In the Name of Terrorism: Presidents on Political Violence in the Post-World War II Era.

• Author: Morris, Eric
• Position: Book review

In the Name of Terrorism: Presidents on Political Violence in the Post-World War II Era. By Carol K. Winkler. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006; pp. x + 260. $65.00 cloth; $24.95 paper.

Carol Winkler's latest book explores the uses of the label terrorism in presidential rhetoric from the Kennedy administration to the present. Unlike some, who argue that George W. Bush's use (abuse?) of the term is unique, Winkler demonstrates that it was serving well established needs of the executive branch prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Applying Lucaites and Condit's trio of discursive units for cultural markers (labels, narratives, and ideographs), she suggests that the term became a negative ideograph (helping to define culture through opposition) as early as the Reagan administration. In fact, Winkler can be read as denying that the world changed fundamentally on 9/11, and demonstrating the danger of using those attacks as the starting point for political analysis.

The book is organized chronologically. Following Chapter 1's discussion of methodology, the book covers terrorism during the Vietnam conflict (Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon), followed by a chapter on each administration from Carter to the present. Each chapter discusses the major incidents that provoked the terrorist label, exploring the purposes, motivations, and ideological implications of this language choice. Instead of settling on a preferred definition, Winkler suggests that terrorism's ambiguity is important to its rhetorical function. This approach is quite effective: The concluding chapter is packed with interesting observations and comparisons that significantly advance our understanding of the rhetoric of terrorism.

Chapter 2 explores terrorism rhetoric during Vietnam. Winkler argues that terrorism typically was linked to communism; the former was deployed more powerfully in South Vietnam, the latter in the United States. She suggests that references to terrorism were grafted onto the Cold War narrative, positing an American obligation to defend fragile democracies against aggression. Although Nixon once described antiwar demonstrators as terrorists, Winkler finds that presidents have been hesitant to use the term domestically. Carter (Chapter 3) also was hesitant to use the term internationally, even when confronted with the Iranian hostage crisis that threatened his presidency. Winkler argues that Carter should be viewed as a hero in a dramatic tragedy...