Yesterday, I wrote quite a bit on unhealthy patriotism, or rather, an ugly nationalism, that seems to have swept through so much of American life and culture.
This is a false patriotism that implicitly suggests to Americans that they are, indeed, the world's only real superpower and, as such, that they have achieved a measure of superiority to the rest of the world that will last forever, essentially, simply because we are Americans, and this is how it has "always" been. It provides for these Americans who fall under this sway the conceit of truly believing that, somehow or other, the United States has achieved such a measure of superiority that the rest of the world hardly even matters. That we cannot actually learn a thing from them, and that they in fact should follow our example, since we are the most successful nation in history.
Increasingly, there is a name for this: American exceptionalism. It had existed for quite some time in reality, but this new name made it's first real popular and established debut in the lead-up to the recent Presidential election in 2012. Specifically, it was the Republican party that proclaimed to believe in it, that America was a truly unique case, and the blasted President Obama for not recognizing this very exceptionalism.
Of course, they have long questioned his patriotism, that in itself is nothing new. But now, they are outright making this America as exception argument.
Needless to say, I have some real problems with this. This is what passes nowadays for "patriotism", but it is really only a disguise. Listening to those who advocate the exceptionalist argument, you might get the impression that this is, indeed, just a healthy patriotism. In truth, however, nothing could be farther from the truth.
Exceptionalism seems to be the new and acceptable, almost unquestioned prejudice. It is a conceit that used to exist in the spirit of "Manifest Destiny", which essentially was a feeling, and a de facto policy, that led to the genocide of the American Indians, because of the civilizing mission. It was this same spirit that allowed the institution of slavery to exist for centuries, and then to be replaced with a milder form of servitude and white superiority, an American apartheid commonly known as Jim Crow. Back then, it might have been seen as the exceptionalism of superior, white or Christian exceptionalism, and the lengths that we went to to impose that were truly horrific. It continues to be a source of shame to this day, or should.
Yet, this presumption of superiority continued more or less unabated, and virtually unchallenged. It was not long ago that this version of history, of the heroic white culture bringing the gift of civilization to a barbaric land, persisted. In the fifties and sixties, Western movies were quite dominant portrayals of earlier days in this country's history, and they reinforced the notion that whites were the "good guys", and natives were barbaric savages, almost animals in an of themselves. Keep in mind that in the South back in those days, there was a strict form of segregation that was imposed both socially and politically. we are not talking about ancient history here.
It was also during this time that we were engaged in the "Cold War" with the Soviet Union in particular, and the Communists of the East in general. Let;s be quite honest, many of the same prejudices that fueled this de facto this endorsement of our Manifest Destiny earlier in our history also saw us as heroes in this epic battle against Communist tyranny. I had a history teacher who told the class that we were "the good guys....in the white hats". He pretended to fix an invisible white hat as visual reinforcement when he said this. He also was the only teacher that I had who outright stated his belief that whites and blacks should remain "separate....but equal".
Of course, he was hardly the only person who felt like this. Hell, we had a President who referred to the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire", and some suggested that this was the greatest evil that had ever visited mankind. Indeed, the Soviet Union had no shortage of evils, and there was an extensive Gulag system. For that matter, it had a similarly dire history in China under Mao, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. East Germany's Stasi was one of the most feared secret police seen in history, as was the KGB in the Soviet Union. These are indeed evils. But do they compare with the most extreme regime that history has ever seen during the days of Nazi Germany, when fanaticism brought the most extreme episode of genocide ever witnessed, as well as a very bloody and costly war that touched almost every corner of Europe, as well as much of Africa and Asia, and which ultimately cost well over fifty million lives, and reduced formerly great cities to rubble. Yet, far too many Americans seemed to overlook this when they simply and easily labeled communism as the greatest evil that had ever existed. As if the death camps and the Holocaust of Nazism were just another chapter in history, compared with the evils of communism.
