In at least two diary threads where I've posted, someone has used the term "echo chamber" to characterize disparagingly the general atmosphere of assent. While I believe one of these posts was by a troll—I can't find it now—I think the term stings because many of us fear exactly what is intended by use of the term: that we are only consoling ourselves that we are not alone in our positions. I make this surmise not because I'm claiming to read the mind of every or even a handful of Daily Kos members, but because it's a thought that haunts me sometimes. As a member of a community of many like minds, I'm only making the modest assumption that some must share this misgiving, but I'd be happy to be wrong.
But whether I'm alone or other are others who share this misgiving, it seems the use of "echo chamber" as a term of reproach has a paralyzing effect on discussions. It shouldn't, and despite my misgivings, I think there is great value to a community where the discussion is among those who share the same premises and positions: I doubt that the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute fret very much that they are echo chambers, for example. You may object that Heritage and AEI are not just think tanks, but media outlets to right wing officials and policy intellectuals, and well funded ones at that. But that they are also those things does not change that they are still think tanks where substantial assent obtains in discussion, and that has been to the benefit of the right. So the question and the challenge: if the right has been able to turn discursive agreement into rhetorical weapons, why haven't we? What do we need to learn from our opponents that we can best use against them?
One curious thing about agreement is how much can go unstated; take, for example, the latest testimony that Donald Rumsfeld was looking use 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq, coming this time from White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke, first posted in
this diary entry by
Armando. There was almost complete agreement that Sec'y Rumsfeld's statement was dreadful, and assent that the Dems should hammer away on the matter. It was mentioned in passing a few times that the war on Iraq was wrong and/or a distraction from the pursuit and destruction of al Qaeda. This was not, on my reading at least, the main topic of the thread.
Let's step back from this discussion somewhat. What are the possible contexts in which someone might find Rumsfeld's statement horrible?
- It's possible that someone could supported our actions in Iraq (for a variety of reasons which I won't go into here), but viewed Rumsfeld's emphasis on Iraq as a miscalculation or something said in the heat of the moment. It was an awful thing to say because it showed that he was inept, too blockheaded or emotional to be competent. I admit this may seem a stretch, but Joe Lieberman was not just unapologetic but proud of of his vote for the war in Iraq, and he did garner votes in the primaries, so some Dems must hold views similar to this.
- More likely, someone could find Rumsfeld's remarks abominable because it was al Qaeda, plain and simple, who attacked the WTC and Pentagon, and so it should have been al Qaeda and their hosts, the Taliban, that we should have attacked first. Someone holding this position may or may not have supported the Iraq war.
- Finally, someone could find Rumsfeld's remarks beyond the pale because they first and foremost opposed the Iraq war as an agressive war of choice, not necessity.
There are probably other possible contexts in which someone might feel that Rumsfeld's statement is sufficient cause to toss the administration out in November, but for simplicity's sake, let's keep it to those three. (this diary entry is already too long, and I'm afraid we have miles to go—unless I've put the reader to sleep already!)
To summarize then, it's possible to have people who supported the war in Iraq find it reprehensible, as well as people who were changed their minds about war in Iraq, and people who were opposed to war in Iraq. I can't say how large each group is (although my inclination is to think that the first group is quite small), but obviously opposition to Rumsfeld's statement, and therefore opposition to the administration's conduct of foreign and military policy can span the spectrum of views on Iraq. This news item should be a winner then, right?
Not so fast. Let's step back again and consider what the three positions described above all have in common: whether they support the war in Iraq or not, they all subordinate it as matter of importance to the battle against al Qaeda.
But of course, you say—isn't it obvious?
Unfortunately, it's not obvious—because the relative importance of defeating al Qaeda versus deposing Saddam Hussein is not a fact. Their relative importance is, instead, a function of the still larger interpretive scheme or frame in which the basic facts have been placed.
Consider this passage from Bush's address to the joint session of Congress on 9/20/2001:
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.
They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.
These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way.
complete text on line at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
So from the start, the official response to 9/11 was not simply a resolve to track down and destroy al Qaeda, but a monumental and even apocalyptic war against the enemies of freedom—a freedom that Bush ironically described as
...not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.
What the President's speechwriter created here is nothing less than the Mother of all Interpretive Schemes—the battle between Good and Evil, between terror and freedom, right now, on Earth. The short name for this is the War on Terror. For those who place the facts in this frame, it is of little matter that Donald Rumsfeld wanted to go after Iraq even as the World Trade Center collapsed or as he could smell the burning rubble of the Pentagon, for the enemy was all enemies of freedom—whether Saddam Hussein or al Qaeda was first was a matter of detail. And don't be surprised if you find someone who accepts this frame arguing that Rumsfeld was right because a prior victory in Iraq would have changed the balance of power in the entire region, and then al Qaeda could have been totally routed.
It is this framework for interpretation that players on the mighty Wurlitzer give out in their every article, radio broadcast, and television apperance. It is this framework that we who oppose the administration "don't get." It is this framework that will likely cause Andrew Sullivan to put aside the importance of gay marriage and pull the level for Bush in November. And it is this framework that we reinforce every time we use the phrase "War on Terror."
It is this framework that needs to be challenged and smashed. It is nothing less than license for our government to engage in premptive war and restrict our civil liberties, regardless of the party that holds the Oval Office or controls the House or Senate. If John Kerry takes office in November within an unchallenged framework of a "War on Terror," the Republicans will have succeed in making the Democrats resemble them, and will have set the stage for future Republican victories.
The task of destroying the frame will be an enormous one, and the Dems are at a disadvantage, because they lack the funds, party discipline, and access to the media that the Republicans have. This should not prevent us from making what efforts we can, however. And this is where the distinction between an Echo Chamber and an Amplifier comes in.
Echoes are repetitions that die away, and each repetition becomes fainter and less distinct than the last. A signal through an amplifier increases in magnitude while retaining all its significant detail.
Imagine that you are outdoors and someone is playing an instrument in the distance. Absent amplification, you will hear only faint traces. With amplification, you can perhaps tell what instrument the person is playing, and perhaps even what piece of music. The subtleties may be lost, but if you approach the source of the music, you can catch them.
To bring the analogy back home, when we write and discuss here, we such do it with the intention of trying to amplify the essential—namely, whatever can weaken the interpretive framework of the "War on Terror"—and make it more pugent, catchy, attention-getting. At the same time, we must not neglect the nuances and details that, should someone want to challenge or go beyond the sound-bite, will keep the alternate frame robust. Furthermore, what phrases and tropes we develop here, we should use in our daily conversation, both with those who agree and disagree with us, in our correspondence with newspapers and elected officials. Having now refined the signal while maintaining its nuances, we now broadcast it.
My own contribution to breaking the frame of the "War on Terror" has been to suggest that we simply not use the phrase and instead always use the phrase "War on al Qaeda." I've repeated it in a number of discussions and apologize if its become tiresome—but remember the currency that the phrase "War on Terror" has.
There are other weak points in the reigning frame. I'm not sure how best to attack them, but it's worth listing some of them:
- that we are engaged in a war against evil;
- that our enemies are the enemies of freedom;
- that any act directed against evil is therefore not evil;
- that this war is our great challenge, its victory will bring more glory and honor to the United States than our role in the Second World War.
I have to confess I don't know how to characterize the frame that will replace the current "War on Terror" frame. The "War on al Qaeda" will be, I hope, a strong segment of it, but it will not be its whole, just as the phrase "War on Terror" doesn't contain or exhaust all the presuppositions within that frame.
I do know that even if Kerry wins, the "War on Terror" frame will persist. Our work will not be over then, but at least it can continue under more favorable conditions.