Sei sulla pagina 1di 15

9/11-- A Challenge to Traditional American Beliefs and Values

Kokusai Bunka Kenshu (Intercultural Training) Winter 2006 edition, Volume 50, pages 39-47 Published in Japanese by the Japan Intercultural Academy of Municipalities January 15, 2006

Gary R. Weaver, Ph.D. American University


Since the very beginning of the nation, Americans have always been confident that their economic and political system was better than those of most other countries. The continual economic growth and political stability in this very young nation was considered as evidence that somehow the United States was an exceptional country with exceptional people. The American civic culture has endured through many national crises. There were economic recessions, a very violent Civil War, and numerous wars overseas, yet it seemed that after each national crisis the nation only grew stronger. In his second inaugural address, President Clinton described this as a process of becoming a more perfect union. The traditional national values and beliefs have proven to be very resilient and have been firmly held throughout the history of the United States. Nevertheless, all national cultures change and certainly the United States and its people have been dramatically impacted by the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. But, how much has the country changed since that tragedy? Are these changes likely to be short lived or long term? Has the confidence of the American people been undermined by the events of 9/11? Has the civic culture become permanently altered with the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security and the USA PATRIOT Act?

Brief Historical Overview of Traditional American Civic Culture The New World and Calvinism We cannot tell where we are today, or where we will be tomorrow, unless we know from where we have come. Therefore, to consider how the United States has changed since the

terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, we must first consider traditional worldviews, values and beliefs which shape public policies of the United States. Traditional cultural values and historical experiences shared by the nation shape the way its people respond to a traumatic national event. The early settlers embarked on a dangerous journey to the New World where they believed that each person had an equal opportunity to begin anew. They fled religious and political persecution in countries where corrupt and brutal tyrants ruled and where there were few individual rights and freedoms. The Old World of Europe was perceived as violent and warlike, where kings rather than laws ruled the people. Fear, hopelessness and despair were rampant. If you were born poor and powerless in the Old World, you usually died poor and powerless. This dismal past was left behind as these settlers focused on a brighter future in America with new opportunities for a better way of life for themselves and their children. They were optimists who wanted to create a utopian, democratic and peaceful society removed from the rest of the world. These early immigrants believed in liberty or the freedom of each individual, protected by the rule of law.1 They believed in the rights and responsibilities of the individual citizen within a society in which everyone would be treated equally in the eyes of God and the law. In the New World, everyone was equal and there would be no intermediaries between the individual and God or the government. The authority of the government came from the people. Civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the right of due process when accused of a crime were intended to protect the minority against an overly powerful central government (such as those of the Old World) and the tyranny of the majority.2 These early settlers did not want a king, queen or a Pope. In fact, the founders of the country had a healthy distrust of an overly powerful central authority and invested the states and local government with a significant amount of jurisdiction. Many of the founders believed that the local community rather than the federal
1

This belief in individual freedom and equality did not extend to all people. The Declaration of Independence--a declaration of separation from British colonial rule--claimed that all men are created equal. However, this equality was not extended into the initial draft of the Constitution which was the legal document that established the government of the United States. Only white men who owned property were allowed to vote. Nonwhites, women and those who were too poor to own property were not treated as equal to all others in the newly established nation.
2

Again, there are some very dramatic and contradictory exceptions to these beliefs. For example, the Salem Witch Trials of New England which were taking place at this time were an example of religious extremism and the violation of individual rights.

