The Failure of Political Argument: The Languages of Anti-Fascism and Anti-Totalitarianism in Post-September 11th Discourse

Abstract

Richard ShortenTerms like 'Islamo-fascism', the 'anti-totalitarian' case for war in Iraq and the description of religiously motivated political extremism as a 'new totalitarianism' were all remarkable features of the political discourse organised around the response to the events of 11 September 2001. They share in common the attempt to ground political commitments and allegiances in two morally charged political languages: anti-fascism and anti-totalitarianism. But why did they fail to connect with the public imagination? This article argues that they were not constructed for present purposes so much as appropriated. Yet their projected consumption by a broader public turned on the feasibility of effecting conceptual change to accommodate new meanings and applications. The failure, in this case, to meet the standards thereby required suggests that an important dimension of the response to September 11th is the failure of political argument. It is proposed that this has implications more broadly for the relation between political theory and political rhetoric.

Anti-totalitarian rhetoric in contemporary German politics (its ambivalent objects and consistent

“…Less well known are the practical applications of similarly motivated discussions about totalitarianism in the public sphere, as expressed in politics and education, for example. Unlike existing studies of the anti-totalitarian rhetoric which followed the attacks on New York in September 2001 (Shorten 2009), this article aims to shed light on a more longstanding genealogy of anti-totalitarianism in a European context. Speeches held in the German parliament, for example, testify to an inflation of evocations of the concept of totalitarianism since 1989 as a means to underpin anti-totalitarian convictions.…”

Speech Cycle? ‘Election-Defining Rhetoric’ in Westminster Democracies

“…There is also an extensive scholarship examining rhetoric in the field of international relations. See for example: Esch (2010); Krebs and Jackson (2007); Payne (1987); Readman (2006); Shorten (2009). For a broader understanding of the institutions of government in Westminster systems, see: Patapan, Wanna and Weller (2005); Rhodes, Wanna and Weller (2008).…”