When communism collapsed in Eastern Europe during the miraculous political revolution that swept throughout eastern Europe in 1989. The Berlin Wall, the most visible, physical scar of the Cold War, was dismantled, and by the people of Berlin at that. Much of it had been slowly allowed over the course of years by Gorbachev's policies of "glastnost" and "perestroika". This was followed by similar such revolutions throughout the former Eastern bloc, and it culminated a couple of years later with the Soviet Union dissolving itself. There were setbacks on this road to the end of the Cold War, such as the crackdown at Tiananmen Square (and communism continued to exist in China, as well as a few other countries), as well as the August Coup in the Soviet Union in 1991. But perhaps those were ultimately bumps in the road.
In reality, Americans began to pat themselves on the back for winning the Cold War. Reagan was given the bulk of the credit, of course. After all, he had gone to the Berlin Wall, and outright asked Gorbachev to tear the wall down. So, we won, right?
The problem with that interpretation is that history is not our personal, self-serving agent. Those revolutions in Eastern Europe happened for a reason, and I doubt that Reagan, or America in general, were the main reasons why they happened precisely when they happened, or the way that they happened.
Yet, here on this side of the Atlantic, there was little doubt about the accuracy of this interpretation. From an American perspective, we were ending this "American Century" on top, as the world's saviors, effectively. We had bailed out Europe in not just one, but two world wars. Now, we had defeated yet another great evil empire, all with tough talk and political bravado.
Of course, we did not examine ourselves, or our own approach. We never viewed ourselves as aggressors, even though we had placed missiles right next to the Soviet Union, which many now feel was a very real threatening act. An aggressive act. When the Soviets tried to respond by bringing missiles to Cuba, the "Cold War" almost got very hot, and we were amazingly close to a nuclear war.
We view all of this as a success, because we "won" the Cold War. Children had to practice exercises of hiding under their desks in the event of a nuclear attack, as if this were adequate. The whole world seemed to adjust to living with the specter of possible Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Perhaps indeed we can be credited with bringing the Soviet Union to it's knees. But then again, the instability that this caused allowed some of the Weapons of Mass Destruction that the Soviets had built to go unaccounted for. There are still tons of weapons around the world, and
Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has not engaged seamlessly in the "Global War on Terror". There are differences, the main one being that our traditional allies were not unconditionally supportive of our actions in this war, causing much resentment and mistrust on both sides. For that matter, , this new "war" seems far more confusing and unclear than the previous one, with a largely invisible enemy that is not defined in the strict sense of having national borders or governments.
And many have questioned the wisdom, and often the legitimacy, of the wars we choose to wage. Many have criticized our entire strategy and approach in Afghanistan, and almost everyone criticized some aspect or another of Iraq. For a while, a majority of people actually questioned the validity of that war, and the corporate feel of it left a bad taste in many people's mouths.
Yet, many politicians still advocate "American exceptionalism", which it is virtually guaranteed will inevitably lead us to more such wars.
In the meantime, Americans have found their living standards, traditionally among the very highest in the world, constantly declining. The standard of living is still fairly high, don't get me wrong. But it is going in the wrong direction, and this leads to the general feeling, shared by both liberals and conservatives alike (albeit perhaps for different reasons) that the country is going in the wrong direction.
The truth of the matter is that we are declining, and many are beginning to wake up to the excesses of the more extreme (some might suggest pure) form of "capitalism" or "Free marker economy" that has been practices since, particularly, the Reagan era. It goes under the guise of "deregulation", which still thrills some conservatives, who associate it with greater freedom and opportunity. Funny, though, how it seems to systematically favor large corporations and how, in turn, these corporations grow and grow in power and wealth, while the power and wealth of average Americans continues to shrink and shrink. Surely, there's no correlation, right?
But we are urged not to think too deeply about that, because this is the price of "freedom", right? It's competition, and this is the age of globalization. These are the sacrifices that we must make in a changing world, right? To remain competitive, to remain on top.
Funny, though, that much of the rest of the world no longer indisputably view the United States entirely with trust. Many Americans still refer to themselves the "leaders of the free world", but much of the rest of the world doesn't see it that way.