government would deal with common interests that impact ones everyday life, a belief, when enshrined into law, which distinguished the United States from many other countries. This attitude towards authority and the importance of the freedom of the individual is reflected in the writings of early American philosophers such as Henry David Thoreau (18171862) who wrote in Civil Disobedience---- That government is best which governs least, and Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison.3 Moreover, the Bill of Rights in the Constitution is not only an assertion of exaggerated individualism, but it is also a document which creates a government whose power over the individual is actually restricted by law. Another prominent value in the young nation was that if the individual was allowed political and economic freedom, he or she would work hard and consequently be rewarded by God with prosperity. According to this so-called Protestant Work Ethic, not only would the economy grow through the sum of individual efforts, but everyone would also become part of the civic culture where the community of informed and moral citizens would make decisions with good minds and hearts. The Calvinism embraced by the early English settlers in the Massachusetts Bay Colony (the so-called Pilgrims) emphasized egalitarianism and the rights and responsibility of the individual to participate in the affairs of the community. About 150 years later, this became the foundation upon which the Calvinist Scottish philosopher and economist, Adam Smith wrote his Wealth of Nations in 1776--- the year of the birth of the United States.4 Smiths book described a laissez faire, free market economic system where it was up to the individual to succeed or fail. While he believed that government played an important role in the new political system, it ought not to diminish the political and economic rights of the individual. While European countries have often suffered from periods of scarce or limited resources and opportunities, America seemed to have an abundance of both throughout most of its history.
3

Henry D. Thoreau, Walden: or A Life in the Woods. Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1854. Thoreau and his close friend, the philosopher and poet Ralph Waldo Emerson, often disagreed on the issue of disobedience. Thoreau refused to pay taxes to a government that did not make slavery illegal. He was arrested and jailed. Supposedly, Emerson visited him and when he first saw him behind the jail bars he exclaimed, My God, Thoreau, what are you doing in there? Thoreau responded, My God, Emerson, what are you doing out there? This ethos of individual disobedience in order to oppose an unjust law, even if it meant going to jail, was well represented in recent history by Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement. 4 Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, edited by C.J. Bullock. Vol. X. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Sons, 1909-14.

Many of the national welfare programs of European countries are a result of a psychology of scarcity--a belief that there are scarce or limited opportunities and resources and, during these times, the government must redistribute them to be fair to everyone. This somewhat socialistic role for the federal government was not present in the United States where people generally maintained a psychology of abundance--a belief that there was an abundance of opportunity and resources and that it was up to each individual to take advantage of these opportunities and resources.5 The federal government has welfare programs that are a result of the profound economic decline during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Social Security is a prime example. But, most Americans would not view these programs as a form of socialism. Rather, today they are considered entitlements, and Americans seem to believe that they are merely getting back what they put into the program through their payment of taxes and hard work or, what they are entitled to receive. Of course, most Americans will eventually get back far more money than was ever taken out of their paychecks.

The First American Foreign Policy: Isolationism The theme of withdrawal from the world or isolationism has always been a traditional tenet of American foreign policy. This was especially apparent during the early years of

American history when Americans had a nation to build and viewed the Old World as a theater of violence, chaos and war. This was quite similar to the foreign policy of non-alignment held by many emerging Third World nations during the Cold War. During major world wars and throughout the Cold War, Americans could no longer ignore the rest of the world. However, after each international involvement in the tragic world of international conflict, Americans have nostalgically attempted to withdraw from the world buffered by two oceans. The two oceans on either side of North America allowed the young country to be securely isolated and insulated from the rest of the world. This geographic isolation was reinforced politically by Americas early leaders. For example, in his Farewell Address following the end of his second term as President, George Washington warned Americans to beware of foreign entanglements. When the Greeks sought to become independent from the
5

See Edward C. Stewart, American Cultural Patterns: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Chicago: Intercultural Press, 1972, 44-45.

Ottoman Empire in the 1820s, both Turks and Greeks sought the support of the United States. Congress debated what stand to take and finally concluded that it was a European matter and the United States would maintain a policy of noninvolvement and nonalignment. It would take no side in European conflicts. In this same spirit, James Monroe, the fifth President of this young country, proclaimed to Europeans in 1823 that the United States should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. This was later termed the Monroe Doctrine. It thus became the foreign policy position that the United States would stay out of the affairs of Europe and the Europeans would stay out of the Western Hemisphere.6 The new nation intended to preserve its innocence and moral goodness by staying out of the jungle of the real world. It tried to insulate the entire Western hemisphere from European influence. Most importantly, reflected the American desire to avoid wallowing in the muck of international conflict.7 After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the accusation has been made that the U.S. has a foreign policy of neo-isolationism.8 These charges have been especially strong when the current Bush administration refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol and withdrew from the Nuclear Antiballistic Missile Treaty. In fact, President Bush campaigned for the office of President on a policy that the United States should not be involved in nation building or engage in activities where American military personnel would be under the command of foreigners such as UN peacekeeping campaigns. He strongly attacked President Clinton for being an internationalist who was overextending the United States in international affairs and international organizations. In fact, the American policy of isolationism is not neo or new. It has been in place since the very beginning of the country and, with the end of the Cold War, many conservative
6

