The “Metaphysics of America” and the 2004 Presidential Election

THOUGHTS & OBSERVATIONS 2

The news magazine that often gets the highest marks for reporting and non-partisan objectivity is U.S. News and World Report. Thus I was pleasantly surprised when I saw on the newsstand the newest issue of the magazine on a weekend in the mid-summer of 2004 while strolling around Washington, D.C. The issue had an American flag at its center with the words “Special Issue: Defining America: Why the U.S. is Unique” (June 28-July 5, 2004). I recalled many students over the years who have found rather preposterous my idea that “ America” actually has some meaning (“ America means whatever anyone thinks it means,” they would object postmodernly). But now I could hold up the cover of one of our great news magazines and say, “See? Even U. S. News wants to define America! Even U. S. News is under the impression that America means something!” I have no evidence of which to speak, but I would imagine that that issue of U. S. News sold pretty well—especially since it was published the week before Independence Day and just when the brand new World War II Memorial was literally swarming with visitors. (I have been to D.C. many times, but this past summer I was almost overwhelmed by the crowds. The Lincoln Memorial looked like Shinjuku Station in downtown Tokyo.)

Presumably, those crowds come to Washington partly because the city symbolizes certain values and beliefs to which every American ascribes. As participants in a culture still bent on self-discovery and self-definition, American citizens continue to be intrigued by those personalities and public moments that draw upon the tropes of the American Dream and the so-called “myth of America.” The concept of American somethingness goes back almost four hundred years. Even before there was an “ America,” people believed there was something special about America. To some extent, the American idea sprung from this powerful sensibility of an American somethingness—a sensibility largely castigated as “American exceptionalism” or “empire.”

The American tradition of “somethingness” is perhaps highlighted by the likes of Abraham Lincoln and Walt Whitman in the nineteenth century, and James Baldwin and Martin Luther King, Jr. in the twentieth century. For example, here is the master of evasion himself, Abraham Lincoln, describing the sublime object of desire that made the Declaration of Independence such a special document: “ I have often inquired of myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this confederacy so long together. It was…something in that Declaration giving liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but hope to the world for all future times” (213, emphasis added). The American hope, for Lincoln, is somehow subordinate to a greater hope, a cosmic hope in which the American version is perhaps the great exemplar in human society. And this cosmic hope transcends language’s ability to contain it. Even for Lincoln, the object of American hope is, and, to some extent, must remain by definition impossible—impossible to name, impossible to define, and impossible to embody completely. American somethingness is even impossible to achieve, as some of our great American prophets have admitted. James Baldwin ends his book The Fire Next Time by saying in his call for racial reconciliation: “I know that what I am asking is impossible. But in our time, as in every time, the impossible is the least that one can demand” (104).

Hoping for the impossible—it sounds irrational and yet somehow rings true. Impossibility, thus, must not become a barrier to human hoping for and pursuit of this somethingness. I still argue that all Americans must be zealous in the quest for this something that cannot be named, and that, as transcendentalists of the twenty-first century, we must hold dearly to this mystical pursuit, as individuals and as a community, even in the face of various postmodernists who would refute and reject any such search. That is, we Americans must hold fast to a concept of communal hope, with “somethingness” as the object of pursuit. We must also embrace a concept of American unity even as fragile as such a concept must seem in our tenuous times. All American citizens have a stake in the continuation of the search for those elements of America that have provided for the world so much inspiration and hope.

American politicians in the 2004 presidential election appeared to believe the same thing. They continually drew upon the rich “mother lode” of myths and symbols that have served to offer hope and meaning to generations of American citizens, past and present. And there was (at least rhetorically speaking) widespread agreement—across Party lines—with the idea that America is a unique agent that has undertaken a vast world mission. All serious candidates claimed to believe in an American spirit and in American unity. Also, Democrats and Republicans largely agreed on the basic aims of a worldwide American millennial mission—as do most regular American folk. Given the very great contempt that the two sides obviously hold for one another, this reality may be genuinely surprising. But, in general, the vast majority of the disagreements were in the how, not in the why or what.

To make my point, I will quickly run through some of the most memorable quotes from the nightly keynote speakers at the two national conventions in the summer of 2004, by chronological order of presentation. Each quotation is followed by a name, but need not be, given their simplicity and their elegance. My desire here is to underscore precisely those philosophical, even quasi-religious, conceptions of America about which every speaker appeared to be in agreement. In doing so, I propose that leaders from all points of the political spectrum shared a “metaphysics of America”—that they all shared an idealistic view of precisely what America is meant to be, and what it ought to be, both at home and abroad.

