Bush is a Fear Mongers- it's scientific!

http://www.renanabrooks.com/publications.html


" I have researched how Bush has managed to expand his power with a subtle, fear-inducing language structure. As a psychologist who evaluates and treats problematic power patterns in my clients, I have learned to focus on how they use language, to watch not what people in power say but how they say it, and what they achieve or destroy by doing so.
...
Bush uses language to create a black and white, good versus evil, world-view that has strong appeal because it meets people's emotional needs created by the President's language itself. Bush's language structure is similar to the communication structure of an abusive personality.

The goal of any abusive personality is domination, to make their targets do things that they otherwise would not do. Abusers typically use language to create a black and white world where catastrophe is the only perceived alternative to following their demands.
...
An examination of the way George Bush uses language shows that he uses many linguistic techniques characteristic of an abuser to create control over the targeted electorate. An essential first step is his use of empty language. Empty language is devoid of real meaning and does not connect to any great vision, principle, fact or action. Empty language relies on the fact that most people cannot take the time to examine the differences between speakers in much depth. In an analysis of the use of empty language, I used independent raters to compare the words of George W. Bush in his 2000 presidential debates with those of Albert Gore and those used by Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter in their debates in 1980. Bush used 420% more empty language than did Reagan or Gore.

Empty words ultimately dull the listeners' mood and energy, setting the stage for a second abusive technique: using language to create a negative evaluation of the present and future. Bush is a master at developing negative frameworks, often relying on the phrase "crisis" and other words conveying the dark, evil world around us. Whereas most leaders reserve the use of negative evaluations for true emergencies, President Bush addresses a wide range of issues using the word "crisis" or any of its synonyms.

Why George W Bush is Nothing Like Ronald Reagan

Using negativity to gain power is nothing new. It is, however, not common behavior for leaders. It is thus not surprising that President Bush's negative evaluation of present and future is unprecedented for an American president. Comparing Bush's terrorism rhetoric with that of Ronald Reagan, it is easy to see how Reagan favors solutions and positive outcomes to lengthy descriptions of the current problem. Ronald Reagan's October 27th, 1983 national addresses following the terrorist bombing in Lebanon and the Grenada invasion, for example, express an equal amount of language focused on crisis and optimism. President George W. Bush's October 7th 2001 speech, on the other hand, expresses the idea of an ongoing crisis three times for each time that he says something positive or optimistic about the future.

Another unique aspect of Bush's exaggerated pessimism is his tendency to exclude any clear plan of action. Again, Reagan's October 27th 1983 speech provides a base from which to compare. After informing the American public on the situation in Lebanon and Grenada, he asked, "Where do we go from here", and followed with three steps that could be taken to resolve the problem. Unlike Reagan, George W. Bush does not allow the electorate to see the problems they face as having any short or even long-term solution. Bush declared that the war with Iraq "will go on for a long time to come" and that we "will suffer like no people have ever suffered before". Even George W Bush's father, while evaluating the crisis in Kuwait, focussed his energies much more on solutions than problems. In his January 17th 1991 war speech, he mentioned the word "crisis" in the present or past tense 8 times, while never mentioning crisis it in the future tense. In contrast, his son, when describing the military operation in Afghanistan, used optimistic constructs in the present or past 4 times, while using pessimistic constructs in the future tense 8 times.

Once a present and future negative framework is installed, the abusive personality has a much easier time convincing the audience of the severity of the problem at hand. George W Bush has been known to utilize abstract passive construction to suggest that some terrible force outside our control is threatening our survival. He tends to describe these threats or problems as beyond our control, totally overwhelming and lacking any specific solution. An example of abstract passive construction is the administration's color-coded terror threat alert system, which is issued without any specific guidance to the American people other than being vigilant -- and afraid.

The hallmark of the abusive personality is the need to cast itself as the savior though personalization, creating a dependency dynamic. In order to present himself as the only man for the job, Bush uses personalization to contrast his positive "optimistic" personality with the difficult times at hand. Bush openly identifies himself as the only person capable of producing positive outcomes, even when the actions required are vaguely understood. Contrast Bush's signature line in his speech to Congress "I will not falter, I will not tire, I will not fail.." with Kennedy's signature line "ask not what your country can do for you, ask rather what you can do for your country."