This was clearly violated during the 1982 Falkland/Malvinas Islands War between Argentina and the Britain. President Reagan shared intelligence information with the British and sided with the British against Argentina. Furthermore, President Ronald Reagan declared United States support for Britain and imposed economic sanctions against Argentina.
7

While this idealism and isolationism was a cornerstone of early American foreign policy, there are clear examples of United States involvement in international conflict and adventurism such as the war against the Barbary pirates during Jeffersons presidency, the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War and numerous border disputes with both Canada and Mexico.
8

See Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Back to the Womb? Isolationisms Renewed Threat, Foreign Affairs, July/August, 1995, 2-8.

Americans took the position that the United States should return to a standard of noninvolvement in the world except to help others become more like the United States in terms of their political and economic practices.9 When it was a matter of international commerce, Americans were not as committed to isolationism.
10

Nevertheless, while American involvement in the protection of international

trade may have benefited other nations and the overall international system of nations, one could argue that the primary motive for involvement in the international arena was to secure and promote American national interests. During Jeffersons term as Secretary of State, he was faced with the foreign policy crisis of pirates taking ships on the high seas. An American ship was taken hostage off the coast of Tripoli, Libya and the only way to get it back was to pay a ransom. The United States paid over one-fifth of its national treasury to get back one ship. Jefferson suggested that Americans must be willing to go to war to ensure what he labeled freedom of the seas. As a farmer, he also realized that the only way the economy of this emerging nation could grow was by exporting its agricultural products to Europe, underlining the importance of keeping the seas open to American ships. While the United States has many protective tariffs, unimpeded commerce and the freedom to ship goods on the high seas are still viewed as basic tenets of American foreign policy by the United States. In 1987, why was the United States involved in the Persian Gulf with military force during the Iran-Iraq war? The official explanation of the United States Department of State was to insure freedom of the seas.

An end of isolationism and innocence: American experience with war Since the Spanish-American War which began in 1898, the United States has oscillated between total involvement in international conflict (i.e., World War I--A War to End All

Here we see a political and economic manifestation of the early missionary zeal for sharing the religious beliefs of America to the rest of the world---John Winthrops City on a Hill. Winthrop was a Puritan whose image of the ideal Christian society was a city upon a hill, an image which comes from the biblical Book of Matthew in 5:14. It is the belief that the New World was intended by God to be an example and beacon of light to the rest of the world. In the minds of some neo-conservative leaders in the current Bush administration, this is comparable to a person who has discovered a cure for cancer. Would it not be good and generous to share that cure with everyone else?
10

While the internationalist policy of the free flow of goods was central to American international trade --a global version of capitalism--there have always been laws to protect American commercial interests such as the SmootHawley Tariff Act of 1930 which contributed to the Great Depression.

