No Pat Answers

Once again I find myself in the position of having to reply to a Pat Buchanan column with Charlie Chan's famous expression, “collection prease”. He's talking (in Saturday's paper) about the overall decline of America – economically, politically (internally and on the world scene as well), militarily... in terms of trade, industry, and infrastructure... and so on. All true! But then he proceeds, in the last paragraph, to blame it on “a utopian ideology that is becoming perilous to the republic”. The utopian delusions he mentions in the column are: limitations on oil and gas drilling, refusal to build any more nuclear power plants, global warming in general, free trade, and – vaguely -- “intervention”, which I take to refer to “spreading democracy”, but which is more accurately described as empire building. But of course there are many more utopian delusions in our history, as well as in the present day... and any number of variations on the ones listed. At the core of all of them is the premise that the world ought to see itself the way we do... and if it doesn't, it's our job to correct its errors. And this, in turn, is based on the premise – the philosophical premise, if you will -- that there is, in fact, only one way to see the world, and that is with the, basically, Puritan/Protestant eyes of the early colonists, with an overlay of classical liberalism contributed by the Founding Fathers. We were, after all, the most successful society to grow out of the Enlightenment, were we not? The purest and best example? The “peaceable kingdom”, and all that? And really, when you get right down to it, it was fairly easy to be utopian here back in 1800, when the rest of the world was a perilous sea journey away. It's easy to be the shining city on the hill when there are no other cities (and no other hills). And of course what we had broken away from – declared independence from – in Europe was kings, established churches, oppression, intolerance... not to mention “superstition”, which has been the liberal (classical or modern, take your pick) euphemism for the Catholic Church for centuries. But unfortunately, much of Europe eventually followed us over here – the newly-oppressed, the unwashed, “yearning to breathe free” and all that... and they, in many cases, brought their “superstitions” with them. So what were “real Americans” to do, except hunker down in their small New England villages and take Masonic oaths to defend “their” country against the papist rabble that was crawling up out of Boston harbor? So the battle ever since has been, basically, between the utopian legacy and the much more gritty, “diverse”, material reality. In the South, this took the form of the Ku Klux Klan and Confederate nostalgia... more recently, in various rural areas (mostly in the Middle South and the Northern Rockies), it has taken the form of the “militia movement”... and even more recently it has manifested itself in the “tea party” rallies. They are all longing for a time in the past when things were immeasurably better... a time that, in my opinion, is largely fictitious.

And this is my beef with Buchanan. He objects to a “utopian ideology that is becoming perilous to the republic” -- as if this is the first time a utopian ideology has imperiled the republic... whereas, in fact, utopian ideologies have always been around, and, in fact, this country (and its predecessor colonies) was founded largely by utopian ideologues. For them, America _was_ utopia – and they exerted every effort to affirm that and make it more of a reality. And when they ran out of utopian ideals to apply domestically, they decided – with missionary zeal – to spread them worldwide, backed up by military force if need be... because, after all, what were a few thousand, or million, lives (especially if the dead were all yellow or brown or black in hue) if the outcome was heaven on earth? And of course their delusions fit in perfectly with the agendas of power-crazed politicians and armaments manufacturers. So we fought World War I “to make the world safe for democracy”... then fought World War II to make the world safe for communism. (Well, that's not how it was advertised, but that was, in fact, the only significant outcome.)

Here's my point. It's not as if the country was founded on one set of premises, then “utopian ideology” came along, subverted the original intent, and took over. No – utopianism _was_ the original intent, and continues to drive many aspects of our domestic and foreign policy to this day. We wouldn't know how to live without it; we'd be lost. And this is a point Buchanan seems to miss. He is, arguably, a nationalist – but he seems to see nationalism from a level-headed point of view – a paleoconservative point of view, which is very close to libertarianism. We should retain (I would say “regain”) our identity as a stronghold of liberty and free enterprise... provide for political and economic freedom... and mind our own business abroad. Let's hear it for Calvin Coolidge! But the problem is, this is not the American way, and never has been. The main reason we were able to avoid “foreign entanglements” for so long was that “foreign” meant “across the ocean”. The minute we were able to steam across the oceans (in either direction) and start throwing our weight around, we did so, and without the slightest hesitation. After all, we were secure in our democratic principles and in our success and prosperity – so, after all, wasn't it our duty to spread the blessings (if not the actual wealth) to the impoverished, benighted peoples elsewhere on the planet? Or even to the relatively civilized Europeans, who had grown tired and cynical after so many centuries of war and strife? Couldn't they use some inspiration – a breath of fresh air to refresh their jaded brows? So off we went – rifles in hand. And this is not to say that more cynical elements – arms makers in particular – were not at work, at all times and in all places. There will always be people who "follow the money", and when "the money" is in war they will pursue war. But would their efforts, and the efforts of the jingoistic press, have been sufficient to get us steaming over to Europe in 1917 (and suspend all civil rights for the duration)? And what role did some form of utopianism play in the enactment of Prohibition? The question answers itself. Even World War II, which was, arguably, more cynical than World War I (at least for us), required us to put our full support and strength behind one set of ideas – actually two sets, democracy and communism – and in opposition to another set of ideas, i.e. fascism or national socialism. What was our involvement in both of these wars based on, if not ideas – and ideas with a strong utopian flavor?

