Many sciences interacted to develop critical analysis of political discourse, the most important of which are linguistics, sociology, psychology and politics, where interest in political discourse and its impact on the future of countries has increased.

Critical analysis of political discourse aims to discover the apparent and hidden meanings in messages, their impact on the audience, and how politicians use language to achieve their goals.

ideological features

One of the most important goals of critical analysis of presidents' speeches is to discover hidden ideological features and power relations, by analyzing both the words and the structure of the text.

Despite the importance of the role of linguistics in developing critical analysis of the presidents' speech, there are multiple scientific perspectives that contribute to building a critical analysis approach to political discourse.

Presidents direct their speech to the masses with the aim of persuading them and influencing their attitudes and beliefs, and in doing so they use psychological methods such as arousing fear in the masses, with the aim of pushing them to accept the status quo or forming a public opinion that supports their policies.

Presidential speechwriters are selected so that they have a set of characteristics, the most important of which are understanding of language, sensitivity to the use of words, competence in cross-cultural communication, and awareness of the goals that the president wants to achieve. Therefore, choosing a speechwriter is one of the most important decisions that the president makes.

The language of intimidation and conflict management

The language of intimidation is increasingly used in the speech of presidents during wars and external and internal crises. They focus on terms and words that push the masses to support waging war on a foreign country that poses a threat to the state.

Therefore, the interest in studying the language of fear in political discourse has increased. All heads of state intentionally reproduce the language of fear in their speeches to achieve their goals in managing conflict and manipulating the attitudes of the masses.

what does that mean?

The analysis of the presidents' speeches and their use of words requires multidimensional approaches, the most important of which is the study of the problems that the presidents address and the political and economic conditions in which the speech is produced. The discourse was organized and the topics arranged in it.

President's speech function

Presidents' speeches perform multiple functions, the most important of which is defining power relations. Therefore, the text needs explanation and interpretation to discover goals, so it is open to multiple interpretations to discover ideology, persuasive strategies, and the relationship with the other, and how it builds the image of its state in the minds of the masses.

Building meanings in the speech of the presidents

The words that presidents use are chosen specifically to express the meanings that they want the audience to understand, and the president who wants to influence his audience must work to develop his linguistic style - which is commensurate with his personality, the culture of his society and the policy of his state - and understand the circumstances in which words are used Each word is analyzed to see what goals the boss wants to achieve.

Presidential speechwriters are selected so that they have a set of characteristics, the most important of which are understanding of language, sensitivity to the use of words, competence in cross-cultural communication, and awareness of the goals that the president wants to achieve. Therefore, choosing a speechwriter is one of the most important decisions that the president makes.

Exploiting events to achieve impact

Heads of state use events to achieve their goals of influencing the masses and shaping public opinion, and they use words that match events to express meanings.

The events of September 11 are a revealing case of the US president's use of events and his use of words that achieve his strategy of intimidating Americans and pushing them to support the US aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are some events that make the masses wait for the president's speech, especially when anxiety and uncertainty increase and the masses lose the ability to obtain correct information, so US President George W. Bush focused on protecting the American people in the face of the enemy.

The language of conflict management

An analysis of the speeches of American presidents shows that the words used by presidents are an effective factor in conflict management, so the focus is on the ego in the face of the other, and the ratio of the positive qualities of the self and the negative qualities of the enemy, as “we” are always distinguished by kindness and goodness, in the face of “they” who are portrayed that they are "the bad guys".

Emphasis is also placed on arousing patriotic feelings and making the public feel distinct from the enemy. US President Bush asked the question: "Why do they hate us?"

To which he replied, "Because we are cool, progressive, and democratic!"

These methods have been proven to influence the masses, especially when they are exposed to events that could pose a threat to their existence.

Within that context, US President Bush was able to push the American people to support his aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan.

The events of September 11 contributed to the development of his linguistic style, pronunciation of words, composition of phrases, and organization of discourse.

This model demonstrates the importance of studying the context in which the president's speech was produced, so that we can critically analyze it and discover how the speech interacted with events.

