American
Democracy on Trial
Nibir
K. Ghosh*
My
interest in America and American studies began years ago when I was doing my
masters in English with specialization in Modern American literature. As a
teacher-scholar and avid reader of American literature and history for nearly
four decades, I was overawed by America’s immensity in terms of geographical
space, economic affluence, cultural diversity, and political goals. Ever since
Christopher Columbus discovered America more than five centuries ago, human
interest in the United States, the land of “limitless opportunities” has not
waned. Tempted by the dazzling glitter of the great American Dream, hopeful
wanderers and bold adventurers from all parts of the globe have rushed in from
time to time to make America their home. The great mosaic of many peoples
coming from divergent cultures and climes and yet eager to be assimilated into
the American mainstream may have inspired Herman Melville to state in Redburn:
"Americans are not a narrow tribe. Our blood is as the flood of the
Amazon, made up of a thousand noble currents all pouring into one" (169). Melville
probably anticipated what in 1920 Israel Zangwill, an immigrant Jew from
England, epitomized through the metaphor of the “Melting Pot,” a term that
gained currency in early 20th century to explain how all immigrants
could “melt” and be transformed into Americans. Maybe Robert Frost invoked the
highest form of “melting” in his poem “The Gift Outright”:
Something we were withholding made
us weak
Until we found out that it was
ourselves
We were withholding from our land
of living,
And forthwith found salvation in
surrender.
Such as we were we gave ourselves
outright…
(The deed of gift was many deeds of war)
To the land vaguely realizing westward,
But still unstoried, artless, unenhanced,
Such as she was, such as she would become (202).
Such avowed ideals encouraging both strong individualism and collective growth of the nation resonated in the poetry of Walt Whitman, the poet laureate of American democracy. In his poem “One’s-Self I Sing,” that appears in “Inscriptions” to Leaves of Grass, Whitman celebrated the true meaning of democratic beliefs when he stated:
One’s-Self
I sing, a simple separate person,
Yet
utter the word Democratic, the word En-Masse.
… … …
… … …
I say
the Form complete is worthier far,
The
Female equally with the Male I sing…
Of
Life immense in passion, pulse, and power,
Cheerful,
for freest action form’d under the laws divine,
The
Modern Man I sing (Whitman 3).
Taken together, the various ideas that he incorporates in these
few lines echo the meaning of true democracy where the consent of the governed
is paramount to the relationship between an individual citizen and the nation
he belongs to. Whitman celebrates in his song that though part of “En-Masse,”
an individual must have the freedom to remain “a simple separate person.”
Liberty in its essence, represents for Whitman, “freest action form’d under the
laws divine” that places both the male and the female on level ground in sync
with the idea of fraternity. In another
part of Leaves of Grass, the poet states, “I speak the pass-word
primeval, I give the sign of democracy./ By God! I will accept nothing which
all cannot have their counterpart of on the same terms” (Ibid. 43) to emphasise
that he does not believe in any distinction that separates one from the other
on the basis of class, caste or creed. As a poet of American nationalism, he
uninhibitedly talks of the lofty principles enshrined in the Declaration of
Independence that inspired luminaries to carve out the most powerful
democracy in the globe. In the “Introduction” to the Indian edition of Leaves
of Grass (Eurasia Publishing House, New Delhi in 1970), Shiv K. Kumar
rightly endorses Whitman’s commitment to democratic values:
Whitman always kept his feet planted on the ground; his ideal of
democracy was essentially pragmatic and earth-bound. Whereas on the political
plane he denounced all prerogatives and vested interests, on the social plane he
visualized complete harmony between the individual and society. But, above all,
Whitman was, what one may call, a spiritual democrat who saw in true democracy
possibilities of universal peace, toleration and brotherhood…. The most
authentic specimen of true humanity was the common man” (x).
