M etaphors of

Terror
George Lakoff

Septe m ber 16, 2001

1:Our Brains Had to Change

Everything w e kno w is physically instantiated in the neural

system of our brains.

W h at w e kne w before Septe mber 11 about A m erica,

M a nhattan, the W o rld Trade Center, air travel,and the
Pentagon w as intimately tied up with our identities and
with a vast a m ount of w hat w e took for granted about
everyday life.It was all there physically in our neural
synapses. M a n hattan: the gateway to A m erica for
generations of im migrants —the chance to live free of w ar,
pogro ms, religious and politicaloppression!

The M a nhattan skyline had m e aning in m y life,even m ore

than I kne w. W h e n I thought of it,I thought of m y m other.
Born in Poland, she arrived as an infant,gre w up in
M a nhattan, w orked in factories for twenty-five years, and
had family, friends, a life,a child.She didn't die in
concentration ca mps. She didn't fear for her life.A m erica
was not all that she might have w anted it to be, but it was
plenty.

I grew up in Bayonne, N.J.,across the bay from that

skyline. The W o rld Trade Center w asn't there then, but
over the years, as the m ajor feature of the skyline, it
beca m e for m e as for others the sy m b ol of Ne w York —
not only of the business center of A m erica, but also the
cultural center and the co m m u nications center. As such, it
beca m e a sy m bol for A m erica itself—a sy m b ol for w hat it
m e ant to be able go about your everyday life free of
oppression and just do your job and live your life,w hether
as a secretary or an artist,a m anager or a fireman, a
salesman or a teacher or a T V star. I wasn't consciously
aware of it,but those images w ere intimately tied to m y
identity,both as m e and as an A m erican. And all that and
so m uch m ore was there physically as part of m y brain on
the m orning of Septe m ber 11.

The devastation that hit those towers that m orning hit m e.

Buildings are m etaphorically people. W e see features —
eyes, nose, and m o uth —in their windo ws. I no w realize
that the image of the plane going into South To w er w as
for m e an image of a bullet going through so m e one's head,
the flame pouring from the other side blood spurting out.
It was an assassination. The tower falling was a body
falling.The bodies falling w ere m e, relatives, friends.
Strangers w ho had s miled as they had passed m e on the
street screa m ed as they fellpast m e. The image
afterward w as hell:ash, s m o ke, and stea m rising,the
building skeleton, darkness, suffering, death.

The people w ho did this got into m y brain, even three

thousand miles away. All those sy m bols w ere connected
to m ore of m y identity than I could have realized. To m a k e
sense of this,m y very brain had to change. And change it
did, painfully.Day and night.By day, the consequences
flooded m y mind; by night, the images had m e breathing
heavily,nightmares keeping m e a wake. Those sy m b ols
lived in the e m otional centers of m y brain.As their
m e anings changed, I felt e m otional pain.

It was not just m e. It was everyone in this country, and

m a ny in other countries.The assassins m a naged not only
to killthousands of people but to reach in and change the
brains of people all over A m erica.

It is re markable to kno w that two hundred million of m y

country men feel as wrenched as I do.

2: The Po w er of the Images

As a m etaphor analyst, I want to begin with the po w er of

the images and w here that po w er co m es from.

There are a nu m ber of m etaphors for buildings. A co m m o n

visual m etaphor is that buildings are heads, with windo ws
as eyes. The m etaphor is dor mant, there in our brains
waiting to be a wakened. The image of the plane going into
South To w er of the W o rld Trade Center activated it.The
tower beca m e a head, with windo ws as eyes, the edge of
the tower the temple. The plane going through it beco m es
a bullet going through so m eone's head, the flame pouring
from the other side blood spurting out.

Tall buildings are m etaphorically people standing erect. As

each tower fell,it beca m e a body falling.W e are not
consciously aware of the m etaphorical images, but they
are part of the po w er and the horror w e experience w hen
w e see the m.

Each of us, in the prefrontal cortex of our brains, has w hat

are called "mirror neurons." Such neurons fire either
w hen w e perform an action or w hen see the sa me action
performed by so m e one else. There are connections from
that part of the brain to the e m otional centers. Such neural
circuits are believed to be the basis of e m pathy.

