Lexical fetishism is my term for the increasing prevalence of empty slogans and buzzwords in American political life. At first I thought that this ritualized repetition of meaningless words was just a byproduct of propaganda reaching for the lowest common denominator of misunderstanding, but I think something worse is going on.
We appear to be attempting to substitute language tokens for thought. A token is a marker that represents something larger in size, scope, or complexity. Tokens are convenient, but only as long as they are properly linked to their referents. Dissolve that link and tokens become a valueless currency. In this diary, I suggest that the language tokens of American political discourse are rapidly becoming meaningless. Let's take a look at some worthless modern American political phrases.
Leaving all options on the table
This is coded language for the intention to wage war on Iran. Since almost all observers view an attack on Iran as a militarily and economically disastrous step for America, nobody is willing to openly advocate it. Yet it is considered a sign of "weakness" to refuse to consider attacking Iran. The absurdity of pretending to consider an irresponsible course of action does not seem to be generally appreciated.
Artificial timetable
Timetables are artifacts. They do not occur in wild. The redundancy of "artificial timetables" is intended to connote illegitimacy or unsoundness, yet the term itself is illogical. Any withdrawal of an occupying army from Iraq will require "artificial timetables" if it is to be executed competently, thus such timetables are highly desirable and should not be discredited.
If we don't fight the terrorists there, they will follow us home
The notion that there is an identifiable group of anti-American terrorists neatly clumped in Iraq that is being prevented from traveling to America by the actions of the US occupation is patently absurd. By the same logic, we should be waging war on every country in which terrorist cells exist (Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Indonesia, The Phillipines, etc.) to prevent those terrorists from striking America. The zenith of idiocy in this claim is the mental picture it paints of terrorists actually following American planes as they travel home from Iraq.
Victory
Victory, a word that used to be unambiguous, has now been redefined as "not losing." You can not lose for such a long time that you burn through your treasury, wreck your armed forces, and lose all your allies. That is not much of a "victory." Lately, the Bush administration has been suggesting that victory in Iraq means attaining an "acceptable" level of violence. Guess who will decide what is acceptable?
Support the troops
Supporting the troops no longer means giving them the resources to succeed. It now mainly means saying nothing critical about the Bush administration, while increasing the duration of tours of duty and continuing to cut military benefits.
The lexical fetishism that increasingly dominates American politics is nothing less than a flight from reason toward the supertitious muttering of magical phrases. The conspicuous emptiness of these phrases does not seem to discourage their widening acceptance. We are now in the grip of politicians and institutions whose hold on power depends on feeding the destructive fires of irrationality.