Goals for Paper 2

I have long been interested in the rather recently coined political technique called "doublespeak." It is a way of conveying a particular meaning, which rhetoric does, through softened, if you will, language. Doublespeak’s trickery is its real genius; it not only makes terrible, sometimes inhumane acts justified, but it makes the person who uses the device (most of the time a political leader) sound superlative. Take, for instance, the candy-coated validation of the Iraqi war by George Bush when he said we must continue in the war because of “unsubstantiated statements, for the lack of evidentiary support, and for the purported manipulation of intelligence data.” This, to the public, may come across as pure linguistic genius, but it is nothing more than unnecessary banter. My job, then, is to examine why this rhetorical device known as “doublespeak” successfully manipulates or dismisses public opinion in light of the events that can, and do, directly affect them. Perhaps Angus would agree with this technique, disputing that it propels the public to understand political discourse so that they can form opinions based on the arguments beneath the language. Lippman and Bernays, in contrast, would and probably do disagree with this tactic, as it not only disguises human error—for example, the use of military terms like “collateral damage” which actually means the unintentional death of innocent civilians by military action—but it also displaces that fault on other people.