|
America's Ghost Story
By James Carroll
26/02/08 "IHT" -- -- The unfolding political contest in the
United States is a window into America's soul. The nation is
arguing with itself. The candidates embody separate impulses. As
voters choose sides, a red state-blue state polarity again takes
shape. Within the Democratic Party, the dispute is narrower, but
still sharp. Yet in truth, each citizen carries within herself
or himself the structure of the conflict: hard versus soft,
experience versus change, programmed versus spontaneous,
self-interest versus empathy, hope in an open future versus
lessons from the past. Politics, by isolating these positions
and attributing them to one candidate over against another,
parodies the interior struggle of every American.
In this era, humans have been cut loose from ancient moorings of
meaning and purpose. The context within which this condition is
most manifest in the United States is the debate - or, more
precisely, the lack thereof - over what is called "national
security." The phrase is potent because it promises something
that is impossible, since the human condition is by definition
insecure. When candidates vie with one another over who is most
qualified to be "commander in chief," and when they unanimously
promise to strengthen military readiness, they together
reinforce the dominant American myth - that an extravagant
social investment of treasure and talent in armed power of the
group offers members of the group escape from the existential
dread that comes with life on a dangerous planet. That such
investment only makes the planet more dangerous matters little,
since the feeling of security, rather than actual security, is
the goal of the entire project.
Military power, that is, functions in America the way state
religion has functioned in other societies. The Pentagon is the
temple of this religion. It has dogmas, rituals, high
priesthood, saints, cults of sacrifice, sacred language and a
justifying narrative - what theologians call "salvation
history." Last week, John McCain, in his victory speech after
Wisconsin, warned that his Democratic opponent would take "a
holiday from history," implying that the past is only a warning
of terrible things to come. McCain, alert to "moral monsters,"
sets the standard for national security discourse lately, but
the Democrats must echo it. The political debate, which seems so
defined by differences, actually puts on display the
unquestioned orthodoxy of the deeper American consensus.
When politicians invoke the rote formulae of martial rhetoric,
banging the drum of dire prediction, and promising best
protection, they are only fulfilling the requirements of set
rubrics, which produce in the electorate not the anxiety one
would expect, but enchantment - the enchantment of the pew.
Preachers warn of hellfire to offer rescue from it, which is
available to those who submit. This feedback loop of
damnation-salvation-submission serves the people by offering
meaning, and it serves the elite by protecting the structure of
power. In religion, all of this is overt. In presidential
politics, it is implicit.
Thus, the entire electoral process has become centered on
establishing the candidates' "toughness," as if the only
"virtue" a leader must fully possess is unflinching willingness
to declare war. Never mind the question of whether, since 1945,
war makes sense. No surprise, therefore, that no presidential
candidate questions the current Pentagon budget, which surpasses
every record set during the Cold War. That would be apostasy -
and political suicide.
This is not the candidates' doing, but the nation's. Barack
Obama, in character as a liberal Democrat, manifests a certain
skepticism toward the cult of military power, but, also true to
that character, he cannot propose the elimination of the
underlying ideology of power. Obama can suggest, as he did in
his post-Wisconsin speech, that "it is time to write a new
chapter in American history," yet he must not revise the
familiar chapters that already exist. But "history" is not a
mere record of past events and choices; it is an interpretation
of those events and choices. In today's America, the "national
security" interpretation is sacred.
When that consensus assumes, for example, that World War II was
"good," or that the United States arms build-up "won" the Cold
War, it protects the militarized economy, the status of the
military-industrial elite, the iron lock of incumbents on
office. Any reinterpretation of this salvation history, it is
feared, would undermine the economy, disempower the elite,
unsettle politics - and deprive the citizenry of meaning in an
otherwise meaningless world. Voters may want change, but not
change at this level. Yet "national security" is bogus - part
ghost story with which the nation scares itself at bedtime, part
nightly prayer with which it then goes to sleep.
James Carroll's column appears regularly in The Boston Globe.
Copyright © 2008 the International Herald Tribune
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse
and meaningful commentary. Do not include
personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those including
personal attacks and profanity – are not
permitted.
See our complete
Comment Policy
and
use this link to notify us if you have concerns
about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and remove any
inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
