blocking out or not listening to any contrary ideas, opinions, or
beliefs. People often won’t consider the possible rightness of their opponents’ cause. Any legitimate
needs, grievances, or genuine fears of their opponents are disregarded.
Disrespect. Words and attitudes are often used which are patronizing or condescending toward the
others, treating the others as less than equal or even less than human. Humor such as mockery and
sarcasm is used to belittle, degrade, insult, or ridicule others.
Abstractions. It’s easier to kill “things” than it is to kill people—mothers, fathers, and children. Thus, in
war, language becomes more abstract and general (to include numbers and statistics like body
counts), and people become less able to see or truly appreciate the concrete details; the specific
individuals involved.