JUNE 24, 2024 – I’m now deep into the book I mentioned in my June 19 post—The Story of Russia by Orlando Figes. The author’s thesis is that much about Russia of today is from the mold of myth; that Putin’s justification for the assault on Ukraine, as well as his domestic autocracy are rooted in distortions of historical truths going back centuries. Moreover, the myths are intertwined with a host of mind-boggling influences originating in quarters far distant from the Kremlin.
The book’s effect, I’m finding, is similar to the salient benefit of travel abroad: in foreign lands I learn as much about my own country as of the place in which I’m the alien. The enduring myths that have directed Russians’ world view remind me that myths have also driven Americans’ self-assessment. Figes acknowledges that national myth-making isn’t unique to Russia; that it can be found in almost every country, though in Russia myth is as strong as Russia’s territory is wide.
Yet, mere use of the term “myth” in describing American foundations is sacrilege to the people most adamant about the “reality” of the myths. One standard American myth is that the country was founded by a group of polymaths who thought, talked, and walked in lockstep with one another. In reality, they were often split by active dissent and rocked by bitter discord—during the military phase following the Declaration of Independence and in the work of state-craft after the victory at Yorktown. A second great myth is the role of firearms in our national foundation, when in fact, the revolution nearly failed because of the lack of guns among farmer-soldiers who were called upon to fight against the British regulars—hence the need for state militia, armed, fed, and clothed. The third and giant myth among many modern Americans is that we were founded as a Christian nation. Many of the Founders were Deists, and none insisted on inclusion of “God,” let alone Jesus, in the Constitution.
Yet, I find myself resorting to myth when I consider the growing disrespect for the rule of law, the increased distrust of the electoral process, the embrace of autocratic rhetoric, and the contempt for compromise. Specifically, I see a wholesale crumbling of traditional American political values and principles.
The myth in my case is that prior generations understood and honored the rule of law; adhered to principles and eschewed craven fealty to a cult leader. Our history is not as complicated or old as Russia’s “story,” but scratch just below the surface and you’ll stumble upon ample evidence that most of what shocks us today had a prior run. The record of democracy in our country is hardly pristine. It’s not as though we’d achieved democratic excellence in 1789 (the first year the Constitution was in force, it having been fully ratified in 1788), maintained it for 250 years and are now in mortal danger of torching the whole grand “American Experiment”—if Biden is re-elected (according to the Republican line) or Trump is re-elected (according to Democratic press releases).
Take for example . . . The four-and-a-half-year Civil War. Or rather, reach back to the origins of the conflict: the power of the slave colonies in the framing and adoption of the Constitution. Deep trouble for the newly formed United States of America was guaranteed, but the can was kicked down the road 71 years. After the original “three-fifths” compromise and the Missouri Compromise 31 years later, the country ran out of compromises on the issue of slavery. The result: 620,000 war dead, which, as a percentage of the total U.S. population at the time would be proportionate to 6.2 million dead against today’s population. Despite our much-cited current political polarization and fears of “another civil war,” we have far more room to maneuver away from disaster than Lincoln faced in March 1861 (the month and year of his first inauguration).
Likewise, consider the national agenda of Onward Christian Republicans. The other day I watched a video clip of the loud, dogmatic author of the recently passed legislation in Louisiana making it the law to post The Law. When pressed about the lack of Constitution sanction and authority for the new law, without missing a beat the woman cited the myth that “this nation was based on Christianity.”
The rise of the Christian Taliban shocks anyone familiar with Jefferson’s explicit insistence on separation of church and state. On the other hand, for many generations, Christianity was heavily branded on our social culture, and by simple extension, on our political culture. Though “God” appears nowhere in the Constitution, the myth of a “Christian nation” has strong roots. Depending on how immigration demographics play out in the years ahead, we could well remain a “Christian nation” based on a “Christian myth.”
Another prime example of the past being less than democratically perfect was the country’s reaction to President Truman’s firing of General Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War. The prima donna General had displayed contemptuous insubordination toward the Commander in Chief. Truman was right in relieving MacArthur of his command, but many Americans reacted strongly against the President. Republicans wanted to impeach him, and when MacArthur returned to San Francisco from Korea, a crowd of well-wishers estimated at over a million were on hand to give him a hero’s welcome. He was invited to give a speech before a joint session of Congress, and he milked it for all it was worth—just down the avenue from the White House. Many Americans wanted to be done with democracy—Truman and all—and anoint MacArthur as their Caesar.
MacArthur was considered an American hero—an American military hero, no less, yet in the context of his insubordination and extreme popularity thereafter, he unleashed what was arguably the most dangerous autocratic potential in our country’s history, present times included. (MacArthur could put whole paragraphs together—spoken extemporaneously or written in large volumes, and he was a general, not a carnival barker with draft-age bone spurs, a detached tongue and no known writing ability.)
The myths of national consciousness are nearly impossible to overcome. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to examine them—both on the left and on the right end of the political spectrum. Another way to approach myths is not even to refer to them as such but as “premises.” From guns to the notion of a “Christian nation,” we should examine our premises and in the cool light of day, ask, “Are they valid?”
Subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
© 2024 by Eric Nilsson