This w orks literally— w h en w e see plane co ming toward

the building and imagine people in the building, w e feel the
plane co ming toward us; w hen w e see the building toppling
toward others, w e feel the building toppling toward us. It
also w orks m etaphorically:if w e see the plane going
through the building, and unconsciously w e m etaphorize
the building as a head with the plane going through its
temple, then w e sense — u nconsciously but po w erfully —
being shot through the temple. If w e m etaphorize the
building as a person and see the building fallto the ground
in pieces, then w e sense — a gain unconsciously but
po werfully — that w e are falling to the ground in pieces.
Our systems of m etaphorical thought, interacting with our
mirror neuron systems, turn external literal horrors into
felt m etaphorical horrors.

Here are so m e other cases:

• Control Is Up: You have control over the situation,

you're on top of things. This has always been an
important basis of towers as sy m bols of po w er. In
this case, the toppling of the towers m e ant loss of
control,loss of po w er.
• Phallic imagery: To w ers are sy m bols of phallic
po wer and their collapse reinforces the idea of loss
of po wer.
• Another kind of phallicimagery w as m ore central
here. The planes as penetrating the towers with a
plume of heat. The Pentagon, a vaginal image from
the air,penetrated by the plane as missile.These
co m e from w o m e n w ho felt violated both by the
attack and the images.
• A Society Is A Building.A society can have a
"foundation" w hich m a y or m a y not be "solid" and it
can "cru mble" and "fall."The W o rld Trade Center
was sy m b olic of society. W h e n it cru mbled and fell,
the threat was m ore than to a building.
• W e think m etaphorically of things that perpetuate
over time as "standing." Bush the Father in the Gulf
W a r kept saying, "This will not stand," m eaning that
the situation w o uld not be perpetuated over time.
The W o rld Trade Center w as build to last ten
thousand years. W h e n it cru m bled, it m etaphorically
raised the question of w hether A m erican po wer and
A m erican society w ould last.
• Building As Te m ple: Here w e had the destruction of
the temple of capitalistco m m e rce, w hich lies at the
heart of our society.

Our minds play tricks on us. The image of the M a nhattan

skyline is no w unbalanced. W e are used to seeing it with
the towers there. Our mind imposes our old image of the
towers, and the sight of the m gone gives one the illusion
of imbalance, as if M a nhattan w ere sinking. Given the
sy m b olism of M a nhattan as standing for the pro mise of
A m erica, it appears m etaphorically as if that pro mise w ere
sinking.

Then there is the persistent image, day after day, of the

charred and s m o king re mains: hell.

The W o rld Trade Center w as a potent sy m bol, tied into

our understanding of our country and ourselves in a
m yriad of w ays. All of w hat w e kno w is physically
e m bodied in our brains. To incorporate the ne w kno wledge
requires a physical change in the synapses of our brains, a
physical reshaping of our neural system. The physical
violence was not only in Ne w York and W a s hington.
Physical changes — violent ones — h a ve been m a de to the
brains of all A m ericans.

3: Ho w The Ad ministration Fra m es the Event

The ad ministration's framings and reframings and its

search for m etaphors should be noted. The initialframing
was as a "crime" with "victims" and "perpetrators" to be
"brought to justice" and "punished." The crime frame
entails law, courts, lawyers, trials,sentencing, appeals,
and so on. It w as hours before "crime" changed to "war"
with "casualties," "ene mies," "military action," "war
po wers," and so on.

Donald Ru m sfeld and other ad ministration officials have

pointed out that this situation does not fitour
understanding of a "war." There are "ene mies" and
"casualties" all right,but no ene m y ar my, no regiments, no
tanks, no ships, no air force, no battlefields,no strategic
targets, and no clear "victory." The war frame just doesn't
fit.Colin Po w ell had always argued that no troops should
be co m mitted without specific objectives, a clear and
achievable definition of victory, a clear exit strategy — a nd
no open-ended co m mit m ents. But he has pointed out that
none of these is present in this "war."

