Word Of The Day, April 3rd, 2007

I like words. I like word games, puns, languages, and all sorts of shenanigans involving verbal, uh, stuff. As Steve Martin once said, “Some people have a way with words, and others, they just don’t have way”. One facet of my wordly infatuation that has blossomed lately is, embarrassingly enough, crossword puzzles. I say “embarrassingly” as just last night I happened to be reading David’s Sedaris’ “Me Talk Pretty One Day” and I came across an essay called “21 Down” where he found himself looking through a list of phobias trying to find an answer to a crossword puzzle clue,

Neither did I find an entry for those who fear the terrible truth that their self-worth is based enbtirely on the completion of a daily crossword puzzle. Because I can’t seem to find it anywhere, I’m guaranteed that such a word actually exists. It will undoubtedly pop up in some future puzzle, the clue being “You, honestly.”

Alas, I relate. And I also digress. The point of this post is to introduce a theme that will likely pop up now and then again as I come across new words. I like finding new words (note that I did not say learning new words, as retention is an entirely different matter), and I am especially interested in how they enter one’s life.

And so, viola! Words Of The Day. Today’s word comes from an excerpt from remarks Zbigniew Brzezinksi, who served as National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter, from hearings at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee (note: foreign is another word that breaks the i follows e except after c rule…neat!). The word in question is:

Manichaean

Dualistic, in this case seeing things in absolutely black and white terms

and the excerpt I found this gem in is as follows (Z-big used the word twice in the article I read, but I think this particular occurrence sings the best when standing on its own):

Indeed, a mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the decisive ideological struggle of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and Al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threats posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack that precipitated America’s involvement in World War II. This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state, and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had world wide appeal through its Marxist doctrine.

In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism. Al Qaeda is an isolated Islamist aberration, and most Iraqis are engaged in strife because of the American occupation, which destroyed the Iraqi state, while Iran, though gaining in regional influence, is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in a region with a wider Islamic threat of which Iran is the epicenter is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy. Practically no country in the world– no country in the world– shares the Manichaean delusions that the administration so passionately articulates. And the result, sad to say, is growing political isolation of and pervasive popular antagonism toward the U.S. global posture.

Bonus points for using demagogic too.

-c