The Senate Votes on Tropes and the Troops

The US Senate will make linguistics history today. Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell actually brought to the floor a bill based on a linguistic trope called "metonymy." The bill also makes history by trying to censure an ad. But the most "damning" part of the censure is not what is in the ad, but what is in the heads of people who use the metonymy trope.

Here's an example of how metonymy works. It is a mental operation. If you say, "The US invasion toppled Saddam Hussein," you mean it toppled the government of Saddam Hussein. The Leader stands for the Institution he or she leads. In a frame containing both a leader of a government and the government, the Leader can stand for the Government.

This metonymy works for generals as well. A general in uniform reporting to Congress can be seen simply as himself. But if you use the Leader-for-Institution metonymy, you can see the general as standing for the entire armed forces. Thus, an attack on the general can be seen, if you use the metonymy, as an attack on the entire military. The use of the metonymy isn't automatic in this case. People can use it or not. If not, an attack on the general is just an attack on the general.

The Republicans' own use of this metonymy is coming up in the Senate today. It is in a Republican bill to censure the use of the metonymy -- by the Republicans themselves!

If this seems strange, it is. But here is the situation.

MoveOn.org published their "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad last week, pointing out deceptions by the general that would result in keeping the troops in Iraq, keeping them in danger of maiming or death. The general's deception, MoveOn indirectly pointed out, would result in harm to the troops, and so Petraeus' deception amounted to a betrayal of his own men, as well as a betrayal of the trust of the American people. Paul Begala, a moderate Democrat recently expressed his agreement with MoveOn. MoveOn did not say anything against the troops. On the contrary, MoveOn expressed concern for the safety of the troops.

Ari Fleisher's Freedom's Watch -- the White House's swift-boating group -- used the metonymy in an attack on MoveOn. Bradley A. Blakeman, president of Freedom's Watch, said "To question the character and patriotism of brave men and women who combat terrorism everyday is too much, it's in poor taste and it will not go unchallenged." MoveOn's questioning of the character and patriotism of a general caught in a deception adversely affecting the lives of his own troops was, via the Freedom's Watch metonymy, turned in to an attack on the troops. Who used the metonymy? Not MoveOn, but the Republicans attacking MoveOn.

Now the scene moves to the US Senate. Senator John Cornyn of Texas has introduced a bill saying the following:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.

It goes on to condemn MoveOn as the source of the "attacks." Now how did "and all the members of the United States Armed Forces" get in there? By metonymy! A metonymy used not by MoveOn, but by Senator Cornyn himself! The bill is actually condemning the people who wrote and introduced it, Cornyn and Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

This is indeed a red-letter day for the Senate. All linguists, English teachers, communications experts, and students of language nationwide should hereafter celebrate September 20 as Metonymy Day. Indeed, I recommend that some member of the Senate introduce that declaration into an amendment to some bill or other.

Comments

[Sundialsvc4]

Is it just me... or is "supporting the troops" SUPPOSED to be nothing more than a slogan that you attach to a yellow magnetic bumper-sticker?

[Plisko]

What annoys me the most is that now people, even on the liberal and Democratic side, are accepting the narrative that the Republicans want: That this was an unwise move and MoveOn may have helped the Republicans. Everyone who wants to appear "reasonable" in the phony sense, has been and will continue to take that position. I'm expecting to hear the same narrative from Bill Mahr on his show this weekend.

This is Whitehouse messaging at it's finest. It's like a Pepsi commercial. You create a premise, "The Choice Of A New Generaton," you repeat it all over the place and, the next thing you know, people are talking all on their own about how their choices relate to their generation.

If a General is allowing himself to be used as a tool and presenting facts that are manipulated. . . it sort of IS a betrayal of the citizen's trust isn't it? Even if he is ordered to do so. Nobody seems to have the guts to stand up for the position that the ad may be asking a legitimate question. Everyone just wants to go along with the staged narrative that it was a bad question right from the get go.

I don't think it was.

[lgillooly]

Whoever controls the media controls the debate and will win every time. Until the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated they will win.period­!

[CarnegieHill]

Memo to Timezoned (and others): I'm all for getting "their" attention.

But as any parent or teacher knows, there's no surer way for a kid to get your attention than by "acting up".

The trick isn't to get their attention, anger them and have them charge you, brandishing spears --- it's to seduce them, convince them, flip their allegiance.

And if you must confront them, okay --- but not at the cost of alienating your friends.

Marketing 101.....

[Timezoned]

I simply disagree with your premise.

Who defines what gets called "acting out"?

The right wing critiques of general Abizaid this week? (link below)

Is there a huge outrage over this? Are you screaming for heads over it?

Anyone who tells me that they, themselves are genuinely outraged by the MoveOn ad, fair enough (though again, permit me to doubt, since the same outrage isn't raised over the right doing the same).

