“evil”, and “freedom” (Jentleson, 2014:465). The use of this ideological rhetoric can be argued to be a good move by President Bush’s scriptwriting team. Using the term ‘evil’ is an easy way to alter public opinion as ‘evil’ is a concept that a lot of the public will understand and it creates a clear image in the public’s minds that is very black and white. It is a very simple way of gaining public support for a foreign policy decision, and in this case to create a negative narrative towards the ‘Axis of Evil’ states. This notion of ‘good versus evil’ in international politics may be an attempt to address the conservative, Christian-right demographic who tended to be President Bush’s core supporters (Kennedy-Pipe in Cox and Stokes, 2012). Public
…show more content…
Heradstveit and Bonham state that a metaphor is “the first step in such novel understandings, especially those which change the way we see our world” (Heradstveit and Bonham, 2007:421). For effective analysis, it is important to look at the constructivist school of thought as it analyses how the “non-material structures condition actors’ identities are important because identities inform interests and, in turn, actions” in a way that neo-realists and neo-liberals fail to do so. The latter two schools of political thought can be argued to be not interested in identities but how actors pursue interests. (Reus-Smit in Burchill et al 2005:197). Constructivism assesses the use of language by social actors to attribute a meaning to acts. In addition to this, “an approach to language as rule-based required that we ‘look and see’ how language is put to use by social actors as they construct their world” (Fierke in Dunne, Kurki and Smith 2007:188). In this sense, as George W Bush used the language and rhetoric of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, he constructed an identity of both the USA and Iran. Creating an identity of ‘evil’ for Iran must therefore imply that the USA would be the ‘good’. This ideological heroism would therefore create a sense of national pride for the Americans, even …show more content…
Alexander Mones (2004) assesses this fact by stating how using the phrase ‘Axis of Evil’ was a conceptual analogy reflective of the emotions of the USA towards Nazi Germany. Additionally, the countries within the umbrella term of ‘Axis of Evil’ shared very little common characteristics apart from the fact that they shared a hated for the United States of America, even with the level of hostility varying depending on the state in question. As previously mentioned, the categorisation and demonisation of states by the USA is not recent, “the concept of “rogue states” is peculiarly American” (Cameron, 2005:142). The term ‘Rogue States’ is a good example of categorisation of these states in US foreign policy as the USA would then apply a single policy to all these states, despite the differences. This would prove to be ineffective (Cameron, 2005). A one size fits all policy to suit all the ‘Rogue States’ would not work due to the political differences in these
Heradstveit and Bonham state that a metaphor is “the first step in such novel understandings, especially those which change the way we see our world” (Heradstveit and Bonham, 2007:421). For effective analysis, it is important to look at the constructivist school of thought as it analyses how the “non-material structures condition actors’ identities are important because identities inform interests and, in turn, actions” in a way that neo-realists and neo-liberals fail to do so. The latter two schools of political thought can be argued to be not interested in identities but how actors pursue interests. (Reus-Smit in Burchill et al 2005:197). Constructivism assesses the use of language by social actors to attribute a meaning to acts. In addition to this, “an approach to language as rule-based required that we ‘look and see’ how language is put to use by social actors as they construct their world” (Fierke in Dunne, Kurki and Smith 2007:188). In this sense, as George W Bush used the language and rhetoric of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, he constructed an identity of both the USA and Iran. Creating an identity of ‘evil’ for Iran must therefore imply that the USA would be the ‘good’. This ideological heroism would therefore create a sense of national pride for the Americans, even …show more content…
Alexander Mones (2004) assesses this fact by stating how using the phrase ‘Axis of Evil’ was a conceptual analogy reflective of the emotions of the USA towards Nazi Germany. Additionally, the countries within the umbrella term of ‘Axis of Evil’ shared very little common characteristics apart from the fact that they shared a hated for the United States of America, even with the level of hostility varying depending on the state in question. As previously mentioned, the categorisation and demonisation of states by the USA is not recent, “the concept of “rogue states” is peculiarly American” (Cameron, 2005:142). The term ‘Rogue States’ is a good example of categorisation of these states in US foreign policy as the USA would then apply a single policy to all these states, despite the differences. This would prove to be ineffective (Cameron, 2005). A one size fits all policy to suit all the ‘Rogue States’ would not work due to the political differences in these