Even though it's been out for a few months, I just ran across this book by Joshua Foa Dienstag, Pessimism: Philosophy, Ethic, Spirit, (B 829 D54 2006 for those Library of Congress junkies reading this). Dienstag, a political science professor at UCLA, argues that pessimism isn't simply an attitude of defeatism, but a philosophically and politically viable, and healthy, weltanschauung. Optimism, held in almost spiritual esteem in America, is "both dangerous and morally suspect," he claimed in an interview from November 2006. But philosophical pessimists, he suggested, recognize that "There's a big difference between the pursuit of happiness and an expectation of it," and, moreover, that unhappiness is an inescapble component of life, a realization that actually assists a person's effort to live contentedly. Optimists expect happiness, and are often disappointed when reality fails to meet those expectations. "Having an expectation of happiness," he stated in the same interview, "just compunds ordinary suffering by making it seem like injustice." It's hardly surprising then, "that a nation of optimists can produce a politics of resentment."
But it produces more than just resentment in politics, and this is why I think Dienstag's six-month-old comments have continued relevancy, esp. in light of the upcoming 'surge,' and the fact that almost fifty million Americans are still uninsured; the optimistic determinism expressed by the Bush administration asks more from people than it can ever possibly repay, trafficking in promises of a future that is, supposedly inevitably, happier and safer. Think about Bush's thumbs-up on the deck of the USS Lincoln in front of that huge 'Mission Accomplished' banner a week after the initial invasion of Iraq. Think about Bush telling a single mother working three jobs that her position is 'uniquely American.' Think about what we're bound to hear during next week's State of the Union address: Stay the course. (And) Happy days will be here again. Certainly plenty of politicians trade in assurances and positive thinking, but what we've seen the past six years is, as Dienstag states, "the rhetoric of sacrifice [being] abused to justify suffering and centralize power."
Or, as Camus explained, "the future authorizes every kind of humbug." Perhaps this particular Camus quotation is unfamiliar to Bush, though Dienstag and his interviewer both pick up on it, but Bush has famously read "The Stranger," some of which must have made an impression on him. (My flippant side wants to quip that all he got out of Camus was the 'killing of the Arab.') Recall the speech he gave last August at the national convention of the American Legion: "The images that come back from the front lines are striking, and sometimes unsettling," he informed us, "When you see innocent civilians ripped apart by suicide bombs, or families buried inside their homes, the world can seem engulfed in purposeless violence."
But also recall that this is the same speech where he introduced the struggle against terrorism (the neologism is 'Islamofascist') as "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century," a phrase he repeats three times. The ideologies he opposes are standard fare by this point: freedom versus tyrrany, democracy versus fascism, terror versus...let's call it optimism. So, yeah, there's 'purposeless violence,' but then again, he continues, "The truth is there is violence, but those who cause it have a clear purpose." His timbre here, as most everywhere since, is one of breezy but intransigent affirmation. These are truths that will allow us to navigate precarious moderntimes, and the subtext is that Bush and his hawkish inner circle see these truths clearly, and are clearly lead by them. Our job is simply to believe in them, sacrificing any critical and moral incredulity we might experience. In this single speech Bush uses the word "sacrifice" half a dozen times.
The problem with truth defined ideologically, as Bush often does, is that ideology is highly contextual, meaning that the relevance and applicability of each ideology's content depends on the producer of that content, where it was produced, and why. That is, ideology is fluid, not static. And it's inherent truthfulness is rarely self-evident. So, it is generally a way of ordering the world not by what actually is, but by what we believe ought to be, and often what we think we need to do to get there. I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak on what terrorists think the world ought to be, but from what I can tell from seeing and hearing Bush over the past six years, his ideology seems painfully optimistic. He believes we can change the future. For the better. Americans and Iraqis are paying the price for his happy sophistry. Dienstag, the pessimist, thinks that "We just have to give up our fantasies about controlling the future. We should let the future surprise us." And if it disappoints us, we won't be so shocked. Or screwed.
Recent Comments