It's those of you who say "well no, but we must avoid ruffling feathers on the right", this I reject utterly.

I submit that this was the dominant thinking over the past six years, ever since 9/11. How'd that work out for us?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/19/criticizing-generals-is-just-alright-for-conservatives-that-is/

[Timezoned]

By the way, the quote I cited was from Gandhi. He had a different idea about winning strategies. Inducing riducule and then even anger is okay sometimes, as long as you eventually win.

[Timezoned]

Another take on all this: I watched as the general was elevated to mythic status during the weeks and months before the presentation to Congress, with Bush begging off all questions about Iraq with "wait for Petreaus", which was then echoed by all the sychopants in Congress and the media. This is particularly interesting in that this general was practially ignored in the past, until they realized that his critiques of the current strategy had merit. Suddenly, he was a warrior-god, a seer, and etc etc. It was pretty weird, and striking, even before all this floo-fla about the ad.

So then when this ad came out it just went SO against this meme that had been set up, I think it genuinely shocked the right wingers. It just went entirely against the mythology they had been creating in their own little world.

Good. It brought them back to reality in a sense, that way. I don't neccesarily agree with the ad's approach but good lord, that's not the issue. The level of outrage here is way beyond disagreeing with a message style, and were they not utter hypocrites they'd be just as outraged about every right wing criticism of generals, and believe me those have been legion. No pun intended.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

Can't get to step four without going through step two. I think we can say this got their attention.

[booker52]

I say if they are all still talking about this ad, then it did what it was suppose to!!! Good on them, seems to have got Bush angry. Gee, ain't I happy over that.

[Plisko]

The troops are fighting for our rights to put provocative ads in the paper and post our free speech. It is the most American thing you can do. It is the foundation of our democracy to have a voice in the public debate. All voices are welcome because we are Americans. Free speech even trumps the troops because, if we don't have it, they are fighting for our enemy, not us.

To condemn this MoveOn ad is to condemn the sacrifices our troops have made for our freedoms. It is to condemn America. How dare those who condemn free speech be so unamerican!

See! Is it so hard to turn around? Jesus Democrats are useless in the public dialog.

[booker52]

All the GOP has done is to show what idiots they are. This just proves it, that and their votes yesterday, that also didn't support the troops.

[syllepsis]

Metonymic thinking is authoritarian and monarchist in nature ( 'the Crown' as a metonym for the government of Imperial Britain, for example). By conflating Petraeus with the entire military, the Republicans are able to create a rhetorical bottleneck that renders irrelevant the sufferings and views of ordinary soldiers, and camouflages their heartless opposition to the Webb Amendment.

[RogerHWerner]

The Moveon.org ad was unfortunate since it seems to have helped change the legislative debate. Cornyn's bill is rather like the bills banning flag burning: They sound great, are directed at something everyone can support, but in the end were pointless, serving to keep people's minds off of what really matters.

Calling an opponent a name is always in poor taste and rarely accomplishes anything. Calling opponents a name is certainly not the way to change their minds. In this case, the name calling helped legislators feel sorry for poor David Petraeus. Yes, the name Be tray us did sound very 1960ish.

Cornyn's bill won't go anywhere and most legislators will see it for what it is: Shameless pandering to the GOP base. Those opposed to Bush and the war will ignore the moveon.org ad while the GOP will grasp at anything to refocus the debate away from Bush. What this name did is give the Beltway crowd something irrelevant to argue about until the next irrelevancy plays out.

[certainot]

unfortunately the GOP will win these kinds of battles until its talk radio monopoly is restricted by some new kind of Fairness Doctrine. the MSM's attacks on Moveon are T'd up by the uncontested repetition all over the country earlier in the day and week and would never have reached the Senate floor without limbaugh/hannity and co.

limbaugh/hannity and their crew reach tens of millions and their synchronized lies, distortions, and threats are what keep GOP politicians in line to prevent a veto proof majority and enable the mountainous hypocricy we now see in washington and the rest of the MSM.

guys like cornyn and mcconnnel know they're sitting on a giant talk radio bandwagon when they do this kind of crap and will continue until progressives start taking their signs and boycotts to the LOCAL talk radio stations that fill our public airwaves and catapult the state propaganda.

the moneon ad was right on, even with the rhyme that will stay in my head whenever i see patreaus, even though much of what their volunteer citizens can do can be largely undone by a few chickenhawk blowhards and armchair warrions with giant microphones.

[CarnegieHill]

Prof. Lakoff is sadly off his game here.

The MoveOn ad proved nothing about Congress we didn't already know. Its brilliant"success" --- it changed the debate from the war to the Left/Dems.

And that took me back to the late '60s, when a great many members of SDS and other radical groups were government plants.

The better question Prof, Lakoff might have asked: Did MoveOn betray us?

A few more ads like this.....

