My War on the Politics of Buzz Words

A few days ago, the Senate voted 86-13 to approve the Defense Authorization Bill--a "must pass" piece of legislation that included a set of provisions dramatically curtailing the rights of American citizens. The bill would allow the executive virtually unlimited power to detain indefinitely American citizens suspected of aiding a terrorist without a trial or due process until the "end of the hostilities" (e.g. the"War on Terror"). So, as Jon Stewart wryly paraphrased, "when 'terror' surrenders and ceases to be a human emotion, you are free to go." Perhaps I have been gone too long but I thought I had just left behind a country that regularly deprives its own citizens of silly indulgences such as "due process." Even stranger was the strange mix of allies I found in my growing dissatisfaction with what I have come to call "the politics of buzz words." Some, like my own Minnesota Senator Al Franken were to be expected in their opposition. Other allies were more surprising--of the 13 Senators to vote against the measure that would put into serious question our Constitutional rights (even here in the United States), 6 Republicans and 1 Independent voted "nay." Among them, I found myself nodding along with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) during his comments on the floor. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

But really, more disturbing than anything were the arguments I heard in both the media and on the Senate floor in favor. Since coming back, my sensitivity to intellectually bereft slogans serving to manipulate the masses has diminished dramatically. For most Azerbaijani students, there is a "right" and a "wrong" answer to everything--even questions more complicated than "what is 2+2?" One of the biggest issues many of the TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) Volunteers face is whether to participate in teaching one of the elementary English language textbook topics regarding Armenia entitled, "Do You Know About Armenian Terrorism?" The compulsory practice of teaching such state-sponsored texts results in a population whose collective civil discourse represents something of a glorified spelling bee.

"What is the most important challenge facing your country?"
"Getting our Karabagh back from the evil Armenian terrorist occupiers." 

"Who is your role model?"
"Of course, our national leader, Heydar Aliyev." 

"Do you accept that people on both sides suffer during war?"
"They are just Armenians." 

"What are your goals in life?"
"To protect our motherland--it is my most precious wish to die as a martyr fighting the evil Armenian occupiers."


I am not paraphrasing--these are actual quotes from children as young as 8 years old. In many ways, it makes sense. When I was a trainee, we attended a meeting with the Minister of Youth and Sport in the city of Sumgayit, about 20 minutes from the capital city of Baku. During the meeting, I asked him what his Ministry was doing to increase youth voter education, civic engagement, etc. He told me that in an effort to remain non-partisan, the Ministry limited its activities to holding a concert for those who did vote in the recent parliamentary election. "But now, I must inform you about something of great importance to the development of our youth: The truth about the supposed 'Armenian Genocide' of 1915." He proceeded to show us pamphlets they had disseminated to local youth which flatly denied the intentional killing of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during World War I. As I found to be typical of the academic discourse common in Azerbaijan, there were few citations and the same sort of acid-tripping logic characteristic of  Iranian political statements denying the Holocaust. Using words such as "damned Armenian dogs" and "supposed atrocities" in four languages, this pamphlet was still non-partisan enough for print. Of course, it included a conclusion ensuring that one should feel no sympathy for Armenians and stressed  the imperative of exposing "the truth about Armenia's genocidal campaign against Azerbaijan."

At the time I was very angry. However, listening to arguments of this recent Senate measure as well as what seems to be our predominant national discourse regarding Islam in America, homosexual civil rights, etc. has made me take a step back. Arguments in response to Senator Paul's statements boiled down to "Senator Paul is okay with terrorists being allowed to kill Americans." Herein lies my war on the politics of buzz words. Say "terrorism"--formerly "communism" a few generations ago--and  people are expected to line up in droves to give up their civil liberties no-holds barred. After the 2003 Iraq invasion, people used phrases like "freedom isn't free" and "don't you support our troops?" to justify a particular perspective, naming itself as logically and normatively infallible. It has become a staple in American political discourse to place anti-abortion legislation supporters on the misleadingly normative side of "life." Such labels leave no room for the necessary and realistic nuances that arise from issues as complex as war, terrorism or abortion legislation. Clearly, the 13 Senators who voted against the Defense Authorization Act do not want Americans to be killed by terrorists. Similarly, I would venture to say that people like myself who did not support the invasion of Iraq are, in fact still in favor of freedom and respectful of men and women in military. Finally, in a world plagued by war, poverty, and gross abuses of human rights, isn't it something of an oversimplification to label someone "pro-death" simply because she or he believes abortion to be a choice for individual women and not the state?

Growing up, my parents would always say that more than words, it is one's actions--particularly those committed when no one else is around--that define one's identity. What then does it say about our support for the spread of democracy if our we sell weapons to countries that will use them to crush peaceful protesters? How do we judge a president who would campaign on a platform of human rights and then sign into law a measure stripping Americans of civil liberties guaranteed to them by the Constitution? These are important questions we need to be asking--and answering with more than buzz words memorized from MSNBC or Fox News. In Azerbaijan, one is tossed in jail for voicing his or her opinion about such questions via blogs, newspapers, or the political system. There is a system meant to quash individual and collective dissent. What is our excuse? If there is a place where the democratic experiment will elevate the level of public discourse, proving freedom, security and a culture of critical openness are directly related, let it be here.