Aaron Antrim

English 120, Spring 2004

Dr. Stacey

May 2, 2004

Paper #3

 

Strangers in Our Country

 

Too late, too late

    the Iron Horse hurrying to war,

        too late for laments

                to late for warning—

I'm a stranger alone in my country again.

— Allen Ginsberg, excerpt from Iron Horse

From the last line of “Iron Horse” a reader might think the speaker is without friends and without political compatriots.  In reality, however, Allen Ginsberg enjoyed the company of beatnik friends and existed the center of a like-minded political and intellectual community.  Ginsberg, then, must be trying to get at something else, and this something is the strangeness with which he regards the political landscape outside of his intimate community and strangeness with which it regards him.  Even though he has a political family, he can not ignore how he is othered by America at large.

In our present political landscape there are many people, who, as Ginsberg did, feel like strangers in their own country.  In the spring of 2003 my stepfather Larry ventured to speak out against the Iraq war in a hospital lounge.  None of the other physicians agreed with his views (and it is possible that if another did agree they would have felt afraid to voice support).  Not only did my stepfather feel very alone but he said he was being singled out for attack -- so perhaps Ginsberg’s line might speak for my step-father.

In my stepfather's arena challenges to his anti-war viewpoint are forthcoming and the risks of sticking his neck out and becoming alienated from colleagues is real, and so he has resolved to be more careful about expressing his political views.  Not only this, but Larry does not feel safe telling pro-war patients what he thinks about President Bush's war in Iraq.  This divisive issue could threaten his medical practice.

My mother, an english teacher at Eureka High School, has not felt the dividing knife edge of this issue nearly as intensely as my step-father.  The fact that many of her students and their families are pro-Bush and pro-war does cause her to tread carefully, but she still feels safe to bring some tactfully-framed political discussion into the classroom.  Also, she is not risking professional isolation from her like-minded colleagues, like how Ginsberg felt at home with his beatnik friends, but she does risk isolation from the greater political background.  Only once was there an incident which dramatically revealed the difference between my mother and this background.

Shortly after September 11 th 2001, Eureka High School teachers and students were supposed to show support for the WTC attack victims and their families by wearing red, white and blue.  I strongly encouraged my mother to defy the initiative, perhaps by wearing all black, but she acquiesced to the school, making a show of red, white, and blue (albeit a subtle one), so she would not appear unpatriotic, or, as what would have been genuinely horrible, as lacking respect for the lives lost in New York.  I felt no qualms about making a show of support for the victims and their families, but I felt wearing red, white, and blue was a politically complicated way of showing support (to say the very least).  Such a display takes one action, mourning for loss of human life and sympathy for those who have lost loved ones and translates it into political rallying.  Afraid of appearing heartless towards victims and their families, my mother ended up adorning herself in political symbols President Bush has appropriated to represent his values.  It certainly extends the meaning of “You are either with us or against us” — by being with the victims and their families you must also be with America, and, by extension, with President Bush.

Patriotic displays like these serve the dominant political group and alienate the political minority.  Some conservative thinkers use the rhetoric of patriotism to say progressive liberals are anti-American, or, in John Fonte’s words, “post-American”:

 

If the progressive agenda is successful, the American nation-state will be gradually transformed. It will continue to exist, but its core would be hollowed out. It would be, in a sense, post-American, and this century will be a post-American century of global progressivism. (Fonte)

Fonte sees the progressive liberals’ encouragement of “judicial activism in the name of transnational [human-rights] law” as an attack against core America values and laws: “Global progressives are offering policies that are postconstitutional, illiberal, undemocratic, and yes, post-American, and this must be stated clearly.”  Fonte comes to the brink of claiming progressives are anti-American but stops short, calling us “post-American”.  But what does “post-American” mean?  Do my politics make me a “post-American?”  Is Humboldt County “post-American?”  Were the 60’s a “post-American” decade?  The civil rights movement?  In Fonte’s view, if the United States were re-made according to progressives or anyone else, would it no longer be the United States of America but the post-United States of America?  Over the course of 228 years in existence, America has undergone many changes, including, for example, the abolition of slavery.  In this case the country changed dramatically indeed but its name remained the same.  It can be called America before and after this change because the history of the United States can include both the slavery and post-slavery eras.  If a progressive political viewpoint were (grossly) summed up as “Change is good,” then a conservative viewpoint would (also grossly) be summed up in “Change is bad.”

If John Fonte stops short of saying progressives are anti-American, other conservatives   have made this misrepresentation.  “In particular, one of the favorite attacks of those who impugn the motives of war opponents has been to label war opponents ‘pro-Saddam’” (Fritz).

 

On February 25, for instance, Taranto  labeled “McLaughlin Group” panelist and Newsweek writer Eleanor Clift "one of Saddam’s shrillest defenders." Writing on March 6 about a walkout by some students who oppose the war, Taranto claimed they were “ditching for Saddam.” And in yesterday's BOTW, Taranto gave the example of antiwar protestors who defaced a September 11 memorial in California to smear everyone who opposes the war, concluding that it was “all you need to know about the ‘antiwar’ movement” in a section entitled “‘Antiwar’ Is Anti-American.” (Fritz)

I am not “pro-Saddam” and, what’s more, I have never met a fellow progressive who is “pro-Saddam.”  Anti-war does not translate into anti-America or pro-Hussein but simply pro-peace.  I remember being pleased to see the “Peace is Patriotic” stickers that began appearing on car bumpers shortly after September 11 th .  These stickers subverted conservative rhetoric associating anti-war stances with anti-Americanism.  With these bumper stickers progressives were taking the flag, a traditional symbol of patriotism, and combining it with a message for our generational ideal of peace.  Since the flag usually figures prominently in political campaigns, including those opposing each other, it is as though progressives and conservatives are fighting over what the American flag stands for, as they try to utilize its power as a symbol for their side.