Because the concept of "war "doesn't fit,there is a frantic

search for m etaphors. First,Bush called the terrorists
"co wards" — b ut this didn't see m to w ork too w ell for
m artyrs w h o willing sacrificed their lives for their m oral
and religious ideals.M ore recently he has spoken of
"s moking the m out of their holes" as if they w ere rodents,
and Ru m sfeld has spoken of "drying up the swa m p they
live in" as if they w ere snakes or lowly swa m p creatures.
The conceptual m etaphors here are M oral Is Up; Im m oral
Is Do w n (they are lowly) and Im m oral People Are Animals
(that live close to the ground).
The use of the w ord "evil" in the ad ministration's
discourse w orks in the following w ay. In conservative,
strict father m orality (see M oral Politics,Chapter 5) evil is
a palpable thing, a force in the w orld. To stand up to evil
you have to be m orally strong. If you're w eak, you let evil
triumph, so that w eakness is a form of evil in itself,as is
pro m oting w eakness. Evil is inherent, an essential trait,
that determines ho w you will act in the w orld. Evil people
do evil things. No further explanation is necessary. There
can be no social causes of evil,no religious rationale for
evil,no reasons or argu m ents for evil.The ene m y of evil
is good. If our ene m y is evil,w e are inherently good. Good
is our essential nature and w hat w e do in the battle
against evil is good. Good and evil are locked in a battle,
w hich is conceptualized m etaphorically as a physical fight
in w hich the stronger wins. Only superior strength can
defeat evil,and only a sho w of strength can keep evil at
bay. Not to sho w over whel ming strength is im m oral, since
it will induce evildoers to perform m ore evil deeds
because they'llthink they can get a way with it.To oppose
a sho w of superior strength is therefore im m oral. Nothing
is m ore important than the battle of good against evil,and
if so m e innocent nonco m batants get in the way and get
hurt, it is a sha m e, but it is to be expected and nothing can
be done about it.Indeed, performing lesser evils in the
na m e of good is justified—"lesser" evils like curtailing
individual liberties,sanctioning politicalassassinations,
overthrowing govern m ents, torture, hiring criminals, and
"collateral da m age."

Then there is the basic security m etaphor, Security As

Containment — k e eping the evildoers out. Secure our
borders, keep the m and their w eapons out of our airports,
have m arshals on the planes. M o st security experts say
that there is no sure w ay to keep terrorists out or to deny
the m the use of so m e w eapon or other; a determined
w ell-financed terrorist organization can penetrate any
security syste m. Or they can choose other targets, say oil
tankers.

Yet the Security As Containment m etaphor is po w erful.It

is w hat lies behind the missile shield proposal.Rationality
might say that the Septe mber 11th attack sho wed the
missile shield is pointless.But it strengthened the use of
the Security As Containment m etaphor. As soon as you
say "national security," the Security As Containment
m etaphor will be activated and with it,the missile shield.

4: The Conservative Advantage

The reaction of the Bush ad ministration is just w hat you

w o uld expect a conservative reaction w ould be — p ure
Strict Father m orality:There is evil loose in the w orld. W e
m ust sho w our strength and wipe it out. Retribution and
vengeance are called for. If there are "casualties" or
"collateral da m age", so be it.The reaction from liberals
and progressives has been far different:Justice is called
for, not vengeance. Understanding and restraint are w hat
is needed. The m o del for our actions should be the rescue
w orkers and doctors —the healers — n ot the bo m bers. W e
should not be like the m, w e should not take innocent lives
in bringing the perpetrators to justice.M assive bo m bing of
Afghanistan — with the killing of innocents — will sho w that
w e are no better than they. But it has been the
ad ministration's conservative m essage that has do minated
the m e dia. The event has been framed in their terms. As
Ne wt Gingrich put it on the Fox Net work, "Retribution is
justice." W e m ust reframe the discussion. I have been
re minded of Gandhi's w ords: Be the change you w ant. The
w ords apply to govern m ents as w ell as to individuals.

