Andrew Bacevich is one of the few voices in the American political scene today that has anything worthwhile to say. In the words of a friend of mine, “He’s not a moron.” I can’t wait to begin reading his new book, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, which has been on backorder for three weeks. A self-proclaimed conservative, Bacevich feels that a consistent conservatism calls for honest reflection on the limitations of our capacity to change the world through military intervention. An interview with Bill Moyers is a great introduction to his calls for humility in foreign policy, and a radical recovery of what freedom actually means here in America before we consider exporting it elsewhere. One way or another, the American empire in its present state will come to an end.
Matthew 21:44 is a helpful way of illustrating Bacevich’s paradigm:
“Whoever falls upon this stone shall be broken,
but the one upon whom the stone falls shall be pulverised.”
In this sense, Bacevich is calling America to fall upon the rock, to be broken. If we would revise our notion of ourselves as guardians of history; if we would learn ourselves to be free with a freedom that is not license to buy, fornicate, and not sacrifice; simply if we would be humble, perhaps then we would be allowed to continue on as a nation.
In a recent article, Bacevich gives a revision of Sarah Palin’s account of the history of the phrase “a shining city on a hill.” You may recall during the vice-presidential debates that Palin, as she was advocating for America’s exceptional role as God’s chosen instrument among the nations committed two great travesties: one, she attributed Jesus’ saying to Ronald Reagan, and two, she switched the referent from the Church to America. Bacevich doesn’t bring Jesus into it either, but he does trace the quote to its original American usage, in John Winthrop’s speech to the Massachussettes Bay Colony, “A Model of Christian Charity.” For Winthrop, the exceptionalism of America is an application of the covenant theology of the Old Testament to this new colony. For him, they were singled out by the Lord for a mission, to be attended by blessing if faithful, but punishment if they were to break covenant. Bacevich’s reflections on the (hypothetical, for him) possibility that America actually is such a covenanted and exceptional nation are golden:
The third possibility is that God exists and has indeed singled out America as his New Israel. In that event, John Winthrop’s charge of 1630 demands urgent attention – not least of all his warning of what will befall America should it be seduced by earthly concerns and carnal desires and tend too much to superfluities.
Today no doubt, the eyes of all people are indeed on the United States – what happens here affects the world. Yet many of those who observe us don’t like what they see. The question for Governor Palin and for other believers committed to the concept of American exceptionalism is this: have we kept the Lord’s covenant? If not, perhaps the time has come to mend our ways before it’s too late.
Who knows? The sound you hear even now on Wall Street may be God’s wrath breaking out against us.
God’s wrath breaking out against us? Very possible. But the third premise listed by Bacevich doesn’t necessarily have to be true to incite God’s wrath against any nation. Just injustice, dishonest weights, wickedness, and no fear of God in the people or the rulers.
I got to know Bacevich’s work through Cavanaugh’s battle with Stephen Webb in Cultural Encounters a while back. To be fair, Obama himself has also used the “City on the Hill” quote approvingly, and continues to speak of America as the greatest nation on earth (although I sometimes get the sense that he’s saying it with a lot of qualifications in the back of his head, so that it’s just pandering).
Anyways, thanks for posting!
Chris –
I’m definitely aware of Obama’s use of the concept at least, if not the phrase itself. What comes to mind for me is his quotation of Hebrews 10.23 “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering” at the end of his convention speech this year. Obama performs the same interpretive maneuver as Palin and Reagan, substituting America (for Obama, as with M.L.K. this is more “the objective American spirit” which is often in direct contradiction with really-existing America) as the object of our hope in place of “he who promised.”
The way I like to put it is that I definitely prefer the America Obama believes in to the America McCain and Palin believe in, but either way, its idolatry all the same.