Wars) and total withdrawal (i.e."Fortress America"). During the Cold War (1945-1991) the United States could not isolate itself from the rest of the world because it was the only major power that could counterbalance what appeared to be a worldwide hegemonic threat from the Soviet Union. The United States had fought nine major wars before the 1960s. The Vietnam War, beginning with the United States support of the French in 1956 and ending with the withdrawal of American troops in 1975, was the first war that the United States clearly lost. Moreover, it was not clear to Americans that they were the good guys in Vietnam, especially in the eyes of the rest of the world. This war was a tragedy, not a melodrama. This is symbolized by the Vietnam Memorial---a huge black slab of rock cut into the earth with the names of American soldiers who died carved into it. Many Europeans would claim that the United States definitively lost its innocence with this war and discovered that the world is not simply white or black, good or evil. Still, there were those who sought to view the world and international conflict as comparable to the good war, as World War II is popularly remembered by Americans (especially the war in Europe). For example, President Reagan often referred to the Soviet Union as the Evil Empire and he spoke fondly of the United States as Winthrops City on the Hill, populated with exceptional people who were on the side of the angels. The formative years of prolonged isolation of the young country from the reality of international conflict and chaos created a melodramatic national image of the good United States against the bad nations of the world. Removed from the wars of Europe, and secure behind the two oceans, the new nation could prosper without military involvement in the rest of the world. Insulation from the reality of international conflicts, and the traditional Protestant Calvinist tendency to see the world in such dualistic opposites as angels and devils, heaven and hell, or good and evil reinforced this worldview. With the end of the Cold War, many Americans nostalgically desired to return to the isolationism of the past. Francis Fukuyama even claimed that it was The End of History11 because with the demise of the Soviet Union, all countries would move toward more liberal, capitalistic and democratic systems and the United States could get on with the business of domestic issues.

11

Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man. New York: The Free Press, 1992.

Today the United States cannot recapture the innocence of non-involvement in world affairs. It is economically, politically and militarily interrelated and interdependent with the rest of world. Since 1900, pure capitalism has been tempered and modified with major anti-trust legislation in addition to some fairly socialist national programs first promoted by President Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression. The country has sacrificed young lives and spent billions of dollars in the Korean conflict and it has fought and lost in Vietnam. Furthermore, many Americans found their leaders to be corrupt as exemplified by Nixons Watergate scandal and humiliating resignation. Perhaps Americans can no longer view their country as a morally exceptional nation.

American National Image We cannot describe the growth or development of a nation as we might describe the growth or development of an individual. Nevertheless, the United States has gone through a childhood of isolation and protection from the rest of the world for the first hundred years of its existence as a nation. During this period of prolonged withdrawal from the world behind the security of two oceans, the idealism and civic culture of the United States grew without many challenges. Of course, domestically there were many challenges to this idealism including the early religious discrimination, the exclusion of nonwhites and women from the political system, racism, discrimination against certain immigrant groups, and during the 1800s, the Civil War which led to the deaths of over 600,000 Americans. This was followed by a period of adolescence when we became involved in the tragedy of war during the Spanish American War and World War I. The Spanish American War was seen as a war of liberation in the United States. However, Americans were not viewed as liberators by the Filipinos, Puerto Ricans and Cubans but rather as occupiers. Americans felt as if they were rejected by the very people whom they sought to help. Americans had a sense of unrequited love and, as with many adolescents whose good intentions are rejected by others; there was a desire to simply avoid interacting with others.12 Thus, this period of intense
The motivation for the United States involvement in the Spanish-American War was also a matter of national defense after an American ship, the Maine, was blown up in Cuba. While many Americans believed this was done by the Spanish, there is strong historical evidence that it was an accident or perhaps actually carried out by the American Hearst newspaper chain. In any case, American altruism and nationalism were combined reasons for American involvement. Furthermore, there were religious overtones. President McKinley told reporters at the White House that he prayed and God told him to invade the Philippines.
12

involvement in the world around the end of the 19th century was followed by a period of withdrawal to the innocence of the past. Isolationism and non-involvement in the world became the cornerstones of American foreign policy again, even after Americas involvement in World War I, a war to make the world safe for democracy. A war to end all Wars. In fact, although the League of Nations was invented by Woodrow Wilson after World War I, Congress would not ratify the treaty that established the League, and the United States never became a member. World War II, the Korean War and the Cold War were periods of history when the United States could not withdraw from the tragedy of war. It had become a major power and there were genuine threats against the United States and other nations it was allied with. But, once the Cold War ended, there was again a desire to withdraw from the world and the modern version of isolationism became unilateralism. George Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, he withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and he would not allow the United States to become a member of the International Criminal Court.

