“What Bush Said: The War on Terror and the Rhetorical Situation”

Download PDF

About the Author

Ross Fitzpatrick is an undergraduate student at the University of Kansas, double majoring in English and Political Science. He is also a member of the university’s policy debate team and the Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society.

Contents

Introduction

Methods: Rhetorical Analysis

Analysis/Results: Events Producing Speech

Analysis/Results: Speech Producing Action

Conclusion

References

Appendix A: Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework Graphic

Appendix B: Table of Speeches and Rhetorical Roles Identified

Conclusion

Much can be said about Bush’s agenda and the efficacy or inefficacy of his politics. However, one must recognize his undoubtedly effective use of rhetoric. To return to the original debate between Vatz and Bitzer, it seems to some extent they were both correct. Clearly, the attacks of September 11 necessitated a rhetorical response from the Administration. However, rhetoric is what turned September 11, 2001, into 9/11. Rhetoric determined the long course of the War on Terror. Without 9/11, it is extremely unlikely Bush would have been able to effectively manipulate the three streams of public policy to open policy windows wide enough to sustain two major wars, the creation of a new cabinet-level position in the Department of Homeland Security, and the development of comprehensive national security apparatus. But these windows were opened and sustained by the use of rhetorical tropes that appealed to an American sense of identity, loss, and, most prominently, fear. It can be seen that Bush’s rhetoric had a real effect on both public attitudes concerning the War in Iraq and the War on Terror generally.

The connections between Rhetoric and Composition and Public Policy as academic disciplines provide new analytical frames and tools that can be used by scholars from both sides to craft more realistic, grounded, and accurate accounts of both specific “rhetorical situations” as well as the nature of the rhetorical situation and the development of policy as a whole. Combining strategies from the fields of Public Policy and Rhetoric and Composition deepens an understanding of the “rhetorical ecologies” through which speech circulates. Not only can individuals understand the processes that produce change, but also how those processes are forwarded by rhetorical choices. These connections have the potential to provide academics with the political knowledge and access necessary to forge real political change, even on a small scale, and give political scientists access to new techniques to understand how and why policy is enacted. As a result, political thinkers, rhetoricians, and the public writ large have the ability to construct counter-rhetorics and pragmatic strategies that may help us avoid another Afghanistan or another Iraq. As demonstrated in the context of the War on Terror, without an ability to effectively counter the rhetoric of the Administration, the media, Congress, and the public allowed Bush to take the steps he did. In hindsight, it is easy to see some of the potential disasters coming. But as they say, hindsight has a lot more data on state building.