Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Crimea ranks as the most disturbing military development since the end of the Cold War. Secretary of State John Kerry has denounced the incursion as a “nineteenth century” tactic. I think it would be more accurate to say that the Russian leader longs for a return to the twentieth century. He seems to be itching for an East-West showdown for old time’s sake. I would venture that he misses the Cold War, when the Soviet Union was feared around the world. Russia stripped of its empire doesn’t get nearly as much respect.
Truth be told, there are also veteran military leaders in this country who secretly long for the days of the Cold War. Some of them admitted as much when the United States declared a global war on terror over a decade ago. How do you fight terror? You’re never sure who the enemy is. That was never an issue when the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were locked in an arms race for nuclear supremacy.
The most interesting book I have read in the last five years is by Colin Woodard. It’s called American Nations: the History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America. Woodard posits that the United States of America has never been “one nation.” Instead, it has from its inception been a loose and fragile federation of several “nations” (distinct cultures with their own unique value systems) who forged an uneasy but mutually beneficial alliance. The nations include “Yankeedom,” “Greater Appalachia,” “the Old South,” the “Left Coast, “El Norte,” “the Midlands,” and the “Far West” among others. Woodard traces American history from colonial days as a series of tensions between these several nations, leading inevitably to our current state of political paralysis. He predicts that during the 21st century, North America is likely to experience a huge re-alignment resulting in new state boundaries that reflect natural alliances among the eleven different nations on the continent.
Woodard’s argument is compelling, yet he noticeably ignores most of the twentieth century in his analysis. I suspect this is because the events of the “American century” generally do not support his hypothesis. The shared experiences of two world wars, the Great Depression, and especially the Cold War overshadowed the cultural tensions between Woodard’s various nations, producing a true national identity. In particular, the half-century between the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the break-up of the Soviet Union was an era of fierce American identity because we had a clearly defined common enemy. Since the Cold War ended in 1991, the old cultural tensions have resurfaced. Our political fabric is badly frayed by wildly different visions of what it means to be American. Those of us who came of age during the Cold War tend to regard these tensions as a disturbing new development, when in fact (if Woodard’s analysis is correct), we are simply returning to the status quo that has defined most of our nation’s history and, at one point, actually resulted in a bloody Civil War.
I personally have no desire to return to the absurd days of “Mutual Assured Destruction” (M.A.D.), when two superpowers trained enough nuclear warheads on each other to destroy the earth fifty times over. Billions of dollars were spent building weapons we knew we could never use just to see who would blink first. The global staring contest was no “War on Terror,” but it terrorized the world with the threat of nuclear annihilation while an increasing percentage of earth’s population died of hunger and disease stemming from malnutrition. Yet, even if that era were not fraught with unspeakable danger, a return to such a geopolitical conflict for the sake of rekindling national pride would be defeatist. I believe the world would be poorer if the United States were to dissolve into smaller nation states, but must our common nationhood depend on having a common enemy?
To some degree, I guess that’s human nature. We come together despite our differences when we face a common threat. But any sort of “community” that remains dependent on a defensive posture toward the world falls miserably short of what God envisions for creation.
Since the time of Abraham nearly 4,000 years ago, God has been seeking to redeem the human race through covenants based on shared values that promote the flourishing of all creation. Faith communities, like churches and synagogues, are intended to be laboratories of covenant where people learn to foster community, first with each other, then with the world around them. This is hard work. It is often painstaking and always gradual. Little wonder, then, that we are tempted to take the easy route to shared identity and find an enemy we can all hate (which is why religion so often reverts to sectarianism and suspicion of outsiders).
I’m not ready to give up on the possibility of a mature United States bound by the shared ideals of freedom, liberty, and justice for all. But I’m not naive, either. If covenantal community at the local level is hard, then a national covenant of civic values is exponentially more difficult.
Difficult – but not impossible, and still our best hope.
©2014 by J. Mark Lawson
Comments