Hello Everyone!
Yes, it's the eight anniversary of the the infamous terrorist attacks on the United States. And I suspect that most of the readers of this blog are already on the page that the administrations reaction to the events was not good. It is certainly true that neither the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq were logical reactions to the events. And nor were various attacks against Civil Liberties.
But if those reactions to 9/11 were not logical, why did so many people buy into them? Was it out of fear? Perhaps, but fear alone fails to explain why so many people in Blue States many of them living in port cities or near other possible terrorist targets by and large did not fall in behind the Bush administration, and why so many people in very rural areas in the South and lower Midwest who lived nowhere near any obvious targets seemed much more likely to seeing civil liberties as expendable and war as a foregone conclusion.
Of course, it's only fair to accept the possibility that many people in low risk areas might be responding to their concern for other Americans rather than simply to concern for their own personal safety. (Indeed, I've often complained about the fact that anti-war protesters are cursed as cowards if they stand a chance of being drafted or have immediate relatives in that war, and cursed as being ideologues who don't "have a real stake in the issue" if they don't.) But even if that's true-which it probably is-there is little way around the conclusion that some geographic and demographic portions of the country by and large saw the risk of terror and logical reactions differently than others. And that difference was not defined by the more militaristic reactions belonging to those more at risk of actually being a victim of the attacks.
Could it be that certain areas of the country were less likely to favor unbridled militarism and loss of civil liberties, because since they were largely near port cities, they were despite being more at risk, also more cosmopolitan and more aware of the world at large? It's certainly possible, but not every area fits that model. Florida and Texas contain largely Red areas with ports and lots of immigrants. And much of the blue Pacific Northwest and Upper Midwest, can be a bit provincial in its own way.
Could it be that we are dealing with long-standing regional cultural differences? After all, there is a long history of anti-war movements being located largely in New England, the Upper Midwest, and the West Coast, while the Deep South tends to support wars unconditionally. And this trend has been around since colonial times. Or could we be looking at another attempt to "beat the Vietnam Syndrome" because the Gulf War wasn't quite enough as Bush I had said?
I certainly don't have all the answers. I've had my doubts at the accuracy of some of the polls, and consider it very possible that elections 2000, and 2004 might not have been entirely fair. But one thing is for certain: The reasons why so many people supported the Bush administration's agendas wasn't an "understandable" response to fear of terrorism, or even one universally shared among Americans.
And sadly, it wasn't just a case of supporting the Bush administration. Soon after the 9/11 Washington Senator Patty Murray (D), who had long supported environmental legislation, said something to the effect of "Now even worrying about the environment seems like such a luxury."
One film that in my mind captured the *mood* of American society in the first few years after 9/11, was "Land of Plenty" by Wim Wenders, a German director with ample experience living in and making movies and commercials in the United States. Among the themes of the film are both the high level of poverty in American society for such a rich country, and the sort of odd combination of paranoia and "lostness" of those years. Mostly this is portrayed through the relationship between a niece, a young woman named Lana, who grew up a missionary kid in Africa and the Middle East and her uncle Paul, a rather paranoid Vietnam Vet. Of course, you could argue that Paul was something of a stereotyped character, and Lana was ferociously anti-stereotypical: a devout Christian woman who was anti-war and neither the least bit hippie nor rednecky. What the movie captured amazingly well, was the bizarrely disconnected and almost schizophrenic contrast between the ever present paranoid and demagoguery constantly portrayed in the media and through all forms of mass communication on one hand, and the economically grim haze that society seemed to be in. Where "third world" problems seemed to be on the rise and nothing seemed to matter to anyone other than just short term economic survival. Those of us who protested the war were often looked upon as fools, less than respectable types, and not so much "unpatriotic" but rather resented for simply having the energy to care. Often the implication-at least from people on the street-was not so much that we were traitorous or helping the terrorists, so much as sorely in need of being pulled down a few pegs, for being so high-and-mighty to be thinking beyond day by day existence. When simply having a real conversation with anyone by itself, even in the anti-war movement, seemed something enormously to be thankful for, and grounds for immense solidarity.
One of the reasons why we loved Howard Dean so much was because he seemed to "break the spell". I suspect that with Obama the same desire to get out of this funk, was one reason people decided to support such an unlikely candidate.
And now for the first 9/11 anniversary Bush is not in charge. It's no secret that there is a massive cleaning up to do from the Bush years, but how?
One question is how the attacks should be remembered. Obama tried to declare September 11, as a day of public service. Some people have worried that telling people to do good works on that day will take away from the remembrance of that event. But is that not better than telling people to go shopping?
Perhaps one serious issue, is how to prevent any future shock events whether terrorism, natural disasters, or perhaps global warming from sending the nation into such a massive funk and total willingness on the part of large numbers of people to completely get rid of the Constitution and start wars that had almost nothing to do with the incident. Are there any effective ways to avert such reactions to tragedy?
While the Tom Tomorrow carton suggesting that Bush and Co, would use hurricane Katrina to declare "War on the Weather" may be a little over the top, it is likely that some time in the future the American people will experience other tragedies like 9/11 and hurricane Katrina. The question is, how to keep those incidents from giving rise to mass despair, economic fallouts, ill-conceived wars, Constitutional crisis, blind obedience, and general lostness.
Should leaders be elected with this in mind? Should we reform the economic system to be more shock-resistant? Where do fuel, energy, and water infrastructure, not be mention climate change fit into this? Food security? What should be done about the willingness of too many Americans to exchange freedom for the illusion of safety? Or to wage wars simply for a sense of revenge?
These are serious questions. Better to ask them before the next shocking thing happens.
Say Goodnight Readers!
No comments:
Post a Comment