Peacetime war discourse: the political economy of bellicose metaphors

The news media have an increasing tendency to cast what they broadcast or publish in the “panic” or “emergency” frame, a frame that is perceived to boost their efficacy. The same can be said for politics. Especially when the emergency can be personified as an enemy, politicians take advantage of the rhetoric of fear and of the fight against the enemy. In the USA this rhetoric has been particularly visible in the frequent presidential slogans of the “war on” (drugs, terrorism etc.). In continental Europe, for a number of reasons, the “fight against” or “struggle” slogan is generally preferred. Historically, with the end of the Soviet block and the weakening of the social conflicts of the 70s, based mainly on class lines, a new configuration of political and media discourse has emerged. A new social consensus, taken for granted, requires enemies who are outside its range. It is not only a matter of discourses, of course. Besides these discourses are policies of exclusion and of retreat from social responsibility that move the action of the State from the social or the political side to the penal or the military side. The discourse of the “war against” is a specific way of constructing social problems. It has some constant features, rhetorical devices, practical benefits and social consequences. They are analyzed using examples from the different enemies that have been depicted by political and media discourse in the US and Europe, with a particular attention to Italy, since the end of the 80’s. The recent discourse on “security” is the perfect synthesis of these different discourses of war and is dealt with in more detail. In the final part I try to explain why war discourse in peacetime has been so alive and well in the last two decades.