The ideals of governance firmly
established by the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution,
the Bill of Rights and other documents and celebrated by public intellectuals,
writers and poets by transforming words into concrete action do project the
United States of America as an epitome of democracy. This may be seen from the
observation made by Thomas A Bailey, the Stanford University historian, in the
concluding chapter of The American Pageant. Bailey outlines how
America’s physical growth stands as a “near-miracle, without parallel in human
history” (1059). He points out that America had started as a “few struggling
colonies” and was transformed into a vast empire wherein “its people conquered,
cleared, cultivated and civilized an area as large as all Europe in less than
three centuries” (Ibid.). According to him this was made possible by people who
were “tough, energetic, ambitious, inventive, efficient, resourceful, and
determined” (Ibid.), and who took full advantage of the fabulous natural
resources available in the continent. Besides giving credit to the people for
making America from what it was to what it became, Bailey attributes the
astounding power and prosperity to what he calls “the American way.” According
to him, “the American way”
encouraged order under liberty and diversity within unity. A soaring release
came to the spirit from a system of free enterprise under a representative
government. America’s overshadowing contribution was not in Panama Canals and
Empire State buildings, but in demonstrating that democracy could survive and
succeed on a continental scale. And in attaining this goal America served as an
example and lodestar for liberals the world over (Ibid.).
My purpose in this essay is not to discount what Bailey credits America
with but to share with readers the contentious issues that are in gross variance
with glorious democratic ideals projected by this mighty nation. By exploring
glaring ground reality inconsistent with avowed principles, I also wish to
bring into the limelight how this nation has come to terms in dealing with
overwhelming contradictions time and again in the course of its history.
While working on my book Calculus of Power: Modern
American Novel (1997), I had often wondered at the complexities inherent in
American polity and society. It seemed intriguing that a nation carved on the
ideals of “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” could practice
discrimination on grounds of race, gender, color, ethnicity etc. I was also
surprised to see a judiciary committed to safeguarding civil liberties could
indulge in gross miscarriages of justice in Scottsboro, Sacco-Vanzetti,
Rosenbergs, Rodney King, Trayvon Martin and such other cases. I was curious to
know why a powerful democracy that was so firmly grounded in protecting the
rights of individuals at home, indulged in unwarranted intervention in Vietnam,
Korea, or Iraq to nurture its expansionist desire under the guise of what is
known as ‘Manifest Destiny,’ the 19th-century doctrine or belief that the
expansion of the United States throughout the American continents was both
justified and inevitable.
Among the dilemmas of American
democracy, the issue of racial discrimination is situated in both the superstructure
and base of American society. 'Colour’ prejudice is a
personal as well as a political reality. The Emancipation Proclamation (1863)
setting all slaves free of human servitude in the United States of America; the
Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution (1868) forbidding slavery or
involuntary servitude; the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) guaranteeing Negroes the
rights and privileges of citizenship; and the Fifteenth Amendment (1870)
providing for Negro suffrage irrespective of race, colour, or previous
condition of servitude; continued to remain very distant from the ideals of “life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” contained in the Declaration of Independence.
The racial rumblings which may have
begun with the arrival of the first slave on the American soil intensified with
the passage of time. The simmering of protest gradually transformed itself into
expression of rage against racial injustice and economic discrimination as
lynching continued unabated and became a national disgrace for a country which
had committed itself to the ideals of liberty and equality. Antagonisms reached
a high peak with the dawn of the twentieth century when the Black strove harder
to achieve long overdue rights and the Whites were equally committed to the
idea of keeping the Negro “in his place.”
Yet, the fact cannot be overlooked
that the issue of setting the slaves free led to almost splitting the nation
into two during the Civil War (1861-1865) between North and South America.
While Northern states advocated the freedom of the Negro slaves, the Southern
region sought to continue retaining the privilege of keeping them bound under
inhuman conditions. In this context the role of President Abraham Lincoln must
come for special mention as it was under his astute statesmanship and dynamic
leadership that the ship of American democracy weathered the storm of the Civil
War. In a mere 3-minute speech delivered on November 19, 1863 at Gettysburg, Abraham
Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, paid a glowing
tribute to the dead who laid down their lives to defend America’s commitment to
uphold democracy. With firm conviction Lincoln proclaimed:
Four score and seven years
ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in
Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now
we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation
so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. … But, in a larger sense, we
can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not hallow – this ground. The
world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never
forget what they did here … It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the
great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead … we here highly
resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under
God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by
the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth (Lincoln).
