| "It’s true, George, everyone is out to get you…."
A couple of news stories nearly flew under the media’s radar last week. Still, as we approach the third anniversary of 9-11, they caught my eye as symbols of how things have changed and yet not changed since the terrorist attacks of that day.
First, American officials announced the scheduled construction of five new air bases along the U.S.-Canada border, stretching all the way from Washington to New York. The stated purpose of these bases is to help prevent cross-border drug smuggling. Yet this new surveillance is also in response to renewed concerns over national security in the wake of the recent 9-11 report. More than $35 million is to be spent on the first of these bases at Bellingham, Washington – including the purchase of two boats, a plane and two military helicopters – with the aim to "deter criminal activity and… help agents stop smugglers and terrorists," according to one of the pilots.
The second story came out of Ottawa, where Canada’s police chiefs have proposed a surcharge of 25 cents on monthly telephone and Internet bills to cover the cost of wiretaps – a cost that has greatly increased in the aftermath of 9-11. "This is a very, very serious issue for us," said Supt. Tom Grue of the need to recoup this cost. "It has the potential for really paralyzing operations." The prospect of paying to be spied on has, naturally, raised the hackles of some civil libertarian groups, but so far the main opposition has come from the phone companies themselves. "We really don’t think the cost should be flipped over to the general public," said Bell Canada’s Jacqueline Michelis. "Twenty-five cents is a really significant amount to add to everyone’s phone bill."
So there we have it. Same threat, different responses. While the U.S. is preparing to spend millions on new air bases in a move that will finally dispel the myth of the world’s "longest undefended border," Canadians are set to debate whether or not the prevention of terrorism is worth adding $3 per year to everyone’s phone bill.
How can this vast difference in the scale of response to a common concern be explained? How is it that two nations, sharing the same geopolitical landmass, a fully interlocked economy and similar cultural traditions, can react to the prospect of another terrorist attack so differently?
One answer lies in an essay written by the American historian Richard Hofstadter 40 years ago. Penned under the shadow of the 1950s’ McCarthy witch hunt, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" was a bold attempt to shed light on right-wing attitudes and assumptions at the time. "The clinical paranoid," writes Hofstadter, "sees the hostile and conspiratorial world in which he feels himself to be living as directed specifically against him; whereas the spokesman of the paranoid style finds it directed against a nation, a culture, a way of life whose fate affects not himself alone but millions of others."
Listen to any statement by U.S. President George W. Bush over the past three years and you’ll recognize this description. His every utterance belies an "us/them" worldview, in which the complexity and deep context of historical conflicts are boiled down to a simple hatred of American values and America itself. In turn, Bush’s record as president in the forthcoming election is to be judged only – and explicitly – on his alleged superior ability to defend America against the rest of the world.
It’s not just Bush. Many books published since 9-11 reflect this same sense of paranoia. Picked almost at random, here’s a small sample of recent titles: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World, Fear’s Empire, In Our Own Best Interest, Lost Liberties, The Enemy Within. Different books, with different points to make, but all share the same sense of paranoia that informs Bush’s outlook and response.
There’s something else going on here, too. Again, as Hofstadter notes in his essay, "The paranoid’s interpretation of history is in this sense distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will." Hence Bush’s "wanted dead or alive" rhetoric in the wake of 9-11. Far easier, it seems, to reduce an event that was years in the staging to B-movie dialogue, rather than to dwell on its historical origins.
The trouble is, paranoia breeds paranoia. Despite the fact they fought as allies during the First World War, in the years afterwards both Canada and the U.S. eyed each other suspiciously and prepared for the worst. Canada drew up "Defence Scheme No. 1," plans for a pre-emptive invasion of the U.S. should America and Britain find themselves at war. For its part, the U.S. developed "War Plan Red," in which it prepared for the "complete control of Crimson" (i.e. Canada). This included the strategic bombing of Halifax and first-strike use of poison gas, if necessary. Then, in 1935, the U.S. Congress sanctioned the construction of air bases near the Canadian border to permit pre-emptive strikes against Canadian airfields, even though virtually none existed at the time.
Which brings us back to last week’s stories. Paranoia permits everything. It’s how you act on it that matters. As Hofstadter concludes, "We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well." |
Copyright ©2004 FFWD. All rights reserved.