Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Rhetoric

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The current administration has used political rhetoric to question the patriotism, courage and competence of its opponents (Kerry, Daschle, Wilson, many others). Here's what someone else said about such tactics a helluva long time ago:

To fit in with the change of events, words, too, had to change their usual meanings. What used to be described as thoughtless aggression was now considered the courage of a loyal ally; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one's unmanly character; the ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action. Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was perfectly legitimate self-defense. Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted, and anyone who objected to them became a suspect. To plot sucessfully was a sign of intelligence, but it was still cleverer to see that a plot was hatching. If one attempted to provide against having to do either, one was disrupting the unity of the party and acting out of fear of the opposition. In short, it was equally praiseworthy to get one's blow in first against someone who was going to do wrong, and to denounce someone who had no intention of doing any wrong at all. Family relations were a weaker tie than party membership...

--Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 382


0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home