Do as We Say, Not as We Do: American Exceptionalism after 9/11

            Both Noah Chomsky’s article and President Bush’s speech give insight to the wide range of reactions that Americans express in regards to the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centers. On one side is President Bush, who must address a fragmented America only nine days after the attacks. In his speech, Bush is careful not to say anything that may offend and the speech itself adopts an uplifting tone and invokes a sense of patriotism through imagery of both Democrats and Republicans gathering at the Capitol to sing “God Bless America (Bush 1). Furthermore, in order to win over the hearts of Americans across the nation, Bush utilizes damning diction throughout the speech which is meant to express that an attack on American soil is not taken lightly. In order to ensure his fellow Americans that they and their loved ones are safe, President Bush makes the sensationalist claim that every terrorist group of global reach will be found, stopped, and defeated” (Bush 4). Although the speech is quite vague in terms of exactly how President Bush plans to deal with the attack on the World Trade Centers, this is made understandable when considering that at the time the most important factor was settling the chaos that had erupted within the US itself.

On the opposite side of the political spectrum is the liberal professor Noam Chomsky, who voiced his opinions ten years after the September 11^th attacks. Seeing as there is such a large gap between September 11^th, 2011 and the publishing of Chomsky’s article, Chomsky is not only able to be more direct with his claims but also more critical of America’s reaction to the event. Chomsky uses 9/11 as an example of American exceptionalism; the perception that America may advise other nations to act in favor of justice and logic, but that does not mean the US should have to conform to these same rules. From Chomsky’s perspective, the death of Osama bin Laden symbolized the hypocrisy of American jurisdiction in matters that concern itself. To support his claim Chomsky points to numerous sources of evidence and analogy, one of which being “a high-ranking military officer briefed on the assault said the SEALs knew their mission was not to take him alive” (Chomsky 4). Through his article, Chomsky attempts to persuade readers in to the mindset that all attacks on human rights must be treated equally, no matter the context.

Finally, the question of whether or not America committed an act of exceptionalism must be answered. When analyzing both Bush’s speech and Chomsky’s article it is clear to see that both represent the extreme sides of an argument and therefore truth must lay somewhere in between. As pointed out by Chomsky, the US government made the death, rather than the capture, of Osama bin Laden a national priority. However, that does not mean the killing was not justified, as it is the duty of the federal government to go to any lengths necessary to ensure the safety of the people it serves. Just as Nazi Germany had posed a direct and imminent threat to the safety of millions of Europeans, Al Qaeda’s attack on the World Trade Centers made it clear that they were a threat to the American way of life. Therefore in regards to the September 11^th attacks, the US acted in a justified manner even if that meant adopting a sense of American exceptionalism. 

Is language evolving or devolving?

Over the course of human existence, society has continued to evolve and adapt in ways that favor the needs and interests of the time. Therefore, it can be extrapolated that language and communication among people has also transformed in order to fit in the context of the time. For example in the Elizabethan era, during the height of such writers as William Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe, the predominant form of entertainment for the average citizen was attending the local theater. In these plays props were scarce, thus playwrights needed to rely heavily on language in order to illustrate the scene within the minds of the audience. As a result, eloquent and descriptive vocabulary and sentence structure were utilized in order to get the most out of the performance. In contrast, the focus of modern society is often efficiency and productivity; what needs to be accomplished, and what is the optimal method of ensuring said task is completed? In such a world as this, it makes no sense to spend additional time, energy, and resources to make language look or sound a certain way; as long as it gets the point across it's good enough. A common example for modern day communication is often drawn from instant text messaging, other wise known as texting (the word itself is an abbreviation!). If you look through the messages of an average teenager with even the slightest sliver of a social life, you will likely find small abbreviations and phrases rather than fully fleshed out clauses. In order to keep with the fast paced, action packed nature of modern society phrases such as "talk to you later" may be condensed to simply "ttyl". Furthermore, "lol" is an abbreviation of "laughing out loud" serves to function as an expression of emotion, sarcasm, hyperbole, or one of many other long forgotten figurative devices. 

Thus, when evaluating the question "is language evolving or devolving" it is important to take in to consideration that language and communication are constantly adapting in order to fit the needs of the communicators (that's us!). In terms of eloquence and fluidity, language has devolved from the time of Shakespeare and Marlowe when it was an expectation for literature rather than a decorative afterthought. However in terms of communicating in a fast and efficient manner, language is currently leagues ahead of where it had been in any prior century. Language and communication will continue to change alongside mankind as time wears on, however what will never change is language's ability to accommodate the needs of those who use it.