Thinking Beyond the Myth of the "American Century"

American's have always had a sort of 'civic religion'. This religion connects the American identity to a narrative that begins with religious oppression and heroes battling in the revolutionary war. It is taught in American history courses that deliver a tight plot of the American experience that diminishes America's problems and exagerrates it's righteousness. This 'civic religion' serves a purpose. It unites Americans of many different types. In the absense of other ways of uniting together, the civic religion provides a glue uniting all Americans. (I personally believe that this glue is also dangerous because it's vulgar form is just nationalism, but that's for another post)

But this 'civic religion' isn't a single phenomena. It can be found in the virulent defense of the constitution, among the flags dotting front yards in the suburbs, or the monuments to fallen soldiers in small towns. One of the most active forms of this civic religion today is the belief in the "American Century." When Henry Luce coined this term it was immediately grounded in American power in the post WWII world. It was an arrogant pronouncement declaring dominance over the world. But this dominance wasn't a mere statement of fact, it also included a responsibility. The responsibility was articulated over the years but culminated in the ideas expressed by those who are called neocons these days. I think I'd prefer to limit this idea to people like Kristol and Krauthammer. I recently spent hours watching Fukuyama on CSPAN. He clears up a few things about the 'neocons' and I believe that term is abused (and I admit, I'm a former abuser).

According to Andrew Bacevich, the myth of the "American Century" is now the fundamental political divide in America. I think he has something. He has touched upon a new test of political beliefs. This test informs how one feels about America's past, it's intentions, and how to approach the exercise of American power. Those of us who do not subscribe to the notion of the an "American Century" seek to restrain US military power. We seek to establish cooperation with other nations in international institutions. We see reasons to critique the use of American power in the past and we are cautious about exercising it's power in the future. Those who believe in the "American Century" tend to trust the exercise of American military power. They are often apologists for past military actions like Vietnam or the current conflict in Iraq.

In a new article over at AlterNet, Howard Zinn points out a couple of problems related to the myth of the "American Century":

It seems to me there are two reasons, which go deep into our
national culture, and which help explain the vulnerability of the press
and of the citizenry to outrageous lies whose consequences bring death
to tens of thousands of people. If we can understand those reasons, we
can guard ourselves better against being deceived.

One is in the
dimension of time, that is, an absence of historical perspective. The
other is in the dimension of space, that is, an inability to think
outside the boundaries of nationalism. We are penned in by the arrogant
idea that this country is the center of the universe, exceptionally
virtuous, admirable, superior.

The point of this point is contained in the final sentence in the first quoted paragraph. Americans must think beyond the myth of the "American Century" in order to guard ourselves against being deceived. The American public was DECEIVED by this administration during those crucial few months before the Iraq war. A citizenry guarded against such deceptions may have resisted the march towards war and lives could've been saved.