Critical analysis of Bush's speech

There are many studies that provided a critical analysis of the speeches of presidents, the most important of which is the study of Robert Bishara - a researcher at the University of West Georgia - which clarified the ideological foundations in the speech of US President Bush Jr., the most important of which are:

  • Islamophobia and linking Islam with terrorism.

  • Islamic terrorists are the enemies of freedom, and they are criminals, extremists and radicals.

  • Terrorists kill Christians and Jews.

  • Islamic terrorists are fascists and Nazis.

  • There is no way to confront the terrorists and solve the problem but war.

  • America represents Christians and Jews against Muslims in the East, and he saw the war on terrorism as a crusade.

  • There is a contradiction between American patriotism and Islam.

  • America will discipline and punish terrorists.

  • Justification for the US strategy to dominate the world.

  • Use emotional emoticons.

    • Critical analysis of US President Bush Jr.'s speech after the events of September 11 shows that he used national and religious symbols that affect the emotions of the American people, which formed the basis for promoting Islamophobia. Bush used - what Robert Bishara called - "Islamophobic logic" that is based on All terrorists are Muslims, although it is recognized that not all Muslims are terrorists.

    However, this logic led to the spread of Islamophobia and the belittling of Muslims' humanity. Bush defined the framework of the war as saying that it will continue until all terrorists are defeated and eliminated everywhere. This means expanding the scope of the war, which he described as the only way to eliminate terrorism.

    Capitalism perspective

    Robert Bishara adds an important aspect, which is that this war on terror was expressed by Bush from the perspective of global capitalism as the only solution, and this war has no end.

    Therefore, Bush used some words like "profit", so it is a neo-colonial war based on the logic of "profit".

    Bush Jr linked the war on terror with global capitalism;

    Therefore, it is a protracted war, and the United States must win it, and this explains the hidden ideological foundations when America carried out a massive looting of Iraqi wealth.

    This is how the critical analysis of US President Bush's speech clarifies America's goals in imposing American control on the world and plundering the wealth of countries. America must "win" the war, so the US oil companies were among the most important active forces in making the war decision and presenting it to the Americans as the only solution.

    Text analysis of discourses

    A critical analysis of the texts of the US president's speeches reveals the system of beliefs, mechanisms of control, and power relations. He speaks on behalf of the US empire and global capitalism, and works to persuade the American people to achieve long-term goals.

    He also uses words understood by Americans and Europeans whose lives are shaped by the pragmatic materialist logic of capitalism.

    neocolonial ideology

    A critical analysis of the presidents' speech shows that the presidential speech is an important means of expressing and promoting the ideological foundations of the state.

    Therefore, Bush Jr.'s speech illustrates the strong relationship between capitalism, neo-colonialism, and the war on terrorism and Islamophobia.

    He also explains that one of the long-term goals of the war on terror is to maximize profits for the dominant European American elite.

    In this, Robert Bishara says, "The goal of the war on terror is not to protect Americans, but its main goal is to impose a new world order and promote fear of Islam to impose new colonialism and justify American control."

    The magic words in the speech

    Bush Jr. used a large number of words aimed at influencing the emotions of the American people, which still ideologically influence the attitudes of the masses. This war.

    Also, Bush's exaggeration in talking about American patriotism led to denying the character of patriotism to minorities and immigrants, especially Muslims, as a result of the false link between terrorism and Islam.

    Therefore, the war on terror became an ideological framework imposed on Americans to accept a set of exceptional measures that shame the American people, such as the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, and the war was portrayed as evidence of patriotism.

    Therefore, the American citizen no longer thinks in a free and democratic manner, but thinks of protecting himself from terrorism using the only means that is war.

    These were some of the results that Bush Jr. achieved, and this shows that the president's speech contributes to building reality and defining the frameworks in which the masses think. Therefore, the ability of Americans to innovate and produce new ideas, freely express their opinions, and oppose decisions taken by the president, such as launching aggression against Afghanistan, has decreased. And Iraq, and this is an important indication of the gradual end of American control.