|
In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks,
President George W. Bush and his administration offered a “political
fundamentalism” that capitalized upon the fear felt by many
Americans. Political fundamentalism is the adaptation of a conservative
religious worldview, via strategic language choices and communication
approaches, into a policy agenda that feels political rather than
religious. These communications dominated the political agenda and
public opinion for months on end — and came at a significant
cost for democracy.
 In
particular, the administration closed off a substantive societal
— and international — conversation about the meaning
of the attacks and the direction of the nation by consistently:
- showing antipathy toward complex conceptions of reality;
- framing calls for immediate action on administration policies
as part of the nation’s “calling” and “mission”
against terrorism;
- issuing declarations about the will of God for America and the
values of freedom and liberty; and
- demonstrating an intolerance for dissent.
These administration communications controlled public discourse,
pressured Congress (and the United Nations) to rubber stamp administration
policies, engendered a conception of the “war on terror”
as divinely ordained, and silenced dissonant American voices. Just
as important, at no time did the administration’s public communications
suggest an openness to consideration of whether the nation’s
policies might have contributed to the September 11 attacks or to
the possibility that others might effectively contribute to the
shaping of the nation’s response or campaign against terrorism.
The administration did what it wanted, when it wanted, without concern
for others — and its public communications were a key component
of making this form of leadership attractive or at least palatable
to a citizenry reeling from the trauma of September 11.
The administration had help in this process. Mainstream news media
in the United States responded to the terrorist attacks with a nationalism
driven by a journalistic dependence upon political leadership (its
sources) and commercial dependence upon advertisers (its financial
benefactors) and consumers (its audiences). The mainstream press
consistently echoed the administration’s communications from
September 11 to Saddam and Iraq — thereby disseminating, reinforcing
and embedding the administration’s fundamentalist worldview
and helping to keep at bay Congress and any serious questioning
among much of the public. Even in press criticisms of the administration,
which were present during this period, the administration’s
communication emphases resounded.
This book analyzes hundreds of administration communications and
thousands of news stories from September 11, 2001, to Iraq in spring
2003 to examine how this occurred and what it means for U.S. politics
and the global landscape.
God Willing? is published by Pluto
Press (August 2004), and is distributed in the United States
through the University
of Michigan Press.
Mary Bisbee-Beek
Director of Publicity & Foreign Rights Manager
The University of Michigan Press
839 Greene St. Ann Arbor, MI 48106
(734) 764-4330 |
