Why Gore Vidal got it wrong, and why it does not matter
I am currently on my fourth Gore Vidal book, “Lincoln,” after having consumed “Washington DC,” “Burr” and “The Smithsonian Institution.” While I have the full intention of completing the rest of his American History series (“1876,” “Empire,” “Hollywood” and “Golden Age” if I am not mistaken), I feel from the books already read (and from his essays) that I got one of his major themes – from its very inception by the Founding Fathers and throughout its history, the United States has always been an Empire, no different from the British, Spanish and French.
Judging from the title of this blog, I disagree with Vidal, although, in a certain aspect I also agree with him very strongly. Before I confuse myself and anyone who is attempting to read this entry, let me try and clarify things by providing some definitions. One way to look at the concept of an Empire is as a political entity that seeks to expand its territory through the forceful subjugation of other sovereign countries, making said countries either an integral part of its territory, or controlling them through the force of arms for its own economic and political benefit.
Another way to look at an Empire is as an organizing principle of some entity that is assumed by other entities, which are initially in opposition to it. This second, much broader definition makes no assumption as to the nature of the organizing principle, or of the entities that assume it, or on the manner in which it is being inculcated. This, broader, definition can certainly apply to a country that is expanding territorially, as well as to a set of ideas which are being assumed by people, organization, institutions, et cetera. This second definition would apply to the Roman Empire, Aristotelianism during the Middle Ages, Platonism during the Renaissance, Beatle mania during the 60s, you name it.
As far as the US goes, while it fits the second definition of an Empire, it does not fit the first one. Oh, sure, we had our moments. We’ve certainly played around with Manifest Destiny at the turn of the last century, and there is no question that many a politician in the 19th century regarded Mexico (and sometimes Canada) as a rather dainty morsel. But I find it difficult to point to a consistent policy, and more importantly, ideology that drove the US towards territorial expansion. From Washington’s departure address to the Monroe Doctrine, to the strong opposition to the entry into both World Wars, America has exhibited a very palpable aversion to imposing itself militarily on other countries.
That is not to say we have not been viewing ourselves as the “Light for the gentiles.” There is very little doubt that from the political, economic, moral and, formerly more than now, religious stand points we have been seeing ourselves as often superior to the rest of the world. Furthermore, we do not tire of letting the world know of where we stand, nor do we ever stop pushing our wares on said wary world (especially on the economic front).
So one might say that we are an Empire after all, by the second definition if not by the first. And, like I said, I will readily agree. I think there is a large qualitative difference between the two definitions. The first one relies on physical force, the second one does not, and that, on some level, makes all the difference. In that sense, I would also make the claim that there is nothing wrong (or very little wrong) with the second type of Empire, whereas the first one is in the business of spilling a great deal of blood. The fighting is also qualitatively different. On the one hand we have the straightforward clash of arms. On the other hand, we have the full panoply of human endeavor – intellectual, economic, political, moral, aesthetic, culinary (think of all the MacDonald’s all over the world opposed by the “Slow food movement”) you name it.
While the first type of empire brings about a great deal of ruin, the tension and contention caused by the second type act as a catalyst for development on all the levels on which the Empire is trying to expand. In that sense its effects could be viewed as extremely positive – energizing the flux and keeping humanity from the inevitable stagnation that comes about through the lack of challenge.
Back to the writer under discussion. I am fairly certain that Gore Vidal views America as an Empire in the first, not the second sense. The fact that he is wrong (or may be wrong, assuming just for a split second that the author of these lines is capable of error – a silly notion, but what the heck, it’s Friday) does not alter the elemental strength of his talent in depicting the people, forces, ideals and passions that fashioned this country. Vidal often shows how many notable figures of American history, from Jefferson to Lincoln were not the pure embodiment of the principle for which they argued. While this fact may be viewed as a contradiction of the validity of the principles themselves, I think it merely shows that the people who were attempting to practice them were human, with all the foibles and contradictions associated with that peculiar animal. Personally, this makes it easier for me to relate to the legendary figures. Vidal infuses verisimilitude into our history, making it real by making it believable. I would even put forth an argument that Vidal’s historical writing can be viewed as a reaction against historical revisionism that started with Brown. Until the 1950s or so, the generation of the Revolution was depicted as exalted Olympians. Then, turning to the other extreme, we all of a sudden decided that they were a bunch of oversexed patriarchal, avaricious and close minded power grubbers who only cared to find ways to preserve their wealth (failures almost to the man, as such prominent figures as Washington and Jefferson died penniless). By showing the multi facetedness as well as complexity and ambiguity of the people and situations involved, Vidal illustrates that whatever ideals were put forward were grounded in actual reality. While for some this may negate the ideal, for me it makes it so much more easier to accept.
The principles proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence have been dismissed through history as a true foundation of the United States. On the one hand, the critics would say, Jefferson was extolling universal equality, on the other hand, in practice, he was talking of the universal equality of White Male property owners. By arguing against the specific manifestation of the principle, the attempt at making the principle a reality is often dismissed off hand. Indeed, Jefferson, known by some of his contemporaries as “Massa Tom,” was a slave owner and Lincoln was not campaigning on the platform of Abolitinism, but rather on the prohibition of the expansion of slavery into new States. But in the 1820s we had of Jacksonian democracy, which gave the vote to all free males, regardless of property. There was the Civil War, which started the process of freeing black salves. Considering the reality of the situation in 1776, to expect the United States to have the freedoms it offers in 2001 in 1776 is the same as expecting a grossly overweight glutton who finally decides to go on a diet to lose his weight overnight. Furthermore, I would adumbrate disagreements with this entry by stating that the States are still not devoid of cholesterol. I do think that we have a very decent diet that is being adopted by many other fatsos around the world.
2:23:34 PM 
|
|