5: Causes

There are (at least)three kinds of causes of radical Islamic

terrorism:

i. W o rldview: The Religious Rationale

ii. Social and PoliticalConditions: Cultures of Despair
iii. M e ans: The Enabling Conditions

The Bush ad ministration has discussed only the third:The

m e ans that enable attacks to be carried out. These include:
leadership (e.g.,bin Laden), host countries, training
facilities and bases, financial backing, cell organization,
information networks, and so on. These do not include the
first and second on the list.

i. W o rldview: Religious Rationale

The question that keeps being asked in the m e dia is," W h y

do they hate us so m uch?" It is important at the outset to
separate out m o derate to liberal Islam from radical
Islamic funda m entalists,w h o do not represent m ost
M u slims.

Radical Islamic funda m entalists hate our culture. They

have a w orldview that is incompatible with the way that
A m ericans — a n d other w esterners —live their lives. One
part of this w orld view concerns w o m e n, w ho are to hide
their bodies, have no right to property, and so on. W e stern
sexuality,m ores, m usic, and w o m e n's equality all violate
their values, and the w orldwide ubiquity of A m erican
cultural products, like m o vies and m usic, offends the m. A
second part concerns theocracy: they believe that
govern m ents should be run according to strict Islamic law
by clerics.A third concerns holy sites, like those in
Jerusalem, w hich they believe should be under Islamic
politicaland military control.A fourth concerns the
co m m e rcial and military incursions by W e sterners on
Islamic soil,w hich they liken to the invasion of the hated
crusaders. The w ay they see it,our culture spits in the
face of theirs.A fifth concerns jihad — a holy war to
protect and defend the faith.A sixth is the idea of a
m artyr, a m an willing to sacrifice himself for the cause.
His reward is eternal glory — a n eternity in heaven
surrounded by willing young virgins.In so m e cases, there
is a pro mise that his family will be taken care of by the
co m m u nity.

ii. Social and PoliticalConditions: Cultures of Despair

M o st Islamic w ould-be m artyrs not only share these

beliefs but have also gro wn up in a culture of despair:they
have nothing to lose. Eliminate such poverty and you
eliminate the breeding ground for terrorists.W h e n the
Bush ad ministration speaks of eliminating terror, it does
not appear to be talking about eliminating cultures of
despair and the social conditions that lead one to w ant to
give up one's life to m artyrdo m.

Princeton Ly m a n of the Aspen Institute has m a de an

important proposal —that the w orld wide anti-terrorist
coalition address the causal real-w orld conditions as w ell.
Country by country, the conditions (both m aterial and
political)leading to despair need to be addressed, with a
w orld wide co m mit m ent to ending the m. It should be done
because it is a necessary part of addressing the causes of
terrorism — a n d because it is right! The coalition being
formed should be m a de into a long-term global institution
for this purpose.

W h at about the first cause —the radical Islamic w orldview

itself.Military action w on't change it.Social action w on't
change it.W o rldviews live in the minds of people. Ho w can
one change those minds — a n d if not present minds, then
future minds? The W e st cannot! Those minds can only be
changed by m o derate and liberal M u slims — clerics,
teachers, elders, respected co m m u nity m e m b ers. There is
no shortage of the m. I do not kno w ho w w ell they are
organized, but the w orld needs the m to be w ell-organized
and effective.It is vital that m o derate and liberal M u slims
form a unified voice against hate and, with it,terror.
Re m e m b er that "taliban" m eans "students." Those that
teach hate in Islamic schools m ust be replaced — a n d we in
the W e st cannot replace the m. This can only be done by
an organized, m o derate, nonviolent Islam. The W e st can
m a k e the suggestion, but w e alone are po w erless to carry
it out. W e depend on the good will and courage of
m o derate Islamic leaders. To gain it,w e m ust sho w our
good will by beginning in a serious way to address the
social and politicalconditions that lead to despair.
But a conservative govern m ent, thinking of the ene m y as
evil,will not take the primary causes seriously. They will
only go after the enabling causes. But unless the primary
causes are addressed, terrorists will continue to be
spa wned.

6: Public Discourse

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California),w h o I a m proud to

ackno wledge as m y representative in Congress, said the
following in casting the lone vote against giving President
Bush fullcongressional approval for carrying out his W a r
on Terrorism as he sees fit:

I a m convinced that military action will not prevent further

acts of international terrorism against the United States.
This is a very co m plex and co m plicated m atter. . . .
Ho w e ver difficultthis vote m a y be, so m e of us m ust urge
the use of restraint.Our country is in a state of m o urning.
So m e of us m ust say, let us step back for a m o m e nt. Let
us just pause for a minute and think through the
implications of our actions today so that this does not
spiral out of control.. . .