Lincoln’s proclamation renewed the
nation’s faith in transforming the ideals of equality and fraternity into reality.
His strong conviction enabled him to warn the nation that a house divided
against itself couldn’t last long. However, the reunification of America came
at an enormous price with the assassination of President Lincoln on 14 April,
1865 resulting in his death the next day.
Walt Whitman paid a glowing tribute
to the sacrifice of President Lincoln in his famous elegy, “O Captain! my
Captain!”:
O Captain! my
Captain! our fearful trip is done,
The ship has weather’d every rack, the
prize we sought is won,
… … … … … …
But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red,
Where on the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead (Whitman 266).
In, perhaps, what may
be considered American democracy’s first and most severe moral, constitutional, and political trial
in upholding democratic values, all credit must invariably go to President Abraham Lincoln who successfully led the nation to reaffirm
that “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not
perish from the earth” (Lincoln).
The dilemma of race
relations that Lincoln had addressed so adroitly during his tenure as President
of America has not ceased to exist even today. In the course of my trip to the
U.S.A. as a Senior Fulbright scholar during 2003-04, I had the opportunity of
interviewing many celebrity writers and intellectuals who, even at that point
of time, firmly believed that a Black President in the White House seemed a
very remote possibility. But the entrance of Barack Obama into the oval office
in 2008 and his re-election in 2012 amply demonstrated what Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. had envisaged in his famous “I have a Dream” speech way back on 28
August, 1963 that “my four little children will
one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their
skin but by the content of their character.”
Though American
democratic ideals have been subjected to the acid test on many occasions in the
nation’s history, it can be doubtlessly agreed that, since the Civil War of the
1860s, no event garnered so much attention and controversy as the election of
Donald Trump in 2016. The graph of his unpopularity that had begun to soar even
during his campaign reached a crescendo with his election as the 45th
President of the United States of America. Contrary to popular expectation and
media speculation, Donald Trump found himself comfortably ensconced in the
coveted White House. In the wake of Trump’s triumph, the mosaic of social and cultural
diversity and assimilation that America is known for seems to have come under a
cloud of suspicion and doubt. I was a little dismayed to receive several mails
from both Native American and Immigrant friends in the U.S. who were quick to
express their anxiety and dread at the victory of Trump. A Spanish-American friend
wrote: “…we have the menace of Donald Trump around…. I am so worried and sad
about it!” Likewise, this is what an African American friend based in
Washington D.C. had to say: “Much happening in our world these days—much of it
isn’t good… I fear the new Trump administration is leading the New
Crusades…. May the work we do only be seduced by the truth.”
In an essay titled “Trumped Again: The 2016
American Election,” Jonah Raskin pointed out that, based on his own observation
as well as on his conversations with friends and acquaintances, close to home and in
far-off countries, it was “challenging to make sense of Donald Trump’s victory
at the polls.” Raskin candidly pointed out:
For months
and months, it seemed to me that Trump appealed to the basest of sentiments and
to all the ugly isms, including racism, jingoism and sexism that many Americans
liked to think the nation had transcended… He had the public in the palm of his
hand and played it like a gambler for all it was worth…. Trump and his crew,
including members of his own family, would like to turn the clock back to a
time that only exists in their imaginations: when Republicans ruled as though
appointed by God; white men cracked real and metaphorical whips; women knew
that their place was in the kitchen and the bedroom; and children were taught
that their fathers knew best (Raskin 25-26).
Jonah Raskin’s
apprehension, and that of millions of his fellow-Americans, about what damage
Donald Trump could do to the principles of long-cherished ideals of democracy
were not in the least speculative. In four years of his tenure as President,
Trump spared no opportunity to prove that his detractors were never wrong in
predicting what America under him was heading for. Whatever happened on January
6, 2021 at the US Capitol is now history. In the words of Robin Lindley, the
features editor of History News Network:
January 6, 2021
will be remembered as a day of infamy in the history of the United States of
America. For the first time in our history, a president incited a horrific,
deadly attack on the Capitol, the temple of our democracy… Trump will be
remembered as the only president who attempted to end 240 years of democratic
government. He will be remembered for four years of lies, hate, corruption, and
cruelty, enabled by Republicans who embraced his white nationalist
authoritarian agenda. And he will be remembered as the only president ever
impeached twice (Lindley 14-15).
Donald Trump’s refusal to accept the
election defeat as the 'consent of the governed' and his spearheading the January
6 event at the US Capitol will certainly go down in American history as
unprecedented and the most outrageous acts by a President. Like a
self-proclaimed demagogue and a diabolically inspired individual he began to
believe in the illusion that he was an unquestioned monarch of all he surveyed.
He not only mocked at the terror unleashed by COVID-19 that wrought havoc on
the nation leaving 500,000 dead and countless battling for their lives and
safety but also blatantly ignored the will of the majority that had voted him
out in the election to the Presidency.
It may be pertinent to mention here
that though Trump’s actions after the election remain unprecedented, his brazen
intent to ignore the “consent of the governed” and rule America as a dictator
is not without its parallel in modern American history. Academics and scholars
of American literature and history may be well aware of the name and deeds of
Huey Pierce Long (1893-1935), the demagogic governor of Louisiana and then US Senator
who, following on the footsteps of Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy, emerged
in the Depression era as a serious threat to the citadels of American
democracy. Long’s mode and manner of abusing his executive powers can be seen from the
following passage:
Surrounding himself
with gangsterlike bodyguards, he dictated outright to members of the
legislature, using intimidation if necessary. When he was about to leave office
to serve in the U.S. Senate (1932), he fired the legally elected
lieutenant governor and replaced him with two designated successors who would
obey him from Washington. In order to fend off local challenges to his control
in 1934, he effected radical changes in the Louisiana government, abolishing
local government and taking personal control of all educational, police, and fire
job appointments throughout the state. He achieved absolute control of the
state militia, judiciary, and election and tax-assessing apparatus, while
denying citizens any legal or electoral redress (Britannica.com.).
It is no less significant that
perceiving a visible threat of fascism on American soil, enlightened writers
like the Nobel Laureate Sinclair Lewis and three-time Pulitzer Prize winner
Joseph Warren Beach wrote novels that became instant hits. Lewis’s It Can’t
Happen Here (1935) provided a graphic account of Huey Long’s characteristic
meteoric rise and subsequent downfall ending in his assassination. The ‘It’ in
the title stands for dictatorship in the novel that discusses the threat of
fascist individuals to the State and argues how conscientious citizens are required to come out of the euphoria of
complacence to challenge such efforts in the interest of providing safety and
security to the nation. Jay Richard Kennedy, in his “Introduction” to It can’t Happen Here, recalls how
Lewis’s novel came into being against the backdrop of International crisis:
“Harry Sinclair Lewis conceived It Can
Happen Here in anger, and delivered it to a bleeding world in 1936.” The
topicality of the novel and its significance beyond the temporal can be seen
from Jay Kennedy’s remark at the end of his “Introduction,” written from the
vantage-ground of the 1970s: “Please try to remember as you read It Can’t Happen Here that it almost did,
and not so long ago. It can happen here again. In fact, it may already have
begun” (Kennedy 7).
Sinclair Lewis cleverly juxtaposed
the then contemporary reality with his apprehension of the arrival of Fascism
in America. The ground was ripe for dictatorship because such forms of
government evolved out of economic disorders and socio-political chaos. People
with ambition and zeal exploit such situations, play upon the sentiments of the
ignorant and the easily gullible masses by projecting themselves as saviours
and reach the pinnacles of absolute power. Once this power has been attained,
these very people delude the masses again by bringing into use all the
instruments of State-controlled terrorism for justifying their misdeeds in the
name of Crisis of Democracy. Lewis explores all the historical reasons and the
material factors that perpetuate the growth of a fascist dictatorship.
It
Can’t Happen Here offers,
through a brilliant caricature of dictator Windrip, a vivid picture of what
happens when demagogues like Hitler, Mussolini and Huey Long desire to take
advantage of the State to perpetuate their own self-interest. Lewis paints the
devil of Fascism in its true colours and convincingly proves his hypothesis as
to why Fascism cannot find a foothold in America. Like an involved activist,
Lewis finds the Constitutional safeguards in the structure of American polity
and the functional epithets of democratic ideals to be strong enough to counter
the threat of totalitarianism. Because ideals on their own do not rise and
counter adverse situations, Lewis rightly warns the intellectuals not to remain
silent witnesses to the abuse of power by demagogues. It was the bounden duty
of the intellectuals and the powerful Fourth Estate to be alert to protect and
reserve individual initiative, private profit and the rights of the common man.
Sinclair Lewis’s message is clear.
The public intellectuals, either by their indifference or inertia, play a
decisive role in allowing dictatorial regimes to prosper. Since the general
masses cannot discriminate between violence for a good end and violence for a
bad cause, it becomes incumbent upon the intellectuals to raise their voice of
protest against all State efforts that attempt to suppress the liberty of
thought and action of the individual.
Deviating from the journalistic
style and approach of Sinclair Lewis, Robert Penn Warren reconstructs the Huey
Long legend to deliberate upon the cold manipulation of the calculus of power.
His All the King’s Men (1946) explores not only the effects
of the abuse of power but also the intricate relationship between power and
ethics. Willie Stark may be a prototype of Faustus and Caesar but he is also
genuinely interested in the welfare of his people. Warren improvises upon the
Huey Long story to create a convincing tale of meaning of good and evil in an
essentially human world. Warren places man in the midst of practical politics
to test the validity of values and to show how man can uphold ethics and
principles even in the realm of dirty power politics.
Utterly impervious to the duties and
responsibilities expected of the nation’s first citizen, Donald Trump, like his
prototype Huey Long, clean forgot that the founding fathers, while emphasizing
upon the unalienable rights of citizens in the Declaration of Independence,
had also asserted “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever
any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying
its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness” (Bailey
Appendix i). The editorial board of The
New York Times rightly sought an explanation in its opinion column
“Accountability after Trump”:
How does American democracy confront the scale of the damage
wrought by the departing president—the brazen obliteration of norms, the
abundant examples of criminal behavior, the repeated corruption and abuses of
power by the highest officeholder in the land, even after he was impeached? (The
New York Times).
Though Trump and his
supporters succeeded in laying siege to the stronghold of American democracy,
right from the election day to the eve of President-elect Joe Biden’s
inauguration on 20 January, 2021, and throwing the nation into the abyss of
anxiety and dread, it is heartening to note that the American Judiciary, the
Congress, the Senate and conscientious citizens in general came together to
uphold the avowed principles of democracy and to thwart Trump’s effort to
subvert them with his demagogic strategies and empty rhetoric. The election of
Kamala Harris – the first woman, the first black and the first Asian – to the
august office of the Vice President augurs well for the forever
self-correcting safeguards provided by principles, ideals and documents to
uphold democracy in the real sense of the term.
Seeking harmony and cohesion in the
“melting pot” of diversity ideally blends Whitman’s “En-Masse” with the
identity of the “simple, separate, person” to give meaning and strength to an
ideal republic. On the contrary, the divisive forces led by the likes of Huey
Long and Donald Trump to perpetuate notion of racial superiority of the
American whites are bound to fail provided the informed and responsible
citizenry do not remain passive witness or silent victims to the rise of
dictatorial forces. There is a constant need for remaining alert and conscious
of the subtle nuances of the ideology of Fascism and its successful
manifestation in visible forms to keep democracy alive and vibrant.
I deem it appropriate to conclude
this discussion on the trial of American democracy by referring to the hopes
kindled by Amanda Goran’s poem, “The Hill we Climb,’ that she recited with zeal
and passion at the inauguration of President Joe Biden on 20 January 2021:
We’ve braved the
belly of the beast.