I was listening the other day to the Leonard Lopate Show on NPR, and he had a guest, Jane McAlevey, who was a union organizer, and discussed the waning power and influence of the unions. Not surprisingly, of course, this also correlates with the general decline of our standard of living. McAlevey suggested something that I, and quite a few others, have long suspected: that this decline did not just happen by chance, or because of circumstances, political or economical. In fact, she suggested that this was done deliberately, by design. Corporations felt that Americans made too much money, received too much benefit, and that all of this cut into their profit margin too much. So, for the sake of what they claimed was a "healthy economy", all of these things have been systematically reduced. By design.
Surely, this can't be true, right? I mean, the fact that many corporations raked in record profits, even during the struggling economy when people were really suffering, that's just a coincidence, right? They don't really have it in for us, do they?
Because, in the end, that would not make them very "patriotic" at all, would it?
Yet, it is a common strategy that leaders with designs for more power and privileges for themselves and their friends have employed divide and conquer strategies. Many felt that this accounted for the endorsement of prejudices and racism. To keep the people divided and distracted, while the real criminals get away with murder.
Of course, legalized racism in this country was outlawed, and so perhaps it is distasteful now. But we do have plenty of prejudices remaining, and perhaps the most universally accepted of these in the nationalistic prejudice. The sense of superiority over the rest of the world.
Politicians used that when advocating the invasion or Iraq more than a decade ago. And it is still in use. Now, it has a name, a label, that people are growing more and more familiar with: "American exceptionalism".
How is it that I can conclude that this sentiment of love for one's country can do so much damage? Isn't love of country a good thing?
Well, yes it is, actually. But again, the key thing to remember here is that "American exceptionalism" is not patriotism. It is nationalism, and nationalism has a proven track record of blinding people to the damage being done to their country, and not realizing it until it is far too late. And that, unfortunately, is where we are. We have collectively grown too complacent, too uninvolved in mind and in heart. We have collectively rested on our laurels, so to speak, and have not allowed critical, or sometimes even rational, thinking to gain a foothold. Why? Again, nationalism is a form of intolerance. Anyone who criticizes an element of the country is not unpatriotic, yet with nationalism, it is far too easy to convince people that any critic is, by definition, unpatriotic. Thus, politicians have been allowed to manipulate this exceptionalist sentiment, this prejudice, in their own favor, to shut out arguments, to stifle healthy debate. And since they are beholden to those who fund their campaigns, the end result is corporate supremacy. And corporate supremacy, in turn, is definitely and decidedly not good for the country. So, these arguments of American supremacy are made for the American people, to make themselves feel better about their country, whatever problems it may face. In fact, let us take it a step further: it allows people to escape the problems, by taking comfort in some preconceived notion of supremacy. Of our need to stand out. American supremacist arguments are custom designed for a people who already are oftne born with a sense of entitlement, having lived relatively privileged lives, by and large. It makes hearts beat faster, to swell with pride, and in turn, to largely ignore the very real, and growing, problems that this country faces. The very real problems that, in fact, are created by those who use the "American exceptionalist" arguments in the first place.
In a manner of speaking, then, it is much like what Lincoln said of our democracy. "American exceptionalist" nationalism is a way of thinking and of doing things "of the people, by the people, and for the people." But that is where the similarities end, because while democracy can definitely be said to have created positives for people the world over, ignorance born of some notion of supremacy has no such impressive track record to fall back on. It has generally led natons downhill, and unless you are an optimist to the max, almost everyone nowadays seems to think that this country is, indeed, going in the wrong direction. This did not just happen. It happened by design, because some people, including politicians, the very wealthy, and powerful corporations, placed their own interests ahead of what is best for the country. And the American people allowed it, mistaking this for their patriotic duty.
Nor have Americans learned the lessons yet from this. That is why we are in such a sorry state of affairs. That is why, on the sidelines of that eternal political tug of war, many Americans of one political stripe cheer everything that "their guy in office" is doing, and relentlessly criticize "the other guy" when it is his turn. Instead of being critical of all politicians, and reminding them that they are, in fact, our public servants (and not the other way around), we have so dumbed down the political game, that many well-intentioned Americans amount to so many cheerleaders on the sideline. The more vocal, the more publicity gained, the better. In the meantime, what is far too oftne ignored is that the differences between the two major parties have been blurred, because they are, by and large, sponsored by the same people. Again, that is most certainly not good for the country. It hardly matters which party controls the White House, or Congress, or even the Supreme Court. The results over these last few decades have increasingly been the same.