I have agonized over this vote, but I ca m e to grips with it

today and I ca me to grips with opposing this resolution
during the very painful yet very beautiful m e m o rial
service. As a m e m b er of the clergy so eloquently said, "As
w e act, let us not beco m e the evil that w e deplore."

I agree. But w hat is striking to m e as a linguist is the use

of negatives in the statement: "not prevent," "restraint"
(inherently negative),"not spiral out of control," "not
beco m e the evil that w e deplore.''Friends are circulating a
petition calling for "Justice without vengeance." " Without"
has another implicitnegative. It is not that these negative
statements are wrong. But w hat is needed is a positive
form of discourse.

There is one.

The central concept is that of "responsibility,"w hich is at

the heart of progressive/liberal m orality (See M oral
Politics).Progressive/liberal m orality begins with e m pathy,
the ability to understand others and feel w hat they feel.
That is presupposed in responsibility— responsibility for
oneself,for protection, for the care of those w h o need
care, and for the co m m u nity. Those w ere the values that
w e sa w at w ork a m ong the rescue w orkers in Ne w York
right after the attack.

Responsibility requires co m petence and effectiveness. If

you are to deal responsibly with terrorism, you m ust deal
effectively with all its causes: religious, social,and
enabling causes. The enabling causes m ust be dealt with
effectively.Bo m bing innocent civilians and har ming the m
by destroying their country's do m estic infrastructure will
be counterproductive — as w ell as im m oral. Responsibility
requires care in the place of blundering, overwhel ming
force.

M a ssive bo m bing w o uld be irresponsible.Failure to

address the religious and social causes w o uld be
irresponsible.The responsible response begins with joint
international action to address all three: the social and
politicalconditions, and the religious w orldview, and the
m e ans with all due care.

7: Foreign Policy

I have been w orking on a m o nograph on foreign policy.

The idea behind it is this:There are m a ny advocacy groups
that have long been doing important good w orks in the
international arena, but on issues that have not officially
been seen as being a proper part of foreign policy:the
environ ment, hu m an rights, w o m e n's rights, the condition
of children, labor, international public health issues (e.g.,
AIDS in Africa),sustainable develop ment, refugees,
international education, and so on. The m o nograph co m es
in two parts.

First,the book points out that the m etaphors that foreign

policy experts have used to define w hat foreign policy is
rules out these important concerns. Those m etaphors
involve self-interest (e.g.,the Rational Actor M o d el),
stability (a physics m etaphor),industrialization
(unindustrialized nations are "underdeveloped") , and trade
(freedo m is free trade).

Second, the book proposes an alternative w ay of thinking

about foreign policy under w hich all these issues w ould
beco m e a natural part of w hat foreign policy is about. The
pre mise is that, w hen international relations w ork
s m oothly, it is because certain m oral nor ms of the
international co m m u nity are being followed. This m ostly
goes unnoticed, since those nor ms are usually followed.
W e notice problems w hen those nor ms are breached.
Given this,it m a kes sense that foreign policy should be
centered around those nor ms.

The m oral nor ms I suggest co m e out of w hat I called in

M oral Politics "nurturant m orality." It is a view of ethical
behavior that centers on (a)e m pathy and (b)responsibility
(for both yourself and others needing your help).M a n y
things follow from these central principles:fairness,
minimal violence (e.g.,justice without vengeance),an ethic
of care, protection of those needing it,a recognition of
interdependence, cooperation for the co m m o n good, the
building of co m m u nity, m utual respect, and so on. W h e n
applied to foreign policy, nurturant m oral nor ms w o uld
lead the A m erican govern m ent to uphold the A B M treaty,
sign the Kyoto accords, engage in a form of globalization
governed by an ethics of care — a nd it w o uld auto matically
m a k e all the concerns listed above (e.g.,the environ ment,
w o m e n's rights)part of our foreign policy.

