Along with her mention of Seligman's learned helplessness research, this was
especially interesting:

"To create a dependency dynamic between him and the electorate, Bush
describes the nation as being in a perpetual state of crisis and then
attempts to convince the electorate that it is powerless and that he is the
only one with the strength to deal with it. He attempts to persuade people
they must transfer power to him, thus crushing the power of the citizen, the
Congress, the Democratic Party, even constitutional liberties, to
concentrate all power in the imperial presidency and the Republican Party."

If I didn't know better, I'd think this sort of approach came from the
action heroes we see in movies, video games and comic books.

I wonder how the psychologist would analyze "...depends on what is is."

"Q" wrote in message
...
To all:

I picked up the following article in another ng, so no url. Google if
that's important to you...

-----
P-I Focus: Power of presidency resides in language as well as law

By RENANA BROOKS
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST

George W. Bush is generally regarded as a mangler of the English
language.

What is overlooked is his mastery of emotional language -- especially
negatively charged emotional language -- as a political tool. Take a
closer look at his speeches and public utterances and his political
success turns out to be no surprise. It is the predictable result of
the intentional use of language to dominate others.

Bush, like many dominant personality types, uses dependency-creating
language. He employs language of contempt and intimidation to shame
others into submission and desperate admiration.

While we tend to think of the dominator as using physical force, in
fact most dominators use verbal abuse to control others. Abusive
language has been a major theme of psychological researchers on
marital problems, such as John Gottman, and of philosophers and
theologians, such as Josef Pieper.

But little has been said about the key role it has come to play in
political discourse and in such "hot media" as talk radio and
television.

Bush uses several dominating linguistic techniques to induce surrender
to his will. The first is empty language. This term refers to broad
statements that are so abstract and mean so little that they are
virtually impossible to oppose. Empty language is the emotional
equivalent of empty calories.

Just as we seldom question the content of potato chips while enjoying
their pleasurable taste, recipients of empty language are usually
distracted from examining the content of what they are hearing.
Dominators use empty language to conceal faulty generalizations; to
ridicule viable alternatives; to attribute negative motivations to
others, thus making them appear contemptible; and to rename and
"reframe" opposing viewpoints.

Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech contained 39 examples of empty
language. He used it to reduce complex problems to images that left
the listener relieved that George W. Bush was in charge. Rather than
explaining the relationship between malpractice insurance and
skyrocketing health care costs, Bush summed up: "No one has ever been
healed by a frivolous lawsuit." The multiple fiscal and monetary
policy tools that can be used to stimulate an economy were downsized
to: "The best and fairest way to make sure Americans have that money
is not to tax it away in the first place." The controversial plan to
wage another war on Iraq was simplified to: "We will
answer every danger and every enemy that threatens the American
people." In an earlier study, I found that in the 2000 presidential
debates Bush used at least four times as many phrases containing empty
language as Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Senior or Gore had used in
their debates.

Another of Bush's dominant-language techniques is personalization. By
personalization I mean localizing the attention of the listener on the
speaker's personality. Bush projects himself as the only person
capable of producing results. In his post-9/11 speech to Congress he
said, "I will not forget this wound to our country or those who
inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in
waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American
people." He substitutes his determination for that of the nation's. In
the 2003 State of the Union speech he vowed, "I will defend the
freedom and security of the American people." Contrast Bush's "I will
not yield" etc. with John F. Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can
do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

The word "you" rarely appears in Bush's speeches. Instead, there are
numerous statements referring to himself or his personal
characteristics of folksiness, confidence, righteous anger or
determination as the answer to the problems of the country. Even when
Bush uses "we," as he did many times in the State of the Union speech,
he does it in a way that focuses attention on himself. For example, he
stated: "Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people,
and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility."

In the Jan. 16 New York Review of Books, Joan Didion highlighted
Bush's high degree of personalization and contempt for argumentation
in presenting his case for going to war in Iraq. As Didion writes: "
'I made up my mind,' he had said in April, 'that Saddam needs to go.'
This was one of many curious, almost petulant statements offered in
lieu of actually presenting a case. I've made up my mind, I've said in
speech after speech, I've made myself clear. The repeated statements
became their own reason."

Poll after poll demonstrates that Bush's political agenda is out of
step with most Americans' core beliefs. Yet the public, their
electoral resistance broken down by empty language and persuaded by
personalization, is susceptible to Bush's most frequently used
linguistic technique: negative framework. A negative framework is a
pessimistic image of the world. Bush creates and maintains negative
frameworks in his listeners' minds with a number of linguistic
techniques borrowed from advertising and hypnosis to
instill the image of a dark and evil world around us.