The candidate who emerged last year for the GOP was a strong advocate of this "American excpetionalism", much like everyone that ran for the Presidency in the Republican Party. He, and all of the other candidates also blasted President Obama for his lack of patriotism, and his inability to truly see and act upon the exceptionalism of this country.
And isn't it funny how so many of these same people are also in favor of reducing, if not outright crushing, the labor unions, and consistently claim that American workers receive too high wages, too many benefits, and that there are too many entitlements and government hand downs. They do not see corporate welfare as a problem, however. Also, they do not see a problem or conflict with considering corporations as people, my friends, as Mitt Romney infamously did.
These are the advocates of "American exceptionalism", and they foster the spirit of looking down upon people in the rest of the world. they don't want the American people to know about some of the benefits and living standards that exist in other nations, perhaps because then, Americans might get it in their heads that some of these things would be nice to have. Affordable health care, affordable child care, sufficient paid time off for new mothers, decent public transportation, and quite a bit of vacation time, to boot.
Not only do these things exist in other nations, but they pretty much exist in every single industrialized nation, except for one. And here is the exceptionalism that truly is unique to America. We do not have many of these things. We still do not have universal, affordable healthcare, the only nation in the industrialized world not to have it. We are definitely the exception there.
So, why are we the exception? Because well-meaning Americans have allowed themselves for too long to get caught up with this bad form of "patriotism". That is not so much love of country, as egotistical narcissism, and you would think that many people would have caught on to this more quickly. Yet, it more or less went unchecked for far too long, and has now had some considerable time to do some considerable damage. How much damage? Well, let us use the line of questioning asked by politicians since Reagan: are you better off now then you were ten, twenty, thirty years ago?
Finally, our sense of superiority itself is truly exceptional, and makes us stand out like a sore thumb. It is a form of nationalism that much of the world finds distasteful, including a growing number of Americans, right here within these sacred borders.
I personally believe that, collectively, Americans are guilty of dereliction of duty. Patriotism is not an easy or simple thing. It takes real work, dedication, and sacrifice. It also requires serious thought. Those are things that are in short supply these days. People put their own, often temporary interests over what is best for the country, and that is wrong. As far as thought goes, the country's thinking has been self-serving for far too long to really be cohesive any longer. We cannot agree, and often cannot even talk, with one another. So, we don't even try. We fall back on the same old same old. That means flag-waving. That means singing our national songs, and putting flag stickers on our vehicles. That apparently also means reciting now well-worn expressions of supremacy, such as "America First", "USA #1", God's country", or that this is "the greatest country in the world". These sentiments apparently unite Americans more than almost anything else does these days, and they allow Americans to feel better aobut themselves, so that they do not have to focus on the dysfunction. It seems that many feel it allows them an escape clause from the hard work of thinking, of discussing like adults, of listening to the other side, of putting the interests of the country as a whole (which usually includes putting the interests of others( ahead of our own from time to time. And, of course, of compromise.
For far too long, we have been taught the virtues of greed. It runs counter to logic, when you really think about it. But when people are not used to actually thinking, you cn easily lose sight of that.
So, all we have left after each side has had their say are questions. Many questions, but one big question overall that both sides seem to agree on, but which both sides also have vey different answers for. That question is, why are things continuing to get worse, not better?
By extension, can we actually fix it.
But this leads to another question, and this one is not so easily dismissed by mindlessly blasting Congress or the White House or politicians in general, or even of Corporate America. The question concerns the American people themselves, and it is far from certain that the answer is one that we want to hear.
The question is, whether we will continue to remain "exceptional" in this false sense, continue to pat ourselves on the back and take comfort in vague notions of superiority, and continue with "business as usual" as we have had not for decades, or whether we finally drop our sense of superiority, and try and finally and fully join the rest of the world community. We might even find that this is to our benefit, as we shed the excessive, and growing, cost to bearing the cross of our present "exceptionalism".
No comments:
Post a Comment