« Obama's challenge and McCain's last, small, chance (2) | David Seaton's Blog | At the guru's lotus feet »
America the dangerous
The extensive press resume pasted from
Slate below explains much of the Obama phenomenon and also explains the
existential crisis that the United States is undergoing.For me the two quotes that distill the idea most are Nicholas Kristof's idea that Obama will, "find a path to restore America's global influence" and E. J. Dionne's that an Obama victory will, "rekindle the sense of possibility and transformation" in American life.
(Reporters are) not as much in love with Obama as they're in love with the idea of Obama, of the "meaning" of his run for the presidency, of the redemption he offers a sinful nation that scratched slavery into its liberty-loving Constitution.In all of this there are many dangers implicit for the United States and for the rest of humanity.
The windows of this mind-set are provided by Slate's Jacob Weisberg, for whom the Obama election is a national referendum on racism; the New York Times' Nicholas D. Kristof, for whom an Obama presidency is an opportunity to "rebrand" our nation and "find a path to restore America's global influence"; E.J. Dionne, who sees an Obama presidency as representing a chance to "rekindle the sense of possibility and transformation" in American life; and a swooning Andrew Sullivan, who almost a year ago speculated that Obama might be "that bridge to the 21st century that Bill Clinton told us about." For Chris Matthews, of course, the Obama candidacy is a "thrill" going up his leg, one that will arc over his torso and detonate his head in the event of a victory.
The leading Obama cheerleader among the commentariat is Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, whose "erection of the heart" for the candidate has no match. Alter sees the presidential election as a world referendum on the United States and "the common sense and decency of the American people." Obama symbolizes hope over fear, and his election would produce an "Obama Dividend" that would "blow the minds of people in the Middle East and other regions, and help restore American prestige." Obama, Alter continues, "knows how to think big, elevate the debate and transport the public to a new place."Jack Slafer - Slate
Cutting to the chase what this means is that with the failure and disappearance of the Russian Revolution and its promise of "possibility and transformation" gone, the only revolution promising "possibility and transformation" left is the American revolution and it is in crisis and needs to be "rekindled".
The problem for the United States is that, contrary to the Russians, without their revolution, without their "dream", much of America's national identity simply disappears.
When the USSR went down, the Russians abruptly stopped being soviets and went back to being Russians. In fact they had never stopped. Theirs is a culture that goes back centuries before Lenin was even a gleam in his father's eye. A national identity that strong needs no "power of transformation" to exist, it simply is, was and, presumably, always will be.
There is no "Russian Dream" as there is no "Chinese Dream"... They are just the Russians and the Chinese and as far as they are concerned others are simply defined as "not Russian" or "not Chinese".
Frankly speaking, such knee jerk, ethnic, "us and them", nationalism is offensive to most thinking Americans, because outside of America's "ideals", exactly who is "us" and who is "them"?
What is there outside of this ongoing revolution, exactly, that is going to ever make "E pluribus unum"? Without some idea of limitless horizons of "possibility and transformation": growing prosperity, social mobility etc, what is to keep America from flying apart like some Bosnia Herzegovina on steroids?
White, Black, Asian and Hispanic, Christian and Jew: have we been assembled from the four corners of the earth only to shop together?
Of course this need to "transform" and "rekindle" its "power" is a danger to itself and everyone else.
Obama fan, Roger Cohen, writing in the NYT of his interview with Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero, was deeply offended when Zapatero, with very simple, Spanish logic and savoir vivre advised Americans to relax and have a life:
Zapatero is also wrong about the United States. He said it is a "diverse, creative, dynamic" country, but "it does not need to have a mission."Heavy!
But America was born as an idea and cannot be itself unless it carries that idea forward. That's the tragedy of the Bush years: the undermining of American ideals. The United States is inseparable from the hope it has given Emma Lazarus' "huddled masses yearning to be free;" it is bound to the struggle to ensure that, as Lincoln put it, "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Obviously, with the economy melting down, vapors like this are dangerous stuff as America searches for "a path to restore its global influence".
What I'm afraid of is that Obama is not just talking through his hat: simply in love with the sound of his own voice but, unless his fans are totally mishearing and misreading him, he is serious about all this "re-kindling". If so, he is going to talk us and the rest of the world into some very dangerous days.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
Advertisement
It will be dangerous because it was always going to be dangerous. Life is.
But if he were talking through his hat, then it will not only be dangerous but heart breakingly disappointing.
October 29, 2008 4:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I go on the premise that "American Exceptionalism" is the most dangerous political force in the world today, even more dangerous than radical Islam.
October 29, 2008 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
David -
I think you are right up to a point and then we diverge. American ideals, exceptionalism if you will, are fine within our own borders it is when we try and export it that we become - as you say dangerous. We have just never been very good at it. It's at it's best when we set the example here, it at it's worst when we try push it else where.
