States. Despite the efforts of and outcries of dozens and hundreds of folk who want 'national unity', with methods ranging from Mr. Lincoln's cannons and cannon fodder to Ms. Klobucher's magic woman sauce, the United States are not very united, They are very diverse. (I find it odd that it is often people who claim to be celebrating 'diversity' are most offended by that diversity.)
I watched as much of the 'Democratic Debates' as I could stomach last night. (I am happy that there will probably not be any 'Republican Debates' this year, except perhaps as a Twitterstorm.) Once again, folk were comparing the United States to other countries. Denmark came up last night. Denmark has a population about as great as South Carolina, and an area a bit larger than Delaware. Eighty-six per-cent of the population is ethnic Danish. Seventy-four per-cent are Evangelical Lutherans. It makes more sense to compare Racine, Wisconsin, to Denmark than to compare the whole conglomerate of fifty states with who-knows-how-many ethnic and religious and however-else we identify ourselves this week, to Denmark.
Often political candidates will compare, for instance, education in the United States to some particularly small and rich and unified European state, in an effort to impose their ideas for education reform on the country. But of course there is no single level of educational system in the United States. If one compares, say, California or Massachusetts to those European countries, things are pretty similar. No aspiring politician whom I have heard has boasted about how much better the education in the United States is compared to India, another country with great diversity across regions.
I am too lazy to go too far into my analogy of the United States and the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted much longer in its own faltering and evolving way than the United States has, and which most of us only know from Voltaire's quip about that Reich at the end of its life: it was neither holy, Roman, nor an empire. But if we consider that Empire as having existed from 800 with the coronation of Charlemagne until 1806 and the abdication of Francis after being defeated by Napoleon (an irony in itself), there was never a time when it was truly what it claimed to be. By the time the last pagans in the Baltic states were 'converted' in the Northern Crusades, Lutheranism was creeping in. One might argue that at least some of the emperors spoke Romance languages, but Francis was Franz and spoke German. (One concept of the empire understood it as the secular arm of the Papacy, and the Pope was usually in Rome.) And empire? Well, that term was mostly window dressing, chosen in envy of the real Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Emperor was even less secure in his position than the emperors of Rome, and the Empire was composed of a conglomerate of 'states' and 'principalities' and 'powers' that ranged from towns and colleges to real princedoms and duchy's. What united them? Mostly elaborate webs of mutual defense and delusions of grandeur. All under the banner of a double-headed eagle.
If the American eagle were to more accurately depict the United States, it would be hydra-headed. What is holiness in the United States? One need only listen to the candidates describe each other as unholy to conclude that there is nothing holy here. (His brother-in-law claims that Mr. Buttigieg would lead the country into 'unholy directions', which I guess are different from, say, the sacred directions of the Hopi, who consider themselves the only holy people in the country.) At one time the 'Rights of Englishmen' more or less constituted a consensual backdrop to political discourse in the United States that might be compared to Roman Law in the discourse of the HRE, but Louisiana has the Napoleonic Code, much of the Southwest has property laws based on Spanish colonialism, and there are growing segments of the population who have no background in anything European at all. (Except, perhaps, a yearning to be free. Yes, Virginia, Islam is a thing.) And international empire? Well, empires usually receive tribute, not dole out foreign aid. Certainly the United States is an immense world power with a lot of clout, but if it's an empire, it's one of the kindest and gentlest yet.
Rather the empire of the United States is a domestic one, with the federal powers striving always to gain more control, with a steady stream of the sorts of people Plato said should never be given power, seeking to hold power. There are pockets of resistance: the succession movement and the Confederacy was one; asylum cities are another. Always the imperial powers fight back, sometimes with punishment, such as stripping the rights of citizenship from Robert E. Lee (Lincoln did pardon him from criminal prosecution, but it was not until the Ford presidency that his citizenship was restored.) or the banishment of Edward Snowden. For most of the citizens of the empire, it has seemed that bread and circus has been enough. This go-round, the Republicans seem to be ahead i circuses while the Democrats argue over who will give us the biggest loaf of bread.
One great success of the American Empire is of course 'to provide for the common defense'. Fortunately for Mr. Eisenhower when he was leading the allied Forces in Europe, he had the US military-industrial complex pumping out B-29's and B-24's and M4 Shermans. If there's not a real enemy, most presidents are happy to invent one.
Then there's the delusion of grandeur. I keep trying to imagine John Adams getting out of Air Force One, or playing golf at the expense of the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment