Epistemographer

In this week’s New Yorker, there’s a letter to the editor that reads, in part:

“…After September 11, 2001, Bush told the American people that the terrorist attacks were the work of those who hated freedom and democracy. By also characterizing the Iraq conflict as a war in defense of those values, he drew a straight line between the two events, even though no known link between Iraq and the attacks has ever been demonstrated…”
– Daniel J. Hannerman

This is just one example of a trend in American political culture, the increasing use of the “fallacy of the undistributed middle.” In short, it goes like this:

A is related to C;
B is related to C;
Thus A is related to B.

In this case, C is the undistributed middle, the thing that seems to connect A and B. On first glance, this connection seems to make sense, but consider this example:

All trespassers are shot, and John was shot, therefore, John was a trespasser

The middle term, the thing that connects John to being a trespasser, is being shot. However, John might have been shot as part of a mugging, or because he committed suicide. Just because he was shot, you can’t assume that he was a trespasser. I could break out some Venn diagrams, but you get the idea.

So, what does this have to do with the New Yorker quote? Well, it seems that one of the strongest tactics in the political toolkit of the conservative movement these days is the ability to connect two seemingly unrelated concepts through a reified undistributed middle. “Reification”, a la Berger and Luckman, is the process by which knowledge gets separated from the process of its production, and seems to just exist sui generis.

In the case of the war in Iraq, by constructing an idea of “those who hate freedom and democracy” and reinforcing it in speeches, press briefings, and elsewhere, the Bush administration reified this idea of evildoing America-haters, creating a meme that could then be attached to any group or regime in its sights. Thus, by using this reified category as an undistributed middle, the administration was able to connect two essentially unrelated groups (al Quaeda and Iraq) in the minds of the public.

It’s not just “evildoers” – this same tactic has been very successfully deployed by the conservative movement in domestic politics. Consider the word “liberal.” Though I haven’t done any hard historical research on the subject, it seems to me that the connotation of the word “liberal” has been reshaped in the past fifteen years. In short, “liberal” has become reified, detached from any clear referent: in much of popular culture, “liberal” doesn’t stand for a particular set of policy stances, or even a larger philosophical orientation – instead, “liberal” just exists as an “other”, a demonized straw man to knock down with impunity.

You can credit Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich and the rest of the early-1990’s conservatives for this reification, in particular the institution of talk radio, which lends itself easily to this sort of idea-construction (remember Father Coughlin earlier this century): as a reader of Walter Ong might point out, radio is oral, which means that it tends to be circular and repetitive compared with print, which lends itself more easily to complex, linear arguments.

The point here is that by constructing and reifying the idea of a “liberal”, and attaching certain premises to it (“Liberals aren’t in touch with average Americans”, “Tax and Spend”, “Treason“), conservatives can infer that any politician is connected to all these premises just by invoking the “L”-word.

An interesting consequence seems to be that many liberals themselves are running scared from the label “liberal”, and are left without any good language to describe what they stand for (hence, the popular notion that Democrats have no platform). It’s not that Democrats have no platform, it’s that they have no safe language to use to express it, because the linguistic rug has been pulled from under their feet.

So here’s a question with which to end: why haven’t liberals fought back, turning “liberal” back into contested turf rather than just rolling over and trying to work with the political terrain as the conservatives have defined it?

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 3rd, 2003 at 2:54 pm and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.