I had an interesting, and heated conversation with my father years ago about the United Fruit Company, at the time he was it's CEO. He could not understand why the workers on the banana plantations were not overjoyed to be working for The Fruit Co. I tried to explain to him that while all the schools, housing, hospitals they had built for the workers were very nice. They still weren't the workers schools, hospitals, housing etc they were still the Fruit Company's. The argument came down had he asked the workers what they wanted or had he assumed he and the Fruit Company knew what they wanted? The American way of life. Had he and others before him assumed that everybody wants what American has. I reminded while that maybe true and it was why so many come to America's shores to make a new life. It is not necessarily true for those who have not. And while some would love to have an American style government within their own borders. You cannot magically make that happen. It had taken 200 years to get where we were, at the point of our conversation, with many fits and starts and screw ups. And yet he assumed like many of our leaders that everybody wants to be us and we should do it for them with armies, bulldozers, building materials and a ton of cash.
Now does Obama realize we at our best when we set the example or will he like so many others before him believe everybody wants to be like us and try to export it? I'm guessing he does, but it's just a guess.
Finally more dangerous than radical Islam? Sorry, to my mind there is nothing more dangerous than radical beliefs based on religion, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim or what have you. Exceptionalism based on religion is to my mind the most dangerous force on earth. Maybe this is why I am more afraid of the rabid religious right within our own borders than radical Islamist outside our borders.
October 29, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you in principal, but I am afraid that an ideology like this has to spread and grow continuously otherwise it begins to collapse. I think it is more dangerous then Islamic fundamentalism because it is better armed and has more resources.
October 29, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have just recently read "General of the Army" by Ed Cray: A one-volume biography of George C. Marshall. I'm not QUITE sure that has anything to do with the topic of discussion, but I have a sense that it might.
I'll probably have to explain to some of our younger audience just who the devil Marshall WAS, which may be a large part of our problem:
To make a very long story short, Gen. Marshall was the man that most of the great figures of WW2 and the early Cold War era ( the ones we've all actually heard of: Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Eisenhower, Patton, Truman, to name only a few) thought was the TRULY great man of the era - the truly dominant 'insider', whose strength, integrity, skill, and deep sense of DUTY carried the USA thru some of the greatest hazards in its history. His name is attached to the "Marshall Plan": As Sec. of State, he drafted that sweeping plan for European Economic Recovery after the devastation of WW2. He conceived the idea of NATO. All this and more, AFTER nearly single-handedly building the modern United States Army from a backwater border-patrol operation into the gargantuan modern force that did so much to defeat Hitler, and then to protect the world against the looming Soviet threat.
I could go on and on for volumes (and many have), but you get the point: This was a very BIG American, in very DANGEROUS times.
Which brings me to my point: I'm sure that Gen. Marshall would be APPALLED by the chest-thumping, mindless jingoism that many Americans today seem to confuse with patriotism. He had a deep belief in American capabilities, and did as much as anyone in history to get these qualities developed to their fullest, but he was also deeply REALISTIC, and notoriously unsentimental. His prejudice was for ACTING, not talking. He despised bombast and cant. He believed (REALLY believed) in the old-school idea of leading by EXAMPLE. He would have been (I'm sure)baffled by the idea that God had ordained the USA to achieve anything by DEFAULT, disconnected from the sincere, intelligent effort we put into it, or the inherent morality (or even just good sense) of our actions. He would have believed (I'm sure) that America's greatness flows from what it DOES, and what it continues to do every day.
I think he was a very different type of man from the run of what we see in charge these days. I'll leave it others to decide whose legacy will last longer, and which approach is more successful.
October 29, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our choice for president is not between Obama and Mother Theresa, or Obama and Gandhi, or Obama and Santa Claus, or Obama and Jesus. It's a choice between Obama and McCain.
If you're concerned about the potential dangers in the notion of American exceptionalism you have a clear best choice. Obama. John McCain is most likely to involve us in new unnecessary wars, and to stubbornly drag us into one international crises after another in search of reclaiming a national honor which he feels was left behind in Viet Nam.
October 29, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not making a push for McCain, but I don't think he has the demogogical potential that Obama has. I think with McCain what you see is what you get (not much). But, I still find Obama mysterious and ultimately unreadable, he and the reactions produce make me uncomfortable in control of American power they terrify me, quite frankly.
October 29, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama, mysterious? Unreadable? So, you're more comfortable with McCain because (you think) he's the devil you know, versus Obama's the devil you don't know, is that it? Are you positive the problem is something in Obama and not something in you? Only you know for sure.
October 29, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still worrying? Spain isn't the best country to buy decent reefer, so hop the train to Amsterdam, dude.
That several newspaper writers fill their columns with soaring copy means nada. The large crowds attending Obama rallies surely mean something, but not necessarily what Dionne, Cohen, or Kristof say.
October 29, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink