I really like what Banks has to say about The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He notes that novelist Ralph Ellison called them "our sacred documents," and Banks guesses that "Perhaps it's because of the poetic, almost biblical language" of the documents.
It is only through the Declaration of Independence - the extraordinary brilliance of it, both the precision and the vagaries of it - and the beautiful, delicate balancing act that the Constitution lays out between the three branches of the government - the executive, the representative, and the judicial - that we're able to bring together these conflicting elements that lie at the heart of the American imagination and the American past." (p. 20)
Later he reminds us that "Our brand of democracy has lasted for almost 200 years...It's the oldest continuous democracy on the planet" (p. 125).
These two documents are the map, the schematic, the architectual plans for our republic. Our structure and organization of our governmental system was contemplated and described in written language. This written language must be continually read and understood as lawyers, politicians, and judges pass away (retire and die) and new ones step into their positions. We, the people, trust them to understand it and follow its meaning honestly. Many do not, but this was anticipated, thus the system of checks and balances. The system must be large - composed of many individuals - so that the system can be self-correcting.
I skipped a chapter of Banks's on race, and another chapter he called "On Man and Machines" (which I like), to get to his chapter on the position of the president, which he titles "A Very Peculiar Institution."
Banks critically remarks that, "We choose presidents, but we do not choose them on the basis of their experience or even their political views. We choose them based on how well they tap into our basic beliefs, how expressive they are of our own deepest national mythologies" (p. 69).
The other day I read a blog post by Michael Brenner that relates to Banks's conclusion in a disturbing way. Apparently, Brenner has been brooding over Pres. Obama's behavior and decisions and has come to an unflattering conclusion:
There is no overarching strategy or underlying philosophy. He navigates with few or any fixed reference points. Images of him as a strong willed person with dedicated purpose are belied by his conduct on every matter of consequence (par. 4)....What he decided to do in AfPak, in Palestine, in Somalia, on extraordinary rendition and open-ended detention did not arise from some well defined conception of the world - much less a 'doctrine'....That interplay will take place within a presidential mental space that is constantly active but without direction. (par. 5)
Banks proposes that our president is
part pope, part chief executive, and part monarch, and yet he's not any of these things alone. There is a projection of religious or spiritual beliefs onto the president, a projection of belief in the president's possessing inherited, divinely endowed powers, like those of a monarch. But there is also trust and belief in the president as a pragmatic chief executive who gets things done. All these requirements are placed in our one and only president. Other countries divide them up. (p. 71)
Because our president doesn't have to take any kind of test about economics and history, it's certainly possible that what Brenner said about Pres. Obama (and all the jokes and anger about George Bush's ignorance) can be true. Our presidential campaigns are less tests of intellectual prowess and more dramatic auditions.
Banks ends his narration on an unfortunate note; an unfortunate message. He discusses advertising on television and its pervasiveness. He makes a good argument, rightly recognizing that "when we brought the television into the home, we basically brought the salesman into the home" (p. 110). He proposes (and believes) that the effect of this on children is, and will be, tremendously damaging.
"Having run out of people on the planet to colonize, run out of people who can't distinguish between beads and trinkets and something of value...we've ended up colonizing our own children....The old sow is eating its own farrow" (p. 110).
He concludes with the fearful prophecy that this is "very possibly the end of the Republic." This is the second to last sentence of his book.
This comes off as a bit "doomsday-ish" to me. I recognize it as a favorite game that is played by some: we're so terrible that we're self-destructing. I doubt it. Wasn't it Bill Clinton who said that what is right with America can always fix what is wrong with America?
I recommend this book because it is thoughtful and meant well, as well as thought-inspiring.
No comments:
Post a Comment