This, of course, implies (a)m ultilateralism, (b)

interdependence, and (c)international cooperation. But
these three principles, without nurturant nor ms, can
equally w ell apply to the Bush ad ministration's
continuance of its foreign policy.Bush's foreign policy, as
he announced in the election ca m paign, has been one of
self-interest ("what's in the best interest of the United
States")—if not outright hege m ony (the Cheney/Ru msfeld
position).The De m ocratic leaders incorrectly criticized
Bush for being isolationist and unilateralist,on issues like
the Kyoto accords and the A B M Treaty. He w as neither
isolationist nor unilateralist.He w as just following his
stated policy of self-interest.

The mistaken criticism of Bush as a unilateralistand as

uncooperative will no w blow up in his critics'faces. W h e n
it is in A m erica's interest (as he sees it),he will w ork with
other nations. The " W ar against Terrorism" is perfect for
changing his image to that of a m ultilateralistand
internationalist.It is indeed in the co m m o n interest of
m ost national govern m ents not to have terrorists
operating. Bush can co m e out on the side of the angels
w hile pursuing his sa m e policy of self-interest.

The mistake of Bush's critics has been to use

"multilateralism" versus "unilateralism" as a w ay
categorizing foreign policy.Self-interest crosses those
categories.

There is,interestingly,an apparent overlap between the

nurturant nor ms policy and an idealisticvision of the Bush
ad ministration's ne w war. The overlap is,simply, that it is
a m oral nor m to refuse to engage in,or support,
terrorism. Fro m this perspective, it looks like Left and
Right are united. It is an illusion.

In nurturant nor ms policy, anti-terrorism arises from

another m oral nor m: Violence against innocent parties is
im m oral. But Bush's ne w w ar will certainly not follow that
m oral nor m. Bush's military advisers appear to be
planning m assive bo m bings and infrastructure destruction
that will certainly take the lives of a great m a ny innocent
civilians.

Within a year of the end of the Gulf W a r, the CIA reported

that about a million Iraqi civilians had died from the
This argu m ent w o uld hold water if the Bush W a r on
Terrorism w ere really about m orality in the way that
m orality is understood by progressives/liberals.It is not. In
conservative m orality,there is fight between Good and
Evil,in w hich "lesser" evils are tolerated and even seen as
necessary and expected.

The argu m ent that killing innocent civilians in retaliation

w o uld m a k e us as bad as the m w orks for liberals,not for
conservatives.

The idealisticclaim of the Bush ad ministration is they

intend to wipe out "allterrorism." W h at is not m e ntioned
is that the US has systematically pro m oted a terrorism of
its o wn and has been trained terrorists,from the contras
to the m ujahadeen to the Honduran death squads to the
Indonesian military.Indeed, there are reports that two of
the terrorists taking part in The Attack w ere trained by
the US. Will the US govern m ent stop training terrorists? Of
course not. It will deny that it does so. Is this duplicity?
Not in terms of conservative m orality and its view of Good
versus Evil and lesser evils.

If the ad ministration's discourse offends us, w e have a

m oral obligation to change public discourse!

Be the change you want! If the US wants terror to end, the

US m ust end its o wn contribution to terror. And w e m ust
also end terror sponsored not against the W e st but
against others. W e have m a de a deal with Pakistan to help
in Afghanistan. Is it part of the deal that Pakistan renounce
its o wn terrorism in Kash mir against India? I w o uld be
shocked if it w ere. The Bush foreign policy of self-interest
does not require it.

The question m ust be asked. If that is not part of the deal,

then our govern m ent has violated its o w n stated ideals;it
is hypocritical.If the terrorism w e don't mind — o r might
even like —is perpetuated, terrorism will not end and will
eventually turn back on us, just as our support for the
m ujahadeen did.

W e m ust be the change w e want!

The foreign policy of m oral nor ms is the only sane foreign

policy.In the idea of responsibility for oneself,it re mains
practical.But through e m pathy and other forms of
responsibility (protection, care, co m petence, effectiveness,
co m m u nity develop m ent),it w ould lead to international
cooperation and a recognition of interdependence.