We’ve learned that quiet isn’t always peace,
and the norms and notions of what “just” is isn’t always justice.
And yet, the dawn is ours before we knew it.
Somehow we do it.
Somehow we’ve weathered and witnessed a nation that isn’t broken,
but simply unfinished.
We, the successors of a country and a time where a
skinny Black girl
descended from slaves and raised by a single mother
can dream of
becoming president,
only to find
herself reciting for one.
… … … … … … …
We will rebuild,
reconcile, and recover.
In every known nook of our nation, in every corner called our country,
our people, diverse and beautiful, will emerge, battered and beautiful.
When day comes, we step out of the shade, aflame and unafraid.
The new dawn blooms as we free it.
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
It may, therefore, be envisioned that that such lyrical voices, blending courage, hope and resolve, will serve as a beacon light to warn as well as inspire individuals and communities to create in flesh and spirit Abraham Lincoln’s vision of democracy as “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” REFERENCES
“Accountability after Trump.” The New York Times. Dec. 19, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/
2020/12/19/opinion/sunday/trump-presidency-accountability.html accessed Dec. 20,
2020.
Declaration of Independence. Thomas A. Bailey. The American Pageant: A History
of the Republic. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1974. i-iii.
Frost, Robert. “The Gift Outright.” Robert
Frost: Selected Poems Ed. with an Introduction by Ian Hamilton. Penguin
Books, 1973.
Ghosh, Nibir K. Calculus of
Power: Modern American Novel. Creative Books, 1997.
Gorman, Amanda. “The Hill We
Climb.” https://www.townandcountrymag.com/ society/politics/a35279603/amanda-gorman-inauguration-poem-the-hill-we-climb-transcript.
Accessed 30 January 2021.
Kennedy, Jay Richard. “Introduction”
to Sinclair Lewis’ It Can’t Happen Here.
Signet, 1970.
King,Jr, Martin Luther. “I Have a
Dream.” https://www.americanrhetoric.com/ speeches/ mlkihaveadream.htm.
Accessed 1 Feb 2021.
Kumar, Shiv K. “Introduction” to Walt
Whitman’s Leaves of Grass. Eurasia Publishing House, 1970. iii-xx.
Lewis, Sinclair. It Can’t Happen Here. Signet, 1970.
Lincoln, Abraham. “The Gettysburg
Address.” http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/ lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm#:~:text.
Accessed 27 Jan 2021.
Lindley, Robin. “‘Art can comfort and disturb’: A Conversation with Robin Lindley.” Interview by Nibir K.
Ghosh. Re-Markings Vol. 20 No. 1 March 2021, pp. 14-28.
Melville, Herman. Redburn: The
Works of Herman Melville Vol. 4. Eds. Harrison Hayford, Hershel Parker et
al. Northwest University Press, 1969.
Raskin, Jonah. “Trumped Again: The 2016
American Election.” Re-Markings
Vol. 20 No. 1 March 2021, pp. 14-28.
Whitman, Walt. Leaves of Grass. Eurasia
Publishing House, 1970.
*Dr. Nibir K. Ghosh, UGC
Emeritus Professor in the Department of English at Agra College, Agra, has been
Senior Fulbright Fellow at the University of Washington, Seattle, USA during
2003-04. He is Chief Editor, Re-Markings (www.re-markings.com) and can be
reached at ghoshnk@hotmail.com.
American Democracy on Trial by Nibir K. Ghosh Published in IUP Journal of English Studies; Hyderabad Vol. 16, Iss. 1, (Mar 2021): 7-17.
