Reply #16: "Ronald Reagan introduced "terrorism" into the political vernacular...."

[L. Coyote]

An academic article on the use of the rhetorical _terrorism."

==============================
The Use and Abuse of Terrorism
Dr. Bernard L. Brock, Wayne State University
Published in The Michigan Citizen, Dec. 1, 2002.
Online at: http://www.uwosh.edu/faculty_staff/palmeri/commentary/brock1.htm

Over a year after the destruction of the World Trade Towers and following the Republican election victory and control over both houses of Congress, we can make some judgments regarding President Bush's use and abuse of the "War on Terrorism."

Terrorism, which means the "use of violence to intimidate or subjugate," has become a powerful, political umbrella tying together otherwise unrelated people and/or events. Then, when coupled with a "war" metaphor, terrorism becomes a powerful label uniting people to act emotionally and unthinkingly against a political enemy.

As late as 1980, The Readers' Guide, which indexes popular magazines such as Time, People and Atlantic Monthly, had no entry for the term "terrorism." Acts of violence, designed to intimidate or subjugate, were listed under either the people who committed them or the place where events took occurred, for example an IRA bombing would be entered either under IRA or Ireland or London.

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan introduced "terrorism" into the political vernacular when he assigned this label to the legally elected, leftist Sandinista government. Then, he coined the term "Freedom Fighters" for the people supporting Samoza, an ousted, brutal dictator.

At the same time in El Salvador, Reagan reversed the labels and applied the term "terrorist" to the opposition against the oppressive Duarte regime he politically backed.

The labels "freedom fighter" and "terrorist," instead of designating the country's official government and its opposition, reflected Reagan's political attitudes -- his "friends" and "enemies." Reagan's use of these emotional labels mobilized public opinion without requiring him to explain in any detail why in one country he supported the legitimate government, and in the other he didn't.


MORE