« Race, the Economy, and the 2008 Election | Main | Unipolarity is what states make of it »

Wars on everything

Politicians are fond of comparing things that aren’t war to war. It’s both an abuse of language and a rhetorical trick. We hear about war, and we think whatever bold actions this politician is asking us to take must be worth it because, well, it’s war.

That’s from a brief piece by John Dickerson over at Slate, here.

That got me thinking: What are these “wars” all about? So I did a Google search on the phrase “war on.” It turns out that lots of different rhetorical wars are indeed going on, just as Dickerson says. Some of the objects of these wars had escaped my notice until now, e.g., “the war on condoms” (2,680 hits), the “war on greed” (15,900), the “war on voting” (33,400), and even “the war on sex” (50,400). I guess I haven’t been paying close enough attention to some of these issues. Of the four just listed, the only one I pay much attention to is voting, which figures because I’m a political scientist.

Anyway, my Google search on “war on” produced 25,800,000 hits. No, I didn’t examine each of these to see what they were all about, who the combatants are, how extensive the body counts are, and whether the lights at the ends of these assorted tunnels are yet in sight.

I did, however, do some follow-up searches in which I specified the object of the “war on.” When I did that, I found that the “war on terror” easily topped the list, with 8,700,000 hits. No surprise there. The only other war within striking distance was the “war on drugs,” with 2,290,000 hits. From there, it was all the way down to 786,000 for the “war on poverty” (which was the first of these wars that I can recall but now seems to have fallen out of favor with those of a warlike disposition). Wars are also being fought on numerous other fronts. Of these, the one in which I feel the least personal stake, also unsurprisingly, is the “war on Christmas” (614,000). Apparently the war on Christmas is of much greater import than the wars on either crime or cancer (188,000 and 172,000, respectively). Go figure.

Maybe it’s time to declare a war on politicians who use inflated war imagery?

Comments

Here’s a fun term-paper project: expand the above analysis and adjust for time effects (i.e., more recent events are more likely to be on the web).

(Digressing slightly…) There’s a Wilco song called “War on War.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2ykHinIPg

“Of the four just listed, the only one I pay much attention to is voting, which figures because I’m a political scientist.”

That was hilarious.

Jonah Goldberg goes on about this in Liberal Fascism. Declaring war on something invokes memories of sweeping government powers and bureaucracies controlling the masses for the greater good based on “scientific” thinking. In short, declaring war on something is an excuse for massive government control and spending without the usual restraints of having to convince free people to agree with you or of respecting constitutional rights or limits to government power. You could not ask for a better example of this than the war on drugs.

I am reminded of a recent event in Australian parliament, where manager of Opposition business Joe Hockey speaks to the Prime Minister.

“I refer the Prime Minister to his 2007-declared war on drugs, his January 2008-declared war on inflation and yesterday’s declared war on unemployment,
[pause]
I also refer the Prime Minister to the 2007 ‘Rudd’s war on whalers’, the February 2008 ‘War cabinet to fight disadvantage’, his February 2008 ‘War on downloads’, his March 2008 ‘War on pokies’, his May ‘War against doping in sport’ and his October ‘War on bankers’ salary deals’.”

“Prime Minister, how goes the war on everything?”

(http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/general-rudd-waging-war-on-everything/2008/11/12/1226318740358.html)

“(1)…(2)…the “war on voting” (33,400), and even “the war on sex” (50,400). … Of the four just listed, the only one I pay much attention to is voting, which figures because I’m a political scientist.”

That, sir, is amusingly saddening.

I think you are thinking like sukrat, but I think you should cover the other side of the topic in the post too…

I am amazed with it. It is a good thing for my research. Thanks