American Destiny
Since I have touched on Lincoln vs. Polk before the U.S. Civil War, maybe I can tie some thoughts together.
Lincoln opposed Polk and the Democrats not so much over western expansion (or the grabbing of land) itself, but because it would exacerbate the slavery issue, and bring it to some kind of showdown. This would do great harm to the country, arguably outweighing the benefits (at least in the short term) of acquiring a lot more land.
As a Congressman, Lincoln spoke against the Mexican War (although I believe he voted for supplies for the troops--the same debates keep coming up). What is even more memorable now, however, is that he voted several times for the Wilmot Proviso, which would have prevented slavery from spreading into any of the new territories. Lincoln always thought this was the only position consistent with the nation's founding, including Jefferson's strong support for the Northwest Ordinance, one of the first Acts of Congress.
President Polk (1845-49), a staunch supporter of Andrew Jackson in earlier times, worked for territorial expansion while trying to remain neutral on the Wilmot Proviso. In 1850 there was yet another compromise, this time to keep California free of slaves, but as Lincoln saw, all the compromises were unravelling. Polk, a slave owner, simply doesn't seem to have seen the force of this issue. The abolitionists began to leave the Democrats; the Democratic rump became more pro-slavery; this antagonized much northern opinion; and the Civil War came about in just a few years.
Isn't there an intelligent view that with the slavery issue now totally resolved, and even racial discrimination, while not solved, managed within certain legal arrangements that are more or less accepted, we need to take another look at "Manifest Destiny"? This phrase has long been associated with Andrew Jackson, who used it in supporting Polk for the Democratic nomination for president. (The other Democratic candidates that year, thinking the slavery issue more important, tried to stay neutral on territorial expansion). The argument was/is that the U.S. is going to expand, and take land and other things it needs, sooner or later, and everyone else should just accept that fact. International law will not be directly relevant during some of the, let's say, awkward episodes that will occur. The good news is that the regime the U.S. is nurturing and spreading is not only a law-abiding one, but a liberal democracy--a regime which has the potential to liberate people, especially the long-suffering masses, all over the world.
Maybe Bush defenders are correct in saying the U.S. needs to revive a version of this view today. (Tennessean Glenn Reynolds says he is not a great admirer of Tennessean--at least by adoption--Jackson; he doesn't mention Polk (also from Tennessee), but he is giving a lot of play to "Jacksonianism"). It is not simply that certain people attacked the U.S. on 9/11, and the U.S. needs to deploy force as well as diplomacy against "those people," their sponsors, hosts, and fund-raisers, until such threats are eliminated as much as possible. The problem is bigger: 9/11 was a wake-up call, reminding all of us that many people in the world labour and suffer under the oppressive yoke of ignorance and brutality. Some of the brutality is carried out in the name of Islam, or the liberation of specific ethnic minorities. But in a deep sense it all simply pre-dates the enlightenment that is brought by liberal democracy. It is in the self-interest of the U.S., but it is also a high calling, to push back the ignorance, and spread enlightenment. The Statue of Liberty's formal name: "La Liberte Eclairant Le Monde" (I think). "Liberty Enlightening the World."
The best argument for the invasion of Iraq might be simply that it was necessary to try to establish a pro-Western regime, that might become a liberal democracy, somewhere in the Middle East; Iraq was, on the whole, a promising candidate.
Partly this is suggested by two great articles in Atlantic. P.J. O'Rourke interviews Colin Powell (O'Rourke identifies himself during the interview as a humorist; it's never really explained how he got this gig). Among other things Powell says: "The United States believes it has worldwide obligations. Our European friends have never felt that that was their destiny or their obligation. The American people have always been more willing to shoulder this burden." And Reuel Marc Gerecht writes on "Ayatollah Democracy"--more or less assuring us that Sistani really does have a vision for Iraq which is different from the mullocracy in Iran: respectful of Islam, but with some real separation between church and state.
Lee Smith in Slate quotes William McCallister, a U.S. Army major who recently retired from active service after his tour in Iraq, saying there is real hope of democracy in Iraq--but it will take time:
It's not going to look like a Western parliamentary government; it's going to be Iraqi. But there were already a number of democratic-style institutions in place on the local level. This is what the tribal meetings are, like when the sheik just keeps quiet and listens to everyone in the group for a while as a consensus is being built. The sheik interjects every once in a while, but after some time, the meeting murmurs to a balance, and he restates what the group has already decided. Everyone votes by discussing it out. It's not our democracy, but it's a kind of democracy, and down the road, the Iraqis will find what their own democracy looks like on a national level.
This may be crucial for the U.S. plans for the Moslem world. Historically and logically, it seems that there must be a kind of indifference to religion, or to the alleged literal truth of certain texts, before there can be toleration. If so, it makes sense that toleration leads to a lessening and even disappearance of faith, as in the mainline Protestant churches and perhaps secular or cultural Catholics. Yet the United States, the most successful of all the liberal democracies, has a thriving evangelical movement which, yes, takes part in politics, but claims it wants only respect for faith, not theocracy.
It may be of the greatest importance to see if this can work or not.
There may still be too much pure crackerism about the pro-war movement--Reynolds can't resist macho touches like: if there are enemy casualties, that's the enemy's problem. But again, realistically, maybe if you actually have to go to war, for whatever reason, you need a critical mass of people who think that way--who like war, and are good at it. Reynolds defends Zell Miller and (some) Southern Democrats who were not Dixiecrats or (I would say) crackers, saying they can be tough and patriotic without being in any way racist.
Bush himself has been remarkably inarticulate about all this, and people close to him have not been much help. Their operation in Iraq has been clumsy at best. The "detainee" situation, affecting both U.S. citizens and others, raises a number of issues--including the possibility that the U.S. will export its brutal prison system around the world, the way Lincoln feared it might export slavery. But Kerry doesn't seem to have one clue about the larger issues. He needs to address both the self-interest, and the idealism or sense of mission or destiny, of the United States.
|
