Many people think we’re at war. They talk about the war on terror and the war in Iraq. They talk about the war in Afghanistan and the war against radical Islam. What kind of war is it when a thousand of our soldiers have died while over ten times as many civilians outside of this country have lost their lives? How can we be at war when no nation-state has declared war against us?

Contrary to the bumper stickers and the newsmakers, we are not at war. No one is invading our country and trying to take it over. No one is surrounding us and demanding we hand over our properties and surrender, or else.

Instead of being “at war,” we’re in fact living through a time of imperialist invasion, but due to the stunted rhetorical machine which inhabits our media and our politicians, it is rare for individuals to see clearly and communicate reality. Recently, a Bush policy wonk suggested Saddam Hussein would still be in office if Kerry “had his way.” He was arguing the line that we could either change the regime in Iraq or “do nothing.” Another said terrorists “prefer” that Kerry were in office. Talking heads floating through the television stations and radio programs infer that John Kerry is “weak” on defense based upon the fact that George Bush is “strong.” Why can’t both candidates be strong on defense? Why can’t both be “tough” on terrorists? Why, if one is a tough talking commander-in-chief, the other is a wimp?

It's clear we are living in an age of rhetorical violence. Language has become a weapon to destroy, undermine, wound and manipulate rather than a tool to build, create, clarify, explicate. Through advertisements trimmed and distorted, through five second snippets, through interesting though useless one-liners, we’re pummeled by over-simplification and repetition. We're trapped in binary opposition. We're locked in either/or thinking. The two candidates have to devise cheap strategies to survive. One sees the mean, the other sees the median. One sees job growth, the other sees absence. One sees progress made in Iraq, the other sees a mess there. One sees help for the elderly, the other sees reductions in social security.

This crippling illogic does not allow for exploration but rather drives complex problems into one-dimensional boxes, easy to wrap in clever but meaningless sound bites. President Bush’s most famous use of this thinking—you’re either with us or against us—undercut any kind of discussion regarding how we deal with the complicated issue of sharing the world with people who think and act differently than Western capitalists. He also set up oppositions by completely discounting the U.N., by brushing off allies, and by shutting off any kind of dissent.

Either/or thinking can only produce the deadly stupefying art of labeling, the most odious of debate tactics. Hence, Kerry is a flip-flopper, a liar, a liberal. Once the label sticks, it is easy to practice mocking your opponent. Sarcasm electrifies those who see only their "team" as right, and ridicule mobilizes and mesmerizes those who do the us/them trip. Perhaps I haven't been paying attention all these years, but the attacks upon Kerry at the Republican Convention had little to do with substance and much to do with invective, scorn, contempt and insult, which lead to plenty of laughs, but the laughter was directed at others, not at the speech-maker. This is true recently of George Bush’s speeches. He summons laughter at the expense of his rival, whom he should respect.

And this is the point.

Somewhere along the way we've lost our humility, our empathy and our ability to accept that others may not think like we do, and yet to respect that difference. We've lost the notion, a great one to my mind, that in this country, the wealthy can make as much money as they want, just so it is not at the expense of others; that people can do just about anything they want, just so it does not infringe upon others; and that minority voices need acknowledging and accommodation even as the majority receives its ruling due. Thinking in black and white, in moral absolutes, in an us/them lockbox, damages these humble yet powerful concepts and undermines our humanity.

Elections should be informative, interesting, exciting and probative. They should be provocative, innovative, challenging, and yet somehow reassuring. We should be asked to participate and we should be presented with multiple plans that serve the greater good, that ennoble us. We should be presented with a banquet of wise and thoughtful ideas and actions from which to chose, and all these choices should be life enhancing and should make us glad we're able to participate in such an event. This time of the election cycle should be a celebration, a joyous ritual, a time of great transformation and progress, of dialogue and debate, of community and fellowship.

However, in this election season, we might as well be at war.

Steve Backus (sbackus@css.edu) works with the Northland Anti-war Coalition of Duluth, Minnesota.

###