Catastrophic words and phrases are repeatedly drilled into the
listener's head until the opposition feels such a high level of
anxiety that it appears pointless to do anything other than cower.

Psychologist Martin Seligman, in his extensive studies of "learned
helplessness," showed that people's motivation to respond to outside
threats and problems is undermined by a belief that they have no
control over their environment. Learned helplessness is exacerbated by
beliefs that problems caused by negative events are permanent; and
when the underlying causes are perceived to apply to many other
events, the condition becomes pervasive and paralyzing.

Bush is a master at inducing learned helplessness in the electorate.
He uses pessimistic language that creates fear and disables people
from feeling they can solve their problems. In his Sept. 20, 2001,
speech to Congress on the 9/11 attacks, he chose to increase people's
sense of vulnerability: "Americans should not expect one battle, but a
lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. ... I ask you to
live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have
fears tonight. ... Be calm and resolute, even in the face of a
continuing threat." (Subsequent terror alerts by the FBI, CIA and
Department of Homeland Security have maintained and expanded
this fear of unknown, sinister enemies.)

Contrast this rhetoric with Franklin Roosevelt's speech delivered the
day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He said: "No matter how
long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the
American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute
victory. ... There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our
territory and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in
our armed forces with the unbounding determination of our people we
will gain the inevitable triumph so help us God." Roosevelt focuses on
an optimistic future rather than an ongoing threat to Americans'
personal survival.

All political leaders must define the present threats and problems
faced by the country before describing their approach to a solution,
but the ratio of negative to optimistic statements in Bush's speeches
and policy declarations is much higher, more pervasive and more
long-lasting than that of any other president.

Let's compare "crisis" speeches by Bush and Ronald Reagan, the
president with whom he most identifies himself. In Reagan's Oct. 27,
1983, televised address to the nation on the bombing of the U.S.
Marine barracks in Beirut, he used 19 images of crisis and 21 images
of optimism, evenly balancing optimistic and negative depictions. He
limited his evaluation of the problems to the past and present tense,
saying only that "with patience and firmness we can bring peace to
that strife-torn region and make our own lives more secure."

Bush's Oct. 7, 2002, major policy speech on Iraq, on the other hand,
began with 44 consecutive statements referring to the crisis and
citing a multitude of possible catastrophic repercussions. The vast
majority of these statements imply that the crisis will last into the
indeterminate future. There is also no specific plan of action. The
absence of plans is typical of a negative framework, and leaves the
listener without hope that the crisis will ever end.

Contrast this with Reagan, who, a third of the way into his
explanation of the crisis in Lebanon, asked the following: "Where do
we go from here? What can we do now to help Lebanon gain greater
stability so that our Marines can come home? Well, I believe we can
take three steps now that will make a difference."

To create a dependency dynamic between him and the electorate, Bush
describes the nation as being in a perpetual state of crisis and then
attempts to convince the electorate that it is powerless and that he
is the only one with the strength to deal with it. He attempts to
persuade people they must transfer power to him, thus crushing the
power of the citizen, the Congress, the Democratic Party, even
constitutional liberties, to concentrate all power in the imperial
presidency and the Republican Party.

Bush's political opponents are caught in a fantasy that they can win
against him simply by proving the superiority of their ideas. However,
people do not support Bush for the power of his ideas, but out of the
despair and desperation in their hearts. Whenever people are in the
grip of a desperate dependency, they won't respond to rational
criticisms of the people they are dependent on. They will respond to
plausible and forceful statements and alternatives that put the
American electorate back in touch with their core
optimism. Bush's opponents must combat his dark imagery with hope and
restore American vigor and optimism in the coming years. They should
heed the example of Reagan, who used optimism against Carter and the
"national malaise"; Franklin Roosevelt, who used it against Hoover and
the pessimism induced by the Depression ("the only thing we have to
fear is fear itself"); and Clinton (the "Man from Hope"), who used
positive language against the senior Bush's lack of vision. This is
the linguistic prescription for those who wish to retire Bush in 2004.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:00:52 GMT, "Lu Powell"
wrote:

I wonder how the psychologist would analyze "...depends on what is is."

Lu,

I talked to my good friend, "Dr. I. M. Kookie", the world's greatest
psychologist. He replied thusly: "Well, constabulating the hypotenoze
of the equalatal port side coalburner, I would have to say "is is' is
doublespeak."

What I *think* he meant was that it is a sad and perhaps dangerous
time for these United States...

--
Q

PS Dr IM Kookie came from the mind ot the late, great Mike Royko.
Please see:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0196588.html
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...m/a130265.html

The last one has quotes *way* down at the bottom of the page.

noah wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:00:52 GMT, "Lu Powell"
wrote:

I wonder how the psychologist would analyze "...depends on what is is."