A thoughtful paper with a broad sweep of American history, Prof. Ghosh. The paper clearly shows that the American journey is one that is an experiment in civil government—one based on the consent of the governed. That journey however started from a crude place—from Europeans fleeing religious or political persecution but finding and colonizing a land inhabited by native Americans against whom genocide was inflicted in order to grab the land and black Africans were involuntarily brought in as slaves and some whites were brought in as indentured servants, all to work the land and accumulate a surplus which provide the capital to fuel American industrialization. That crude beginning, however, was inspired by a greater hope—the hope of creating a country where the heredity of origin, nobility, race, tribe or religion did not matter but what mattered was individual achievement under a constitution that promised a government of laws, that guaranteed civil liberties under the law for all. That hope or dream—if you want to call it—has never been fully realized in America but it is one that the country keeps inching towards. That grand hope has inspired poets, as you put it, like Robert Frost and Walt Whitman, and leaders like Abraham Lincoln, who felt inspired—to move America, using their respective platforms, towards a more perfect Union. That hope has sometimes witnessed intermittent reversals. Throughout America’s wobbly history, this noble striving for a better and more inclusive America has often been dashed by infernal leaders or “misleaders,” demagogues, such as the New Orleans’ Huey Long, George Wallace, and most recently the authoritarian Donald Trump, who revive ancient animosities to aggrandize themselves and their power, who pit American against American, human against human, in the hope of pursuing fascist goals. It is that fear that, as you put it, Sinclair Lewis warned us about in his novel, “It Can’t Happen Here”—-registering American exceptionalism—but which, in a few times, it came to happening here. The only bulwark has been the vigilance of well-meaning and committed patriots (eg, Stacey Abrams, Georgia Secretary of State Raffensberger, even a divided V.P. Mike Pence, etc) most recently to check, for example, against the authoritarian excesses of a Trump. These patriots truly understand what the American experiment is all about. Democracy, after all, is not free; it requires continual citizen-vigilance and maintenance. Your article delights and shines with light. -- Dr. Tijan M. Sallah, celebrity poet, writer, critic of The Gambia
Thanks for the essay. I had no idea about Huey Pierce Long so I’m quite grateful for the education. And the essay is full of such hope for the future (a hope I’m not sure I believe in myself, as countries not unlike the States are everywhere becoming more divided) that is nonetheless necessary after the dark cloud of Trump and the still-seething legion of his supporters. -- Cyril Wong, Singaporean Writer and Poet
Dear Nibir Ghosh,
first of all, I apologize for answering
you now. I was only able to read your essay today. Then I want to thank you for
sending me your wonderful work and asking me for my humble opinion.
Your essay is quite excellent. In just a
few pages you can trace history from the founding fathers of the USA to the
fatal event, the storming of the Capitol, and back it up with wonderful quotes
from Frost and Whitman.
As for the point that the US was before
being steered in a fascist direction, I can only add that, unlike the US, Italy
and Germany were before very different historical events after World War I.
Fascism can only be understood in these countries through knowledge of this
background.
I would like to close with two quotes that
came to mind while reading your work. It is a sentence by Frantz Fanon and I
would like to end with a poem by Derek Walcott.
“There is a search for the black, one
calls for the black, one cannot do without the black, one demands it, but it
should be spiced in a certain way. Unfortunately the Negro takes the system
apart and breaks the contracts. " *
Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks
* (I have translated this text from the
German. It is possible that the original Fanon text differs slightly.)
“I'm just a red nigger who love the sea,
I had a sound colonial education,
I have Dutch, nigger, and English in me,
and either I’m nobody, or I’m a nation.”
Derek Walcott
Best regards
Tuncay Gary, Writer, Poet, Theater Specialis, Germany
Dear Nibir,
just finished reading your paper - congratulations! Your argument is concise and to the point, in its historical perspective, its selection of quotes, in pointing to contemporary complexities as well as affinities to similar events in the U. S. A. and elsewhere.
Walter Hoelbling, Academic and writer/critic, Graz, Austria
Absolutely fascinating read. One who is not initiated at all in the American history and politics would also be intrigued, interested and informed at the lucidity and ease with which the details of both are worked out. And again the subtle interweaving of the literary greats in the article with relating them to the contemporary grim scenario is by far the success of this very fruitful endeavour, Dr Ghosh. I CANNOT ever think of writing like this. Well, Drydenian lines- " Here's God's plenty"! Prof. Deepa Chaturvedi, Govt. College, Kota🙏🙏🙏🙏