[StewartBrand]

George, if I hadn't left the once-wonderful MoveOn.org a couple years ago, I would have over the "Betray Us" ad. Petraeus is the general we should have had commanding in Iraq from the beginning.

Is there anyone with military service in their background at MoveOn? You are right to inveigh against "chickenha­wks." How about chickendoves?

This former Army officer found the MoveOn ad counterproductive in every way. If you had a part in encouraging it, that is a shame.

--Stewart Brand

[Robert59]

This retired Air Force officer came to a different conclusion Stewart.

What has Petraeus done? Put a bunch of Sunnis with guns on the payroll, but are they committed to becoming part of the Maliki government or overthrowing it? Have they renounced violence against Shiites? Hell, almost all Sunnis polled said it's okay to kill Americans.

In Baghdad, violence is down because the Sunnis have all left town.

Bush is attempting to take his face off this milk carton and plaster Petraeus' on it.

And the Republicans who so love the military turn on it rather quickly when its members get off topic. I thought the smear campaign against those 7 NCOs took the cake, but the attack dogs are now ripping up Abizaid for saying we could live with a nuclear Iran.

Just because I was in the military doesn't mean I'm obligated to drink the same koolaid the White House is pushing.

Too bad Move On can't come up with something equally cute to describe another great American, Powell. Now there's a traitor.

[Plowboy]

We have no need of friends like StewartBrand. We have enough enemies already. Stew, our trroops are there to serve America, not George W. Bush. When the general took on the mission of selling Bush policies rather than reporting truthfully to the Congress and the People, he betrayed his sovereign, the People! I hold him in great contempt. Thanks, MoveOn.
I believe that anyone who really supports the troops would despise an administration that has reduced their benefits (for the sake of tax breaks for the nonserving wealthy.) I think that anyone who supported the troops would despise one who sent them on unjust missions for the benefit of others, rather than the proper defense of the nation. I believe that anyone who supports the troops would condemn an administration that skimped on their needed gear (in order to further enrich cronies.) And I believe that anyone who supports the troops woiuld want a crony who cheated on food service, and even served the troops foul food, put in jail rather than given more no-bid contracts to cheat on.
I also believe that anyone who cared for America would stand up for the ideals we have proclaimed, the
values that have been central to our traditions, and the rights guaranteed in our Constitution. Those are the things our troops are meant to defend, not Neocon notions of hegemony, not Bush lies, not Zionist dreams of expansion and domination.
I believe that we the people should be supported by our troops, that in turn, we should deal fairly with them and, most especially, never ask them to undertake a mission for any other purpose.
I believe in patriotism and despise that foul Patriot Act.
When an administration violates our trust, when it deviates from its duty to serve the people justly and fairly, when it undertakes clearly criminal actions, I am reminded that "sometimes treason the highest form of patriotism­." But that is not what the MoveOn ad questioned about our general.

[gro]

Golly, if only MoveOn hadn't been so confrontational maybe they wouldn't have made the talking points list. Maybe if we all signed a loyalty oath to our Unitary Executive, we'd be better Americans. Maybe if we all just closed our eyes and ears the war wouldn't matter as much!
Like Randy Newman' Political Science song, "How easy it will be, we'll set everybody free!"

[SgtCedar]

Why not make an amendment to make September 20 Metonymy Day to Senator Cornyn's bill? It would be appropriate.

[Richard729]

Republicans typically express outrage and indignation whenever they see an opportunity to exploit the military. Not wasting a minute, Republicans have launched attacks against their most despised Democrat, Hillary Clinton, and demanded that she condemn the MoveOn.org ad which criticized General Petraeus's testimony before the U.S. Congress.

Now, Texas Senator John Cornyn is demanding another condemnation of MoveOn.org in a sense of the Senate Resolution in a purely partisan attempt to put Democrats on the defense and allow the Republicans to set the talking points for the November 2008 general election.

Recently, Republican House Minority leader John Boehner said that the loss of U.S. military lives in Iraq is a small price to pay to perpetuate Bush's preemptive, illegal war which has held all Americans hostage to his ego. Boehner stated “The investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here.” The “small price” he refers to is the 3,780 dead US troops and counting.

It's absolutely clear: Republicans love this Iraq War precisely because they can diminish and desensitize the value of American lives as quickly as they deny statistics compiled by several international agencies that have put the deaths of Iraqi men, women and children between 700,000 and 1.2 million since the beginning of Bush's preemptive bombing, invasion and occupation of that country in March 2003.

John Cornyn's resolution is only one of many such rhetorical tactics which Republicans will use to sanctify and endorse the use of force, spill innocent lives and continue go-it-alone bellicose policies that have endangered all Americans and the civilized world.

It is not at all surprising or coincidental that these war hawks like John Cornyn who did not serve a day in the military were chicken hawks when it was their time to step up to the plate and serve our country during the Viet Nam War.