Analyze this! Progressives, "war on terror,' and the US psyche
Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 07:48:36 AM PDT
Lakoff's discussion of the war on terror raises questions that he doesn't address adequately. He is right that "if you are to deal responsibly with terrorism, you must deal effectively with all its causes: religious, social, and enabling." The problem, is that he addresses the process but does not paint a convincing picture of the outcome of that process. It's no coincidence that Lakoff himself admits to a serious challenge confronting progressive who want to formulate a foreign policy based on their values: progressives can inadvertently sound like Bush:
"There is... an apparent overlap between the nurturant norms policy and an idealistic vision of the Bush administration's new war. That overlap is, simply, that it is a moral norm to refuse to engage in or support terrorism. "
We will cede too much ground to the conservatives who are abusing American ideals until we start working on our own vision.
Join the discussion and work on our vision.
The overlap conceals a deep divide. A big part of Bush's appeal, such as it is, is his ability to evoke idealistic American themes as the foundation of his foreign and military policy.
I am hoping that this diary will be a forum for dialogue, not about frames, but about our vision of the US's place in the world and how we can get there. I argue below that we have to recognize the unique set of problems that the Bush administration presents: 1. they have coopted American ideas for their imperialist agenda; 2. their failures may perversely work to their advantage; and 3. we will not be able to take advantage of their failures until we think about what a better world should look. I want to take a somewhat broader perspective on the "war on terror" because the conservative vision of American foreign and military policy fills a void that both parties created in the 1990s, i.e. long before the al Qaeda struck.
The mission that the President outlines in his inaugural address represents a new phase and broader application of the "War on Terror." The "WoT" reveals psychological changes that Robert Lifton described in the
Nation in 2003. He notes that al Qaeda's attacks and US's response as products of the "the apocalyptic imagination"
"Both sides are energized by versions of intense idealism; both see themselves as embarked on a mission of combating evil in order to redeem and renew the world; and both are ready to release untold levels of violence to achieve that purpose."
I believe most Americans would be reluctant to embark on a campaign of this sort, but why are they haven't they rejected Bush's "apocalyptical" policies into it in spite of mounting signs of failure and incompetence? Lifton argues that the war against Iraq was, at least initially, a kind of therapeutic act, that restored our sense of invulnerability.
"The American apocalyptic entity is a new constellation of forces bound up with what I've come to think of as "superpower syndrome," a sense of omnipotence, of unique standing in the world that grants it the right to hold sway over all other nations. The American superpower status derives from our emergence from World War II as uniquely powerful in every respect, still more so as the only superpower from the end of the cold war in the early 1990s.... More than mere domination, the American superpower now seeks to control history. That is, a superpower--the world's only superpower--is entitled to dominate and control precisely because it is a superpower."
This gives us a clue about why the administration didn't call the "WoT" a war on al Qaeda. They war in Afghanistan was for them as defensive struggle. A superpower cannot be a superpower unless it takes the initiative in global affairs. From their perspective, the failure of the Clinton years was not only a matter of supposedly ignoring defense: it also consists of not aggressively exercising American "rights" as the world's sole superpower. In this context, the attacks in 2001 were the culmination decade-long period in which the strict global father spared the rod. In the inaugural address, Bush spoke of "years of sabbatical.") Lifton maintains that the attacks of 2001 created a similar need to restore the strict father among broad segments of the population:
The murderous events of 9/11 hardened that sense of entitlement... and the rendered us an aggrieved superpower, a giant violated and made vulnerable, which no superpower can permit. At the core of superpower syndrome lies a powerful fear of vulnerability. A superpower's victimization brings on both a sense of humiliation and an angry determination to restore, or extend, the boundaries of a superpower-dominated world."
Lifton recognizes that the subsequent war against Iraq restored a sense of strength and represented an attempt to remake the world in order to prevent new injuries.
Here is where the term WoT becomes especially significant. It is a war on terror, not terrorism, not terrorists. Why? The term suggests that by conducting militaries conflicts, Bush will heal our emotional wounds. War is a powerful, though misleading word. Powerful, because, to most Americans signifies war signifies resolve, common purpose and success (with one notable exception in Viet Nam).
The "WoT" enable Bush to become a build on the his compound identity as "compassionate conservative." He simultaneously sought to become healer and strict global father (the assertions of American power and privilege to Europe and the Middle East.) This move to restore the strict father at home and in the world at the same time is one reason why we can see the unusually close connection between the rhetoric of foreign policy and that of domestic policy. Lifton:
"As the world's greatest military power replaces the complexities of the world with its own imagined stripped-down, us-versus-them version of it, our distorted national self becomes the world."
Compare that with the inaugural address:
The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world....
because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it.
By invoking national ideals and traditions, Bush has given listeners a larger context, a mission for individual decisions. Thus, we can criticize decisions like the war in Iraq, but the vision will remain in place, unchallenged. Indeed, the administration can use a potential failure to justify further acts of aggression. Is it not inconceivable that Bush will so "We remain strong, undaunted by challenges in dangerous lands, and are committed to bring freedom..."? Moreover, a failure in Iraq could serve as a pretext for stirring up "terror," which as Lifton tells us, will make people more willing to support belligerent actions.
Bush has an idealistic vision of the world and our mission that potentially puts him in a strong position.
We can't challenge him until we have a vision. Let's brainstorm.
Permalink | 17 comments