Then, of course, after handing half of Europe over to the Soviets and standing by benignly while Mao conquered China, we decided to fight communism in Korea and Vietnam – again based, allegedly, on ideas – or the “idea” that some ideas are preferable to others, not only in practical terms but in theory as well. And it is true, after all, that communism as an ideology is based on a horribly distorted vision of human nature (and, therefore, the nature of societies, economies, etc.) -- but was it really our job to “prove” that fact by, again and again, acting as the “lone gun” in a struggle (AKA the Cold War) that the jaded, decadent Europeans had, once again, decided was not worth the effort? The French sipped wine and nibbled on cheese while we tried to clean up the mess they had made in Vietnam – and we failed just as dramatically as they did! But by that time they could not have cared less; they just made one of those French gestures of dismissal and said something like “alors!” or “zut!” And can anyone deny that West Germany was much more interested in reunification with East Germany than we were to see them reunified? (How many American politicians woke up screaming, with the Horst Wessel Song echoing in their heads, the day after “the wall” came down?) I even suspect that the Koreans would like to reunite more than we would like to see them reunite. And don't even get me started on Cuba!

And haven't our “enemies” -- and our “allies”! -- taken full advantage of our utopianism and naivete over the years? Isn't that what was happening all during the Cold War, when some third-world tyrant would play alternating footsie with us and the Soviets until he figured out which side was prepared to give him the biggest bribe? And can it really be true that every single ruler or regime that the Soviets supported had to be opposed by someone we supported? Every last one? No exceptions? All it took was for some guy with a bone in his nose to say “I'm against communism” for our government to suck the life blood out of American taxpayers to keep him in wives and limousines. (And notice, this particular species of folly persists to this day.)

The ultimate example, of course, is Israel, which – by appealing to the Evangelicals, millennium and end-times buffs who (inexplicably) have enormous political power, no matter who is president or which party is in control of Congress – has managed to convince us to cripple our economy and our military – and to offend nearly everyone else on the planet – in order to serve their interests. And again, it's not as if the cynics and elitists and power-crazed politicians have not been involved – not to mention the arms makers. But again, “ideas”, when added to the mix, often seem to make the difference between – well, not between success and failure in the usual sense, since the effort is clearly a failure by any reasonable criterion – but between the agenda moving forward at top speed and it having to be moderated a bit by reality.

So when it comes to Pat Buchanan's complaint, I have to ask, what is his alternative to “utopian ideology”, since it has always been with us, and America would not be the place it is without it. In fact, America would not even _exist_ without it. Has he all of a sudden decided it's a bad idea, now that it's so clearly not working? Surely this is not the first time utopian ideology has become “perilous to the republic”. It has always been so – or let's say that the history of this republic has been one of constant and ongoing tension between ideology (utopian and otherwise) and the pragmatic. At any given time, one or the other is in ascendence – unless we're talking about some sort of hybridization where the pragmatists take it upon themselves to implement utopian ideals, but for their own sakes rather than those of the ideals. This certainly seems true of the arms makers throughout our history, for example, who thrive on war and hate peace. But peace, as an ideal, has nothing on war – at least in the American tradition. (How many “peace monuments” does one find on town squares – other than in Vermont?) And I suppose that one could argue all day as to which motive is predominant at any given time. But there has to be some reason that we have military bases in nearly every country on earth – and I don't think it's all the fault of defense contractors. We have decided that being the world's policeman is a worthy calling – based on all the successes we've had with that mission, starting with World War I (which saw Germany go from a belligerent monarchy to an enlightened democracy... right up to Hitler's election, that is).

So – take utopian ideology out of America, and what do you have left? Not America, that's for sure. So the real quibble is not one of ideology vs. non-ideology, but whether or not it “works”... and for Buchanan and the “tea partiers”, it has apparently worked well enough, right up to recently – right up to now, in fact. Suddenly the lights come on and we find out that we're the world's dupe, and have been for quite some time – and yet this revelation doesn't change anything, because there are still too many vested interests. Reputation and shame are no longer deterrents – only short-term profits (for the arms makers) and victory at all costs (for Israel and its supporters). And yes, you could call it a sadly degenerate version of the idealism that motivated the Founding Fathers – but idealism it is, and if we were ever able to shrug it off our overburdened shoulders, we would have to quite literally start over again.