lunes, 28 de diciembre de 2015

lunes, diciembre 28, 2015

America’s clash of civilisations


Debate over defeating Islamist terrorism is at least as much about beating political enemies at home
 
Ed Luce illustration©Ed Luce
 
Once upon a time, Americans settled around the television to enjoy a white Christmas together. Nowadays, it seems, they are too entrenched on opposite sides of the “war on Christmas”, or commoditising it to oblivion, to remember Bing Crosby’s crooning. To say the US is a civilisation divided may strike some as an overstatement.
 
For the most part, the country still speaks one language. Black and white, straight and gay, Jewish and Muslim all flock to the latest Star Wars movie. Interest in the Oscars and the Super Bowl obliterates sociological distinction. So too does fear of economic insecurity. These things unite most Americans.

Yet the things that divide the country are growing. If you listen to the Republican presidential debate, one message overrides all. Conservatives do not just disagree with President Barack Obama — they hate him profoundly. When asked if they would back a Donald Trump nomination, even the most moderate Republican says anyone would be better than this “feckless, weakling” president, to quote Chris Christie, the New Jersey governor.

Likewise, if you ask a liberal about today’s Republicans, it does not take long before the word “stupid” is used. People who support Mr Trump are idiots. People who oppose him must be snobs. The two sides neither speak to each other, nor obtain their “information” from the same outlets. Facts are what you feel comfortable believing. No one in your social group is likely to challenge you.

Is the idea of America as a republic of shared values under threat? It is tempting to say no. The country has gone through philosophical clashes before and emerged stronger. It was born in the heat of one. The dispute between Thomas Jefferson, the poet of the American Revolution, and Alexander Hamilton, its chief federalist, predates the republic. It lives on in the form of conservatives who favour states’ rights and liberals who prefer a bigger role for federal government.

History began in 1776 and up­dates itself within the same reference points. That argument will be on display again in 2016 between Hillary Clinton and whichever Republican is nominated.

According to this view, it is wise to be complacent. However cacophonous the noise, it will be drowned out by history’s drumbeat to an ever-closer union.

And yet. It is hard to listen to today’s poisonous exchanges and imagine them petering out any time soon. Mr Trump cannot be uninvented. The last Republican debate sounded more like the launch of the Tenth Crusade than a question of which candidate had the best ideas to stabilise the Middle East.
 
Reconquering the Christian holy sites from Islam was not the sole aim of the crusades. The papacy’s other motive was to consolidate Rome’s hold over Europe. It worked. Crusaders slaughtered almost as many Jews and heretics en route to the Mediterranean as they did Saracens. By the same token, America’s debate over how to uproot Islamist terrorism is as much about defeating political enemies at home as it is coping with ground realities in the Middle East.

For evidence, look at Republican candidates’ solutions for Syria. Leave aside their vows to “destroy”, “carpet bomb” or “obliterate” Isis. There is little practical difference bet­ween what most hawkish Republicans want to do and what the Obama administration is doing. Almost no one wants to send US troops.

The debate has less to do with Syria than with Mr Obama, the most un-American president in history, according to his revilers. Whoever replaces him, even the cavalier Mr Trump, would take America back and make it great again. Aside from a little more bombing here, and a few more special forces there, it would bring about little change of policy in Syria.
 
Alleging weakness on terrorism is just another rock to throw in the battle for America’s soul. In their hearts, liberals think they have already won that battle. Much like in Star Wars , the forces of demography are with them. By the early 2040s, the US will be a majority-minority nation. With each election, whites dwindle as a share of the electorate. A liberal intellectual recently told me it will be a “mathematical impossibility” for a Republican to win the White House.
 
Such certainty brings impatience, even contempt, for those who disagree. It also reinforces the cultural divide. Liberals believe Tea Party conservatism is implicitly racist — and, with Mr Trump’s input, explicitly so. Yet, by assuming the loyalty of non-white Americans, liberals are guilty of racial stereotyping. By the same token, little effort is made to understand why so many white middle-class Americans have drifted away from them.

Mr Obama has never been forgiven for saying poor white Americans are suffering from Marxian false consciousness: “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.” He has wisely never repeated that sentiment. But in the age of Trump, it has become a liberal article of faith. Blue-collar Americans are either too dumb to know they are voting against their economic interests, or else knowingly prejudiced. Such are the markers of a nation that talks past itself.

Which brings us back to Star Wars. Few things are more fun than watching the forces of darkness lose. That much unites liberal and conservative Americans. But during this season of goodwill, it would be wise to avoid probing that analogy any further. The force is awake and ready. Let us leave it at that.

0 comments:

Publicar un comentario