Global War on Terror. Socialized Medicine. Bonus.

Chances are you’ve heard these words thrown around in conversation or in the news throughout the past couple weeks. Each term is an example of political branding, the marketing of an idea or concept with the goal of creating a certain public perception. ‘ Although the above terms refer to wholly separate issues, they are similar in that they have entered the American lexicon at some point to dictate government policy and public opinion.

Following the Sept.11, the White House introduced the phrase ‘global war on terror’ to characterize the ongoing military campaign in Afghanistan. The language was forceful and broad, declaring war on a concept such as ‘terror’ rather than a singular organization or state. The vague definition allowed for a relatively easy expansion of military activity in terms of spending and logistical operations without significant public objection.

The term fell out of favor in 2006 as public support for the Iraq War continued to decline, and Pentagon officials began referring to the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as the ‘global struggle against violent extremism.’ The issue was raised again last week as reports surfaced claiming that the Obama White House had ‘banned’ use of the term ‘Global War on Terror.’

In actuality, no ban was issued. Rather a senior civil servant within the pentagon issued a memo advising against use of the term. Regardless, it would be a safe bet to assume that Obama and his administration will avoid the phrase in future dialogue over Middle East policy.

Although seemingly inconsequential, the words used to describe policies and agendas directly shape how those ideas are received by the public and government. In the realm of health care reform, advocates face the challenge of not only proposing effective and financially sustainable policies, but avoiding the label of ‘socialized medicine’ promulgated by groups which oppose reform aimed at changing the nature of a largely free-market based system.‘ On this issue, as most in Washington, valuable resources are spent on crafting a message rather than a policy, a trend which has a detrimental effect on the efficiency and quality of the public policy process but is a proven necessity in American political culture.

What about that final term, ‘bonus’?

In a somewhat reverse take on this use of language in politics, the word ‘bonus’ became a lightning rod for public anger over the greed and incompetence of failed Wall Street firms on life support with public tax dollars. The failed financial firm, American International Group (AIG), under fire earlier this month for paying out nearly $165 million in bonuses to company executives, payouts which would theoretically be funded directly by tax dollars used to bailout the firm. In the face of intense public outrage over the prospect of millions of dollars rewarding wealthy executives for their failed business efforts, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation taxing the bonuses at 90 percent.

In this instance, it was the people manipulating language to advance a message against the big bad corporation.

Never mind the fact that bailout money had been used by other companies to fund employee salaries since the establishment of the Troubled Assets Relief Program in October 2008. No, this was different. These were bonuses.

Well, not quite.

The word bonus has a certain connotation: a financial award based on exemplary performance or, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary my mom got me for me at Staples before my first day of seventh grade, as ‘something in addition to what is expected or strictly due.’ The AIG bonuses in question were actually contractually guaranteed and non-performance based, but it was the connotation not the substance that dominated this issue.

I don’t intend to defend greedy AIG executives, but I also disagree with the notion that we should establish a precedent which allows public anger to disregard the United States Constitution. The acceptance of such excess by these AIG executives is as reprehensible as the behavior of CEOs and executives who drew huge paychecks and golden parachutes from taxpayer funded bailouts over the past six months of this financial crisis. Unfortunately, not only is their behavior similar in terms of greed and disgust, but as well as in terms of contractual obligation and legality.

Of course, something must be done to prevent the use of taxpayer dollars for the payment of excessive salaries. But unconstitutional legislation aimed at penalizing an isolated group of individuals isn’t a sensible solution. It’s a symbol with the sole purpose of manipulating language to generate a political message.

Allowing that type of thinking to prevail in the public debate over this issue and the larger economic issues that face this country will prove to be as counterproductive as waging a neo-conservative foreign policy fraught with failure and a decline in national image under the guise global security or road blocking health care reform by crying socialism.

What is needed now is substance over political theater, and an honest dialogue with the American people as to how their tax dollars must be spent.

Paul Payer is a Collegian Columnist. He can be reached at ppayer@student.umass.edu.