8: Do m estic Policy
I have a rational fear: a fear that the Septe mber 11th
attack has given the Bush ad ministration a free hand in
pursuing a conservative do m estic agenda. This has so far
been unsayable in the m e dia. But it m ust be said, lest it
happen for sure.

W h ere is the $40 billion co ming from? Not from a rise in

taxes. The sacrifices will not be m a de by the rich. W h ere
then? The only available source I can think of is the Social
Security "lockbox," w hich is no w wide open. The
conservatives have been trying to raid the Social Security
fund for so m e time, and the De m o crats had fought the m
off untilno w. A w eek ago, the suggestion to take $40
billion from the Social Security "surplus" w ould have been
indefensible.Has it no w been done — w ith every
De m o cratic senator voting for it and all but one of the
De m o crats in Congress?

Think of it:Are your retirement contributions — and mine —

are going to fight Bush's "war." No one dares to talk about
it that w ay. It's just $40 billion,as if it ca me out of
no where. No one says that $40 billion dollars co m es from
your retirement contributions. No one talks about
increasing taxes. W e should at least ask just w here the
m o ney is co ming from.

If the m o ney is co ming from social security,then Bush has

achieved a m ajor goal of his partisan conservative agenda
— w ithout fanfare, without notice, and with the support of
virtually all De m ocrats.

Calling for w ar, instead of m ere justice,has given the

conservatives free rein.I fear it will only be a m atter of
time before they claim that w e need to drillfor oil in the
Alaskan Wildlife Refuge for national security reasons. If
that m ost "pristine" place falls,they will use the national
security excuse to drilland mine coal all over the country.
The energy progra m will be pushed through as a m atter of
"national security." All social progra ms will be dismissed
for lack of funds, w hich will be diverted to "national
security."

Cheney has said that this war m a y never be co m pleted.

Ne wt Gingrich estimates at least four or five years,
certainly past the 2004 election. With no definition of
victory and no exit strategy, w e m a y be entering a state
of perpetual war. This w o uld be very convenient for the
conservative do m estic agenda: The w ar m achine will
determine the do m estic agenda, w hich will allow
conservatives to do w hatever they want in the na m e of
national security.

The recession w e are entering has already been blamed

on The Attack, not on Bush's econo mic policies.Expect a
 m ajor retrench ment on civilliberties.Expect any W T O
protesters to be called terrorists and/or traitors.Expect
any serious opposition to Bush's policies to be called
traitorous.

W h o has the courage to discuss do m estic policy frankly at

this time?

Afterword: Since this w as written, a Ne w York Times

editorialackno wledged that the m o ney is co ming from the
social security "lockbox." A W all Street Journal editorial
called for the President to take advantage of the m o m e nt
to push his overall agenda through. Senator Frank
M urko w s ki introduced a rider on the war appropriations
billauthorizing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Preserve. The original na m e given to the operation was
"Infinite Justice." This had the connotation of "perpetual
war" in A m erica; in Islam, where only God is Infinite,it had
the connotation of w ar against Islam; and so the na m e has
been changed.

George Lakoff is professor of linguistics at the University

of California at Berkeley and a senior fellow of the
Rockridge Institute.He is the author of M oral Politics:
W h at Conservatives Kno w That Liberals Don't (University
of Chicago Press, 1996),W o m e n, Fire And Dangerous
Things: W h at Categories Reveal About The Mind
(University of Chicago Press, 1987),M ore Than Cool
Reason (with M ark Turner, University of Chicago Press,
1989),M etaphors W e Live By (with M ark Johnson,
University of Chicago Press, 1980),and other books. In the
early days of the internet, Lakoff's essay " Metaphor and
W a r" was perhaps the m ost widely distributed critique of
the Gulf W a r. " Metaphors of Terror" appeared in shorter
form in In These Times on October 29, 2001.

Copyright notice: ©2001 by George Lakoff. All rights reserved. This text m a y be used and shared
in accordance with the fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and it m ay be archived and
redistributed in electronic form, provided that this entire notice, including copyright information, is
carried and provided that the University of Chicago Press is notified and no fee is charged for
access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any m ediu m,
requires the consent of George Lakoff.