The Art of Propagandistic Headlines

Trump the warmonger?

Most readers know what to expect when reading a headline in, say, the Washington Post, MSNBC, or other outlets of the ancien régime. We know that they are hard left or at least left-leaning propaganda outlets and can take that into consideration at all times.

What can be more invidious are the more subtle propagandistic headlines from sources that most readers identify as conservative or at least centrist and balanced. However, the cynics among us may be justified in believing that they provide a glimpse into the real beliefs and motivations of the outlets that try to maintain their camouflage.

Several examples of this caught my attention yesterday (June 18). I will discuss just one from a prominent newspaper, that most people regard as balanced, and even- handed. But the editors responsible for headline (or, in this particular case for the bolded lede sentence that functions as a headline) have, perhaps unintentionally, given us a glimpse into their core beliefs.

The middle-of-the-road [sic] Wall Street Journal emphasizes that President Trump and his “threats” against Iran are “bellicose.” I am personally familiar with the precision with which editors of the Journal choose specific words. Headlines and such ledes are perhaps even more important than the remaining text, since as we all know, they form a reader’s first — and sometimes only — impression of the gist of the remaining article. So, what exactly were the very precise and astute editors of the Journal trying to convince us of with their choice of words?

I believe that “bellicose” describes an aggressive and adversary or enemy seeking to provoke a war or other fighting. I think that most people would share that view. I also believe that is the impression that the WSJ’s editors were trying to convey, they not being fools when it comes to the employment of the English language. It is somewhat more subtle than writing “Trump is a dictator trying to destroy democracy,” but it conveys the same impression.

But I am not going to ask the readers to rely upon what this author alone believes. To see what the expert sources say, let’s take a look at the Merriam Webster Dictionary. It first defines “bellicose” as an adjective meaning, “favoring or inclined to start quarrels or wars.” So, the Ms. Tucker and the Journal appear to be saying that President Trump “favors” starting a war. Your evidence, please, Madame Editor in Chief.

Webster’s then describes the context in which “bellicose” normally is used (my bolded emphasis):

“Since bellicose describes an attitude that hopes for actual war, the word is generally applied to nations and their leaders. In the 20th century, it was commonly used to describe such figures as Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm, Italy's Benito Mussolini, and Japan's General Tojo, leaders who believed their countries had everything to gain by starting wars.”

Bad Orange Man really “hopes for actual war,” you see. MSNBC has been warning us about that and now it has company.

If you want to dig a bit deeper, Merriam Webster’s Thesaurus is helpful. It includes as synonyms, “belligerent, aggressive, quarrelsome, pugnacious, combative, confrontational, militant, truculent, scrappy, and warlike.” It helpfully contrasts “bellicose” with antonyms such as “peaceful, conciliatory, and unwarlike.”

So, if you analyze her words, the Wall Street Journal’s esteemed Editor in Chief is telling us that the “bellicose” President Trump is “favoring or inclined to start” a war with Iran, and that he actually “hopes for actual war.” He most certainly is neither “peaceful” or Scrap The Art of the Deal. Trump doesn’t want to do a deal; he wants war.

Yeah, right.

Trump 45 and Trump 47 have made clear that “American First” means that we should stay out of foreign wars whenever possible; we must go to war only when America’s national interest compels us to do so. Even as I write this, the President has not authorized a U.S. strike against Iran despite its continued provocations. All his public pronouncements evidence his strong policy against going to war for the “nation building” that proved to be at the heart of the flawed strategies in Iran and Afghanistan.

Even as Iran’s continued provocations rachet up tensions, President Trump’s desire to avoid killing innocent civilians was evident in his caution to Iranian civilians that they needed to evacuate certain areas for their own safety.

Credit: Reuters

Iran has been at war against us since 1979 when it seized the U.S. embassy and held over 50 Americans hostage for 444 days. Since then, it has become the leading state sponsor of terrorism, funded 9th century barbarians such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis, infiltrated weapons, sophisticated explosive devises, and operatives into Iraq to kill out troops, cheated on treaties, continued its efforts to produce a nuclear bomb, has currently been working on the development of ICBMs designed to deliver such a bomb to the U.S., and even tried to assassinate President Trump.

Given this history, especially Iran’s continued pursuit of nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them — and its promises to do exactly that — I think that most Americans will not begrudge the President making any threats to try to dissuade Iran from its jihad seeking to wreak death and destruction on the world. But if he must finally employ the power of the U.S. military for a preventive strike against Iran, I hope that the President and his advisors will heed the military advice of General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur. As General MacArthur wrote to the West Point Corps of Cadets in 1949,

“From the Far East I send you one single thought, one sole idea – written in red on every beachhead from Australia to Tokyo – ‘There is no substitute for victory!’”

It is as true today as it was when MacArthur wrote it: “There is no substitute for victory.” Remember that.