How 9/11 Changed the United States In many ways, the evolution of United States foreign policy does indeed parallel the growth of an individual from childhood to adolescence to early adulthood. But, to carry this analogy further, we must admit that individuals not only progress, but also regress. A perfectly mature adult, in a difficult situation, can often lose control and revert to an earlier way of dealing with the world. Some actually throw tantrums as they did when they were five or six years old. Since the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, the country has in many ways returned to the oversimplifications of its past. However, it may well be that this is not really some kind of regression but rather merely a reassertion of an ongoing pattern of response to the rest of the world. That is, the overwhelming fear and confusion of having over 3,000 civilians killed by foreign terrorists may have made Americans even more receptive to a traditional melodramatic national image of good and evil, good guys and bad guys. As with any individual under stress, there is a nostalgic desire to return to the past when life was simple and unambiguous, there were very clear distinctions between right and wrong, and our own family provided a safe haven from the threats of the outside world. Contemporary insecurities have caused Americans to accept simple answers to the many complex problems and ambiguities of the world.

10

There is also a desire to find some country or persons upon which to vent and displace their anger. Childhood national images have re-emerged. Rather than accepting the tragic reality and uncertainties of a dangerous world where there are no clearly defined good guys and bad guys, we perhaps have regressed to an earlier melodramatic worldview. When the Persian Gulf War began on January 16, 1991, President George Bush explained to the nation and the world that the primary reason the U.S. was fighting the war was because, in his words, it was good against evil. He then continued in his speech to the nation to describe Saddam Hussein as even worse than Adolph Hitler. The term evil is a religious word. In many languages, it translates into demonic or satanic and demons or Satan are the polar opposites and opponents of the good people of God. This oversimplified and melodramatic imagery allows for no ambiguities and no gray between black and white. Most importantly, there can be no compromise with absolute evil. The goal then becomes the total destruction of the enemy who is not just a foe of America because of some political or economic conflict. The evil opponent threatens all of humanity. The current president, George W. Bush, often uses cowboy metaphors and sensational, melodramatic and dualistic imagery--- the Axis of Evil, smoke em out - dead or alive. Somewhat like a prize fighter in boxing, he urged members of the Iraqi insurgency to bring em on and try to challenge the U.S. Immediately after the World Trade Center towers were destroyed, he even used the word Crusade to describe the war between the United States and terrorists, invoking images of a righteous, religious struggle. He no longer speaks of crusades and even many of the cowboy phrases are seldom heard, but the word evil is still very much a part of his rhetoric. Immediately after the attack, most of Europe and the rest of the world sympathized and empathized with the American people. Having fought wars on their own soil with large numbers of civilian casualties, they understood the senseless loss of life that the United States had experienced. They were quite willing to support efforts to stomp out terrorism. Many thought the United States would lead an international effort to finally eliminate this scourge worldwide. However, rather than soliciting and accepting the support of the international community, the United States decided to return to the self-reliance of the past, when it could withdraw from the world.

11

The same sense of ingratitude and rejection that Americans felt after the Spanish American War and World War I may have been felt by many other countries as the United States charged ahead without much support from other nations. In its unilaterist foreign policy, the United States actually withdrew from many international agreements regarding nuclear disarmament, preserving the environment and adjudicating war criminals. And, in the eyes of many countries, the United States seemed to reject and weaken the United Nations, an international organization that it had helped to found after World War II to preserve peace.

