Deceptions and Clichés as Policy
Engagement as a One-Way Street

by Herbert I. London
August 30, 2010 at 4:30 am

http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/1511/deceptions-cliches-policy

Several weeks ago at a conference devoted to anti-terrorist strategies, MI5 and FBI officials were in attendance, as were former terrorists. The meetings were open and well attended. yet when it was over, all I could recall was the reliance on clichés as policy recommendations.

One presumptive expert delivered a paper on the "3Es," education, engagement, enforcement. While one might agree with his sentiment, there was nothing in his paper to which action could be attached. I kept asking myself, what is the nature of this education and how effective can it be in opposing theological arguments? Could the relativism and multicultural views that dominate elite circles in the West be converted into logical or emotional instruments to curb terrorism?

Similarly, what does engagement mean? Interfaith seminars seem to be are based on the premise that those in the Judeo-Christian world have an obligation to understand Islam. While that may be necessary, shouldn't interfaith dialogue should be reciprocal? Why wouldn't one assume that Muslims would also want to develop an appreciation of the Judeo-Christian traditions? Yet that condition rarely prevails. If engagement is a one way street, how can it possibly be successful?

Enforcement is another cliché that relies on the obvious, but is activated by obfuscation. If terrorists break the law, if they are intent on murder and mayhem, the full weight of the law should be applied. However, legal technicalities often triumph over common sense. As a consequence, justice becomes a matter of circumstance and legal wrangling.

It is also the case that President Obama often conflates cliché with policy. Additional insurance for the unemployed, for example, is described as an essential benefit for the needy. How one pays for this benefit or the net effect on the economy are matters rarely disclosed. Perhaps the president doesn't know, but the barrenness of the commentary is palpable.

On the foreign policy front there is a continuing refrain,: "We will not tolerate an Iran with nuclear weapons." Tolerated or not, the Iranian regime has, according to our own intelligence estimates, enough fissionable material to produce several nuclear weapons even though these bombs may not yet be attached to a missile fleet. Of what possible value is this pronouncement when it doesn't speak to actual policy and doesn't conform to current conditions?

This is precisely the problem associated with clichés: they do not address real policy concerns. They may offer public reassurance; they may even be comforting. But the actual effect, more often than not, is deception.

During the ecological crisis in the Gulf of Mexico, charges between the government and British Petroleum were hurled to and fro. When it appeared as if President Obama were negligent or hesitant to act, he responded by noting "I've been on top of this matter (the leak) from the outset." If one were to parse this statement, it becomes apparent it is yet another reflexive cliché. What does it mean to be "on top of the matter"? If the president was in charge, he was unable to provide guidance on how to deal with the issue; if he was "on top," why was there a sixteen day delay before action was taken? Who was responsible for the deception about the amount of oil escaping into the sea?

Clichés and deception may strike a responsive chord, and overused expressions have their place in communication, but rarely in policy discussions. The problem is that politicians reference them because they are convenient, words with familiarity. That the words may not have any meaning or worthwhile application is often lost in the midst of debate and extemporaneous commentary.

For those who listen carefully, identify the tell-tale signs, those gotcha moments. If enough thoughtful listeners could heed the signs, cliché driven policy statements might be less frequently used. They probably will not disappear.:after all, they are as familiar as "go along to get along" or "fool me once…" The list goes on, as do the ways to conceal the policy steps necessary to address an issue.

Related Topics:  Herbert I. London receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free stonegate institute mailing list