If you are attempting to compare Clinton's non-sexual blow-job with
Bush's pre-emptive war, and Weapons of Mass Deception, I would say
that it is not a fair comparison. With Clinton, nobody got f*cked.
With Bush, we all did.

noah

Courtesy of Lee Yeaton,
See the boats of rec.boats
www.TheBayGuide.com/rec.boats

Indeed. You are precisely on target. Clinton got blowjobs. Bush is a
blowjob.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

He fu*ked us all with his quoted. 'Well, I guess I did raise taxes too
much'. Also it was not a lie about a blow job, it was a lie in a
deposition
on sexual harassment suit!
Bill

He shoulda taken the 5th and told whomever was asking the questions that his
personal life was none of their ****ing business. His problem was pussy
footing around (so to speak).

Bush started out lying, now he's trying to pass the buck to the person whose
arm he twisted in order to tell the lie in the first place.

They're both liars. Bush's lies have resulted in American deaths.
Clinton's lie just gave the Republicans a chance to derail his agenda. The
country looses in both cases.

jps

Well, I guess if Bush is a liar because of the "Nuclear Comment", so are
Sen. Kerry and Former President Clinton. They speechified about Saddam's
nuclear ambitions, and the attempt to purchase Yellowcake Uranium from
Africa.
Bill

"jps" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

He fu*ked us all with his quoted. 'Well, I guess I did raise taxes too
much'. Also it was not a lie about a blow job, it was a lie in a
deposition
on sexual harassment suit!
Bill

He shoulda taken the 5th and told whomever was asking the questions that
his
personal life was none of their ****ing business. His problem was pussy
footing around (so to speak).

Bush started out lying, now he's trying to pass the buck to the person
whose
arm he twisted in order to tell the lie in the first place.

They're both liars. Bush's lies have resulted in American deaths.
Clinton's lie just gave the Republicans a chance to derail his agenda.
The
country looses in both cases.

jps

Actually what lie? The statement in the State of the Union Message was "The
British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The brits believed this.
So where is the lie?
Bill

"jps" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

He fu*ked us all with his quoted. 'Well, I guess I did raise taxes too
much'. Also it was not a lie about a blow job, it was a lie in a
deposition
on sexual harassment suit!
Bill

He shoulda taken the 5th and told whomever was asking the questions that
his
personal life was none of their ****ing business. His problem was pussy
footing around (so to speak).

Bush started out lying, now he's trying to pass the buck to the person
whose
arm he twisted in order to tell the lie in the first place.

They're both liars. Bush's lies have resulted in American deaths.
Clinton's lie just gave the Republicans a chance to derail his agenda.
The
country looses in both cases.

jps

Actually what lie? The statement in the State of the Union Message was "The
British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The brits believed this.
So where is the lie?
Bill

By the time the SOTU speech was delivered, the British Government already knew
the documents were forged and had so advised Washington. The brits did *not*
believe it last January, and had not believed it for some time prior.

A lot of us just feel screwed over by the administration. Very simple. "We have
to go to war in Iraq because the SOB has thousands of tons of WMD." (apparently
not so. our position that we knew where the stuff was stashed and our
frustration that Blix wasn't finding it definitely-not just apparently- false).
"We have to go to war in Iraq because SH is on the verge of having a nuclear
arsenal at his disposal."
Once again, not true.

Why didn't Bush just say, "We have to go to war in Iraq because I feel it's in
the best long-term strategic interest of the US to control that territory and
oil and because among all the little ****ant dictators in the area, SH is
likely the worst"? Would have cost him nothing.....and just about now it is
rather obvious to most of the world that those were the *only* two reasons we
went to war in Iraq.

If the American people feel like a kid who just discovered his parents have
been lying to him about Santa Claus because they didn't think they could trust
him to understand the truth.......they are justified.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message ...
Actually what lie? The statement in the State of the Union Message was "The
British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The brits believed this.
So where is the lie?
Bill

The lie comes at the exact moment when, KNOWING FULL WELL, that the
information is fabrication and a forgery, he uses it in the State of
the Union Address, and portrays it as truth.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:04:11 +0000, Gould 0738 wrote:

Actually what lie? The statement in the State of the Union Message
was "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The brits believed this. So where is the lie?
Bill

By the time the SOTU speech was delivered, the British Government
already knew the documents were forged and had so advised
Washington. The brits did *not* believe it last January, and had not
believed it for some time prior.

The SOTU speech was only one speech. We tend to forget the others.
In his Oct. 7 speech, Bush outlined the Iraqi threat. While the
speech is vague enough to preclude the precise definition of a lie, a
la "what is is", *none* of the threats have been proven true.

The speech:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html