American Civic Values: The Impact of Fear Fear has had a dramatic impact on the American society since 9/11. People are insecure, anxious and afraid of a plethora of real and potential threats--terrorism, anthrax, snipers, natural disasters, and even computer viruses. Some of these fears are greatly exaggerated and even irrational. But, it makes little difference if these threats are realistic or probable because the reactions will be the same. During times of threat, people think differently and perceive the world differently than when they are secure and unthreatened. They long for simple explanations for complex and ambiguous anxieties, and their group membership provides psychological security, making the in-group/out-group distinction more important. Nothing creates a better sense of we than to have a good they out in the world, especially when they seem to be threatening us. This may explain the rise of anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States, even towards Mexicans who were obviously not in the planes that were used as missiles on 9/11.13 Since September 11, 2001, policy changes that are very new to America have been enacted. Powers are being granted to the federal government; new security agencies are being created that are very non-traditional. Protecting the individual rights of citizens against an overly powerful federal government has always been a paramount virtue and practice in the American political and civic culture. But, a virtue is really not a virtue until it has been tested in the real world. We can be very chaste when living in a convent or monastery, where there are few temptations. We can be very humble when we have little power or wealth. We are not consumed
13

Patrick Buchanan (The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization), Lou Dobbs of CNN and Samuel Huntington (Who are We?) all have become very popular among Americans who have a strong belief that Mexican illegal and legal immigrants may be underming the traditional values and the foreign policy of the United States.

12

by fear, selfishness, greed or envy when we are secure and have plenty. During these times everyone can be very kind, empathetic and generous. And, when the country is secure and prosperous, we can be very tolerant of dissonant opinions and protect the civil rights of everyone. Now is not that time! This virtue is now being tested. The safety and security provided for over 200 years by the geographic insulation of two oceans was undermined by hijacked planes commandeered by suicidal and homicidal terrorists who came from halfway around the globe. With the USA PATRIOT Act H.R. 3162 passed by Congress on October 26, 2001, civil liberties have been challenged because of the threat of terrorism. Fear of external and internal threats have shaken the resolve Americans have in protecting the rights of all citizens. While such civic virtues or values as individual liberty and civil rights are strongly held and adhered to during times of peace and security, they are often compromised during times of threat and insecurity. This took place during the Civil War when Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and during World War II when over 120,000 Japanese Americans were arrested and interned in camps in California. But, in most cases, once the immediate threat waned, the old traditional civic virtues were restored. It seems as if there is a ranking of needs for most human beings and this ranking is not necessarily fixed. For example, psychologist Abraham Maslow has written extensively about a hierarchy of needs.14 Lower order needs of basic needs must be satisfied before we can be concerned with the satisfaction of higher order needs. For example, people are not concerned about their civil rights or the nature of their government until their physiological need for food and water are met. Security and safety are much lower order needs than civil rights or liberty.15 In most countries, unanimity and national resolve would be expected of its populace during an international crisis when the nation is threatened. While this super-patriotism is a natural consequence of the events of 9/11, it may be viewed by other people around the globe as extreme nationalism and jingoism. Even some journalists have claimed that they have engaged in self-censorship to avoid being accused of not supporting the country while it is under

14

Abraham H. Maslow, Toward A Psychology of Being (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1968)

15

It seems that some who designed American foreign policy towards Iraq may not agree with Maslow. The policy of the United States appears to support the liberty and democracy before the needs for security can be fully met.

13

imminent threat. And, until recently there has been little debate among politicians as to the wisdom of armed conflict with Iraq. The questions usually discussed have been when and how, not why and what will be the consequences. The laws and public policies that impact peoples everyday life rests primarily in the hands of local government. There is no national police force in the United States. Almost all criminal activity is controlled and adjudicated at the local level.16 And, most educational policies are determined by the local community or state. Shortly after 9/11, a new federal agency has been created to provide homeland security. The word homeland is very non-American when it comes to the power and authority of the federal government. Domestic matters have usually been the political purview of the state or municipal government, not the federal government. The British have a Home Office and a Home Secretary. In the United States, the family and local community have traditionally provided safety and security for the American people. For example, the National Guard is a military force controlled by the state, not the federal government. The CIA cannot spy upon the American people within the borders of the country. Even the Voice of America is not allowed to broadcast in the United States because it is an arm of foreign policy and paid for by taxpayers across the nation. Just as individuals who are going through a traumatic and stressful life event will often long for the simplicity and security of childhood, a country experiencing the fear and security of war will often return to the national images of the past. In their hurt and anger, individuals will sometimes irrationally lash out at any enemy and the people of a country also often want to strike out at any enemy who seems to be a threat. In many ways, the reaction of the American government is very traditional as we resort to dualistic and melodramatic images of the past. A very common saying in the United States is, dont just stand there, do something! The call for immediate American action, as opposed to the elongated, complex and drawn-out deliberations of Europeans, resonates with the cowboy images drawn by President George W. Bush. The call to act against an evil threat is very American. On the other hand, the creation of