But overall, progressive movements are much less likely to brandish the flag than their conservative counterparts.  We favor seeing people in terms of “engaged citizens” instead of “patriotic citizens.”  We prefer the Earth flag over the American flag.  When progressives do use the flag, they are far more likely to use it in an adapted form than conservatives are.  As one example of this, doves replaced stars on the “Peace is Patriotic” stickers.

Whereas the subjugated progressive political group finds it necessary to alter patriotic symbols, the fact that conservatives use patriotic language and symbols in their original forms and without irony points out how conservatism is the dominant culture.  Conservatives even bring patriotic rhetoric into the supposedly nuts-and-bolts (and not merely rhetorical) field of law.  Witness the “Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,” one of President Bush’s pet laws, and most commonly known as the USA Patriot Act.  The implication here is simple: being unsupportive of this law amounts to being unpatriotic.

UC Berkeley Professor George Lakoff says that world-views need to be "framed" in language to be forceful and compelling to voters.  "It's one thing to analyze language and thought, it's another thing to create it."  He says conservatives have long been able to successfully frame their world-view (witness the name given to the "Patriot Act" or the term "tax relief" which suggests that taxes are an affliction), but that progressives are just getting started.

Today people often think of the progressive movement as a recently developed alternative to the Democratic Party brand of liberalism, but progressivism as a term has been around since the beginning of the century.  “The first [United States progressive party, also known as the Bull Moose Party] was formed by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. Roosevelt ran against President Taft in the Republican primary, spurred by bitter resentment of the policies of Taft, who had been Roosevelt's hand-picked successor” (Wikipedia “United States Progressive Party”).  The next United States progressive party was formed by Robert M. La Follette, Sr., another former Republican, in 1924.  In La Follette’s campaign the socialist values which are often considered characteristic of the progressivement came into play — “he favored public ownership of railroads, etc” (Wikipedia).

A “progressive” party reappeared in 1948 as the “Independent Progressive Party,” which ran Henry A. Wallace for president.  He was “yet another former Republican,” but this time he took La Follette’s platform a step farther, adopting a pro-Communist viewpoint.  “Wallace later renounced his pro-Communist stance” and “the Independent Progressive Party disbanded soon after being labeled a Communist front by the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1951” (Wikipedia).

This pattern of progressive upstarts bursting on the scene only to disappear and reappear again shows a political strain struggling to assert its views and give itself shape and identity.  Progressives are still forming a political identity which at different times has found its expression in the bull moose (Theodore Roosevelt compared himself, his vitality and his party to a bull moose), 60's era rock-and-roll, hip-hop, peace signs (peace symbol ¨), and books by Noam Chomsky.

Also, it is impossible not to notice the use of the term progressive to describe movements peripheral to politics:

 

The term "progressive" music has its origins in the late 60s psychedelic movement. The genre initially suggested music that somehow progressed beyond the constraints of the pop music format. Jimi Hendrix, Pink Floyd, the Moody Blues, and King Crimson were among the pioneers of progressive rock, yet the term quickly became associated more with a genre of vapid, pretentious art-rock bands than with a more expansive attitude of progress (or if not progress then at novelty). (Mark)

This search for the progressive identity is my own search.  I am one of millions of young people in America searching for and trying to develop my values, and grasping to find expressions for them.  This means inventing new terms and original rhetoric; this means political action.  Howard Dean said "The young people in this country are desperate for change. They know people don't care about them. The country doesn't care about them... The young people are incredibly disillusioned." (Dean).  What we hunger for most are leaders who will give a powerful and respectable voice to our deepest political conventions, who we can identify with and rally around.  Leaders are only beginning to emerge and we desperately need them to help us fashion our identity and community and chart a path through the American political landscape.

  Works cited

Dean, Howard.  The Doctors’ Words.  Interview with Diane Sawyer.  ABC News PrimeTime Thursday.   22 January 2004.  2 May 2004 < http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Primetime/US/howard_judy_dean_transcript_040122-14.html >.

Fonte, John.  “The Progressive Challenge to American Democracy.”   American Outlook Spring 2000.  Hudson Institute.  2 May 2004

< http://www.americanoutlook.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=article_detail&id=1281 >.

Fritz, Ben.  “Cheap attacks on war opponents.”   Spin Sanity 13 March 2003.  3 May 2004

< http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_03_09_archive.html >.

Mark. "..::WTUL :: 91.5 FM::.."  WTUL.  2 May 2004
< http://dreamland.tcs.tulane.edu/~wtul/NEWSITE/progressive.php >.

Powell, Bonnie Azab.  "Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics. [Interview]"  27 October 2003.
2 May 2004 < http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml >.

“United States Progressive Party.”   Wikipedia. Last modified 18:49, 4 March 2004.  5 May 2004 < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Progressive_Party >.