The United States, we are told, faces an “existential threat” from radical Islam and terrorism. Israel, its leaders claim, faces the same thing from, well, just about everyone. Political issues aside, is this a correct usage of the word “existential”? William Safire, in his On Language column, dissects the issue here.
Now, linguistics aside, is it fair for national leaders to use such rhetoric? Most of the time, the answer is “no.” Everyone knows the extent to which politicians — from, yes, Adolph Hitler to George Bush to Al Gore – can create a climate of fear (sometimes warranted and sometimes not) to garner support for policy proposals and re-election campaigns. Fear, however, can be used to move one to take positive or negative actions.
But the United States does not face a threat to its very existence from, for example, Islamic terrorists or global warming. The Soviet Union — and now Russia — could in fact have annihilated America with hundreds of nuclear warheads. Muslim extremists could cause significant damage if they detonated a couple of nuclear or biological weapons in a few major cities, but they do not have the capacity to destroy the entire country.
Likewise, the long-term effects of climate change will likely harm and disrupt significant parts of the United States if no action is taken to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, but the country will continut to exist. Its existence is not in question.
The same holds true for Israel. The Jewish State does face an “existential threat” from Iran — two or three nuclear detonations would, in fact, destroy Israel. (Though, as I’ve argued elsewhere, I doubt Iran would actually do this.) But the Jewish State, for example, does not face such a threat from suicide bombers. These “martyrs,” of course, are evil and demented, but the damage they cause is very localized and does not threaten Israel’s existence as a whole.
When politicians use the rhetoric of “existential threats”, they are playing on the public’s emotions. And, when used in reference to threats that are actually less significant, such language does nothing to advance a reasoned discourse on serious issues.