16

Each state usually determines what crimes are punishable by execution. However, treason and kidnapping were deemed federal offences and the federal government executes those who were found guilty of these crimes. However, even before 9/11 the number of crimes that could lead to the death penalty at the federal level was increased. During the 1980s when the federal government declared it was fighting a war on drugs, legislation was

14

a Department of Homeland Security and the long-term suspension of civil liberties are considered very un-American.

A return to normalcy? There are reasons to believe that this is only a temporary period of stress and fear that Americans are going through and there may be a return to the normalcy of the past, including traditional American national cultural values. For example, there has not been the kind of racist overreactions to 9/11 toward Arabs or Muslims that occurred during World War II when over 120,000 Japanese Americans were transported to internment camps in California. There have been incidents when Americans who were perceived as Arab or Muslim were harassed, attacked or even arrested and accused of being terrorists. Islamic mosques and schools have been vandalized. But, these incidents are relatively few and immediately after the attacks of 9/11 President Bush appeared at the Islamic Center in Washington and spoke to the nation to assure Americans that this was not a war against Islam or Arabs. There have been Americans who were arrested by the federal government, charged with aiding terrorists, and yet they have not had access to lawyers or been formally tried. Nevertheless, these cases are working their way through the legal system as many civil libertarians and lawyers argue that they cannot be denied their right to due process and a speedy trial. Just as President Lincolns suspension of habeas corpus was viewed as a violation of the Constitution when the Civil War ended and civil liberties were restored, there is reason to believe that the legal system will eventually restore the rights of all to a fair and speedy trial. On the other hand, if the so-called war against terrorism continues for many decades or there are even more horrendous attacks against Americans, the changes that have taken place in the American political and social system may become more permanent. The USA PATRIOT Act is not permanent and must be renewed by Congress. While many in the Bush Administration would like to make all provisions permanent, and even seek to expand the authority of the federal government, this is unlikely to happen unless the American people and Congress are convinced that the country is in ongoing danger. Those parts of the Act

passed which allowed the federal government to execute criminals who were found guilty of committing a murder while engaging in interstate drug trafficking.

15

which give the federal government the authority to violate the civil liberties of Americans will probably be stricken from the law. It is quite possible that the judicial branch of government will rule that some of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act are unconstitutional. Parts of the Act which give the federal government the power to inspect citizens medical records, to determine what books they have read or to record their personal communications without a court order signed by a judge, may be viewed as a violation of the right to privacy and the protection against unreasonable search which is guaranteed by the Constitution. Some Americans may believe that in a national emergency, the security of the nation and the prevention of terrorist attacks supersedes individual civil rights and also allows the federal government to ignore due process. However, I suspect that most Americans long to return to the traditional American virtues of tolerance for various viewpoints, democratic debate and respect and protection of individual rights and liberties. If we do not, then the terrorists have indeed won the war and proven that we are really quite un-exceptional people.

Bibliography Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: The Free Press, 1992.

Maslow, Abraham H. Toward A Psychology of Being, Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1968.

Schlesinger Jr., Arthur. Back to the Womb? Isolationisms Renewed Threat, Foreign Affairs, July/August, 1995, 2-8.

Smith, Adam. Wealth of Nations, edited by C.J. Bullock. Vol. X. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Sons, 1909-14.

Stewart, Edward C. American Cultural Patterns: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Chicago: Intercultural Press, 1972

Thoreau, Henry D. Walden: or A Life in the Woods. Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1854.

Potrebbero piacerti anche