First, from the Democratic Convention in Boston, held July 26-29, 2004 (all available online at www.dems2004.org):

America will provide global leadership that springs from the unity and integrity of the American people…. At stake is nothing less than our nation’s soul. —President Jimmy Carter, June 26, 2004

We are constantly told America is deeply divided. But all Americans value freedom, faith, and family. We all honor the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world…. At every turning point in our history we the people have chosen unity over division, heeding our founders’ call to America’s eternal mission: to form a more perfect union. —President Bill Clinton, June 26, 2004

There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America—there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America…. John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope…. The audacity of hope!.... In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; the belief in things not seen; the belief that there are better days ahead…. — Illinois State Senator Barack Obama, June 27, 2004

We believe that what matters most is not narrow appeals masquerading as values, but the shared values that show the true face of America. Not narrow appeals that divide us, but shared values that unite us. Family and faith. Hard work and responsibility. Opportunity for all—…. These aren't Democratic values. These aren't Republican values. They’re American values. We believe in them. They're who we are. — Presidential nominee Senator John F. Kerry, June 29, 2004.

Note the similarities between these remarks and those from the Republican Convention in New York, August 30-September 2, 2004 (all available online at www.2004nycgop.org):

I remember the days following September 11 th when we were no longer Democrats or Republicans, but Americans determined to do all we could to help the victims…. Let’s make sure we rekindle that spirit that we are one America united to end the threat of global terrorism.
— Former Mayor of New York City Rudy Guiliani, August 30, 2004

We are arguing over the means to better secure our freedom and promote the general welfare. But it should remain an argument among friends who share an unshaken belief in our great cause, and in the goodness of each other. We are Americans first, Americans last, Americans always.
— Senator John McCain, August 30, 2004

We are still the lamp lighting the world…. My fellow Americans…. I want you to know that I believe with all my heart that America remains “the great idea” that inspires the world.
— California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, August 31, 2004

The historian Bernard DeVoto once wrote that when America was created, the stars must have danced in the sky. Our president understands the miracle of this great country. He knows the hope that drives it and shares the optimism that has long been so important a part of our national character.
— Vice President Dick Cheney, September 1, 2004

I have seen the character of a great nation: decent, and idealistic, and strong. The world saw that spirit three miles from here, when the people of this city faced peril together, and lifted a flag over the ruins, and defied the enemy with their courage…. This is the everlasting dream of America, and tonight, in this place, that dream is renewed. Now we go forward grateful for our freedom, faithful to our cause, and confident in the future of the greatest nation on earth.”
— President George W. Bush, September 2, 2004.

Of course, much effort was spent over the course of the 2004 presidential campaign trying to show how the candidates are very different from one another, and that is to be expected. However, my selection of these excerpts focuses on how much these different party spokespersons have in common. Students of American history and politics need both perspectives. A particular symptom of our postmodern world is the widespread cynicism and skepticism among today’s college students, who do not believe that such a unity and consensus exists or even that it should exist—a skepticism that I have widely experienced. Many students today are extremely skeptical about the assertion of unity and think that perhaps unity is basically a bad idea.

I suggest that one important way to teach about America is to demonstrate that unity and consensus is still alive and well. The election rhetoric shows that the unity is still thriving, in principle at least, and that, generally speaking, most Americans have a fairly clear idea about the meaning and purpose of America—if we can break through the initial cynicism and get them to talk about it. One way to do this is to provide them with a set of quotations like these—or even have them download the entire speeches—and to look for the points these candidates share. How do Kerry and Bush define the meaning and purpose of America?

It is valuable to demonstrate that American politicians who aspire to national leadership must pay homage to the important concepts at the heart of the American myth. Indeed, national politicians must actually believe in American uniqueness or else be very good at pretending they do. My best guess, however, is that these politicians, like most Americans, including the ones hiking around the National Mall this past summer and the ones who bought and relished the U. S. News special issue on American uniqueness, share at least a qualified belief in abstract concepts like the “greatness of the American spirit.” More cagy (not to say jaded) academic types, such as some of the readers of this journal perhaps, might actually doubt their sincerity. Or they might ask, does such a “spirit” of America exist, and if so, what is it, or how might we measure it? Or are Americans, in fact, united by more than a clever political speech? I hope that classroom exercises like the one I advocate above can suggest what I think to be the correct answer to questions like these. At the very least, many Americans appear to believe these things, and our two major parties and their candidates in 2004, Kerry and Bush, apparently agreed as well.

