On the basis of Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis this work will examine the discourse in two speeches by George W. Bush and Barack Obama to determine in what way they legitimize the War on Terror.
Although speeches on terrorism have been part of American politics for a long time, since 2001 as a result of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, they seem to have become more important, both with ex-President Bush and the current President Obama. On the morning of September 11, 2001 the world changed with the terrorist attacks and then the political discourse surrounding the event changed our understanding of the event even further. The world witnessed a great act of terrorism.
In the weeks, months, and years to come Bush gave a series of speeches in which he focused on terrorism, leading up to the coinage of the "Axis of evil". However, in his first post 9/11 speech, Bush's discourse categorized the terrorist as "evil", and in his first speech to Congress post 9/11 we hear for the first time the phrase "War on Terror". This phrase has come to define the presidency of George Bush. It was inherited and further refined by President Obama and has now also to a degree come to define his presidency. In September 2014 Obama held a speech on ISIL and declared them a terrorist organisation with barbaric values. Though 13 years had passed and a democratic President had replaced a Republican President, these words sounds very similar to some of the words which Bush used in his speech.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Thesis Statement
Defining Terrorism
Theoretic Framework
Analysis and Discussion of George Bush's Speech
Analysis and Discussion of Barack Obama’s Speech
Conclusion
Objectives & Research Themes
This work aims to examine the political discourse in speeches by George W. Bush and Barack Obama regarding the "War on Terror," utilizing Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to determine how these leaders legitimize their counter-terrorism policies and construct the image of the enemy.
- Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of presidential rhetoric
- The construction of national identity and American Exceptionalism
- Evolution of the meaning of terrorism from 9/11 to 2014
- The "Us" vs. "Them" polarization in political communication
- Legitimization strategies in wartime political discourse
Excerpt from the Book
Analysis and Discussion of George Bush's Speech
The first analysis will examine George Bush's' address to the Joint Session of the 107th Congress on September 20, 2001, nine days after the terrorist attacks.
As stated earlier, according to Norman Fairclough language is a central part of the structure of a society. As such there exists a constant dialectical relationship between the framework of society and the way language is used. This entails that whenever the act of language is used a form of social practise also takes place. Thus, it can be stated that text and language influence people's minds, and thus a discourse may indirectly influence people's action through persuasion and manipulation. Other discourse analysts have argued, along the same line that this means that the groups who control the most powerful and influential discourse also have a greater chance to control the minds and actions of others. Such powers of the dominant group may be integrated in society's laws, rules, norms, habits and even a quite general consensus leading to hegemony.
As previously mentioned, we will use Fairclough's three-level model of discourse in our analysis at attempt to uncover discourses and ideologies within the text.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides context for the study of terrorism in American politics and sets the stage for the analysis of presidential speeches post-9/11.
Thesis Statement: Outlines the project's aim to use Norman Fairclough’s CDA to analyze how Bush and Obama legitimize the War on Terror.
Defining Terrorism: Explores the historical and political shifts in the definition of terrorism over the last two centuries.
Theoretic Framework: Introduces Norman Fairclough’s three-level model of discourse as the methodology for the analysis.
Analysis and Discussion of George Bush's Speech: Analyzes the linguistic and discursive strategies used by Bush to establish the War on Terror.
Analysis and Discussion of Barack Obama’s Speech: Examines Obama’s speech on ISIL to determine if his discursive strategies mirror or differ from Bush’s.
Conclusion: Synthesizes findings, concluding that despite time passing, both presidents utilize remarkably similar discourses to maintain hegemony.
Keywords
Critical Discourse Analysis, War on Terror, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Norman Fairclough, Terrorism, Ideology, Hegemony, American Exceptionalism, Political Discourse, Discursive Practice, Us vs Them, Legitimation, Rhetoric, National Identity
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
The research focuses on the rhetorical and discursive strategies used by George W. Bush and Barack Obama to legitimize the War on Terror and construct specific identities for both the US and its enemies.
What are the central thematic areas?
Key areas include the role of language in political power struggles, the concept of American Exceptionalism, the framing of "evil," and the construction of the "Us vs. Them" dichotomy.
What is the main research question?
The work seeks to answer how George W. Bush and Barack Obama use discourse to legitimize the War on Terror within their respective presidencies.
Which methodology is applied?
The study utilizes Norman Fairclough’s three-level model of Critical Discourse Analysis, examining the textual level, discursive practice, and social practice.
What does the main body of the work cover?
It provides a detailed analysis of two specific presidential speeches, evaluating vocabulary choices, sentence structure, and intertextual links to history and previous conflicts.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Keywords include Critical Discourse Analysis, War on Terror, American Exceptionalism, Hegemony, and Political Discourse.
How does the author define the "Us vs. Them" discourse in this context?
The author identifies it as a polarising linguistic strategy where "Us" (the US and allies) represents civilisation, freedom, and justice, while "Them" (terrorists) represents evil, barbarism, and a threat to global order.
What conclusion does the author reach regarding the discourse of the two presidents?
The author concludes that despite being separated by thirteen years and different political parties, Obama continues to rely on and refine the hegemonic War on Terror discourse established by Bush.
Why is the "Axis of Evil" and "Failed States" significant to the author?
These terms are analyzed as examples of labels that have been applied so broadly that they serve as powerful, albeit potentially hollow, linguistic tools to maintain support for specific foreign policy agendas.
- Citar trabajo
- Martin Lausten (Autor), 2014, Language at War. A Critical Discourse Analysis by Speeches of Bush and Obama on War and Terrorism, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/324269
