12:23 pm
9/11: Democratic Martyrs and the American Idea
This is partly a repost from last year, with some new observations added at the end. Two days after I put this up, David Foster Wallace committed suicide. I still think his short essay represents one of the most lucid distillations of what it means to live in our crazy, troubled, and wonderful country. Let us not forget those who died that day, nor those who, like Wallace, who have/had the courage of their convictions to demand better of all of us in the years since that tragic, terrible day.
About a year ago, The Atlantic asked a number of prominent thinkers to write, in 300 words or less, what they thought was “The Future of the American Idea.”
This is what novelist David Foster Wallace had to say in response.
Just Asking
Are some things still worth dying for?
Is the American idea one such thing?
Are you up for a thought experiment?
What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, “sacrifices on the altar of freedom”?
In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life—sacrifices not just of our soldiers and money but of our personal safety and comfort?
In still other words, what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?
Is this thought experiment monstrous? Would it be monstrous to refer to the 40,000-plus domestic highway deaths we accept each year because the mobility and autonomy of the car are evidently worth that high price?
Is monstrousness why no serious public figure now will speak of the delusory trade-off of liberty for safety that Ben Franklin warned about more than 200 years ago? What exactly has changed between Franklin’s time and ours? Why now can we not have a serious national conversation about sacrifice, the inevitability of sacrifice—either of (a) some portion of safety or (b) some portion of the rights and protections that make the American idea so incalculably precious?
In the absence of such a conversation, can we trust our elected leaders to value and protect the American idea as they act to secure the homeland? What are the effects on the American idea of Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Patriot Acts I and II, warrantless surveillance, Executive Order 13233, corporate contractors performing military functions, the Military Commissions Act, NSPD 51, etc., etc.? Assume for a moment that some of these measures really have helped make our persons and property safer—are they worth it?
Where and when was the public debate on whether they’re worth it? Was there no such debate because we’re not capable of having or demanding one? Why not? Have we actually become so selfish and scared that we don’t even want to consider whether some things trump safety? What kind of future does that augur?
I would add, from the perspective of 2009, that even under a new Administration, this debate has not yet occurred. Rejecting the failed policies of the previous Administration is not the same as making a principled argument as to why our values matter, why we must reject such extremism, and why we must embrace the better angels of our nature, no matter what we face.
Tuesday night, President Obama told Congress, “we did not come here to fear the future, we came here to shape it.” We cannot shape the past, but neither should we fear it.
Related posts
| posted in American foreign policy, war & rumors of war, world events | 1 Comment