I am proposing that it is in the best interests of our students, and the future of our nation, that we spend some time introducing our students to the content of the American metaphysics. Our students, reared as the first truly postmodern generation, will initially resist such “hegemonic discourse,” as my experience has shown me repeatedly. But the fact is that almost every person who takes the time to vote has a metaphysics of America, whether he or she admits it or not. It is why we are all so moved when we stand in the Lincoln Memorial, reading the words engraved on the wall. It is why U. S. News can sell so many copies of an issue titled “Defining America: Why the U.S. is Unique.” It is why, during the 2004 World Series, the seventh inning stretch featured not the traditional song “Take Me Out to the Ballgame,” but a rousing and moving rendition of “God Bless America” (about which there seemed to be little complaint).

These ideas, and the public rituals that embody them in practice, maintain vast and mysterious power for most Americans. My sense is that many of the most memorable words, phrases, symbols, and stories of the 2004 election have been largely non-partisan reconstructions of what America is and means—both in the eyes of the various candidates, and in the eyes of the electorate. The victorious candidate must, of course, do many things during the campaign. One of the most important, however, is to compose and present a poem about America, to use Walt Whitman’s metaphor. This thesis may appear audacious on a certain level; however, it is no surprise that Democrats and Republicans (and third-party candidates) will all agree very much on certain basic premises of the American ideology. The excerpts from many different speakers, both from left and right, show that a certain transcendental view of America and her calling, meaning, and purpose, is still common to both sides of the equation. Indeed, to disagree is to place one’s candidacy in immediate peril. After this preliminary metaphysics, so to speak, candidates must attempt to show how their agendas match most closely with the versions of the traditional American Dream and its civil religious preoccupations. In the end, all candidates, although somewhat constrained by the limits of the American Dream, will be in basic agreement, at least rhetorically and publicly, that the Dream continues and that their ideas and specific policies are more closely aligned with that Dream than are the positions of the other candidates. Rather than focus on the many differences among the candidates, this approach to teaching the elections aims at uncovering the ideological foundations that Americans, of all political persuasion, still appear to have in common.

If this argument has any merit, it should also cast some light on the outcome of the election. To some extent, so the argument would go, President Bush won re-election because for most Americans, his campaign was the best poetical expression of what Americans believe about America. This claim might seem quaint to some readers and hopelessly naïve to others. Indeed, it was striking how much clear antagonism arose between the so-called blue states and red states. Voters on the left felt extremely puzzled, and some even angry, about the victory of George W. Bush. What does poetry have to do with anything? Voters on the right considered the victory perfectly understandable. Why do liberals find the election results so confusing?

And yet, if my approach has any value, it is worth examining the possible reasons for Bush’s victory—dispassionately and non-partisanly. The fact is, for the majority of voters, there was more “something” about President Bush than there was “something” about Senator Kerry. Some would like to focus the analysis of the election result on hard social and political issues. However, it is quite revealing that polling data listed “moral values” as the “issue that mattered most in deciding how you voted for president” (“Election Results”). Although these data have been widely challenged since the election, especially given the vague wording of the question, the results suggest the metaphysical function of the office of the president in people’s minds. Perhaps the challenges from the left regarding these data emanate again from its fundamental antagonism toward the very idea of “somethingness.” For whatever reasons, it is worth investigating with our students the possible reasons why one candidate defeats another—especially given the premise that the victory comes partly as a result of a superior poetical gift regarding American somethingness. And I believe teachers can do this—and should do this—without revealing their own political colors. What we pursue is not partisan conversion among our students but a more nuanced and richer understanding of the American metaphysics—that “something” which somehow resonates more in one candidacy than another.

It is the “something” that all those people swarm to Washington in search of every summer. It is the object of hope that U. S. News was trumpeting to the world on its cover the week before Independence Day. These common ideas, values, and beliefs constitute what I call a “metaphysics of America.” Drawing upon G. K. Chesterton’s famous quotation, America is a “nation with the soul of a church”—a phrase that became the title of Sidney Mead’s influential volume detailing what he called the “religion of the republic.” Presidential words must reflect this American metaphysics, which sounds fanciful but includes such notions as First Amendment freedoms, legal equality, human rights, lawful protest, and democratic self-determination, among other things. And our students, entering into a lifelong commitment to civic participation through voting and other means, must know about them. We, the teachers, must be the ones to show the students in order to form a more perfect union. And these rhetorical moments, including the seemingly trite convention speeches, turn out to be one of the best ways to do so.

Works Cited

Baldwin, James. The Fire Next Time. 1963. New York: Vintage, 1993.

“Election Results.” 25 Nov. 2004 <www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html>.

Lincoln, Abraham. Speeches and Writings, 1859-1865. Ed. Don Fehrenbacher. New York: Library of America, 1988.

Mead, Sidney. The Nation with the Soul of a Church. New York: Harper and Row, 1975.

Harold K. Bush, Jr., Ph.D. <bushhk@slu.edu>
Associate Professor of English
Saint Louis University