by Brian Walsh
It is no overstatement to describe the presidency of George W. Bush as imperial in character. You don’t have to be a left wing ideologue to observe that the Pax Americana of the last eight years, the centralization of coercive power legitimated in a post 9/11 America, and the American exceptionalism that has laced the rhetoric of the White House is all the stock in trade of empire.
How else might we understand a war in Iraq justified by fear and deceit? How else might we interpret the unilateralism of an administration that was disdainful of the United Nations and withdrew from almost every important international treaty during its time in office? How else might we understand an ideological commitment to a neo-conservative economic agenda that allowed the market to come to the verge of collapse in a morass of greed and corruption? And how else might we interpret a commitment to an American vision of prosperity and affluence, that has willingly put the planet and the next generations up for sacrifice on the altar of global capitalism?
I know, I know, by the time I got to my fourth “How else might we …?” some readers were thinking, “left wing ideologue!” But if all of this is not an indication of an imperial presidency, then offer me a better interpretation.
But this piece isn’t actually about George W. Bush. He is, thank God, yesterday’s man. He is, thank God, scheduled to leave office on January 20 at 12.01PM. I’ve got the tee-shirt.
No, this piece is about President-elect Barack Obama. Like many of my neighbours to the south, like many of my neighbours in Toronto, especially in the black community, and like many of my neighbours around the world, I had tears in my eyes last night. My heart is also filled with gratitude that the American people rejected the legacy of George W. Bush in such overwhelming numbers. And I am enthused by the hope that Obama brings to America and, indeed, to the world.
So here’s the question. How will an Obama presidency break with the imperial pretense of not just the Bush/Reagan dynasty, but with the imperial pretense of America herself. Can you be a President of the United States of America and not be imperial? Or to put the question in terms of this website, can Obama remix the American empire?
Yes, I know, these are huge questions, and they are likely just a tad pretentious as well. But if the Obama administration does not address the question of American empire, if President-elect Obama does not have the vision and courage (and no one is doubting that he’s got both in spades) to redirect the American imagination from imperial rule to global service, from the arrogance of empire to the humility of stewardship, from an ideology of affluence to a vision of justice, then we are about to embark on one of the deepest disappointments of our lives.
“Yes we can.” Those three words have captured the imagination of a nation. “Yes we can.” Those three words have awakened a hope that promises to bring us out of the nightmare of the Bush administration into the dawning of a new day, a reawakening of what Obama loves to call “the American promise.”
And what is that promise? What is that dream that Obama insists is still alive? What is that truth that was proven last night and that should now silence all doubters?
Those three words, “Yes we can” are rooted in three other words that are at the very foundation of the American experiment, “We, the people.” And as I watched the tears flowing down Jesse Jackson’s face last night, as I watched the tears flowing at Ebenezer Baptist Church last night, as I remembered Martin Luther King Jr. calling America to fulfill her promise, a promise so terribly cut short and belied by slavery and racism, as I saw “the people” vote in record numbers yesterday, I found that I wanted to believe that “Yes we can” and I wanted to believe that “We, the people” is a truly revolutionary sentiment, a radically liberating foundation for a nation.
I want to believe.
But there’s a problem here. It is the problem of empire. Obama stands in the tradition of King by appealing to the founding vision of America and calling America to fulfill that vision. And he is right to believe that there can only be a vision for the future if that vision is rooted in memories that can engender and sustain such a vision. And he was politically wise to argue that we must reject the Bush legacy because it departs from the best of American traditions, the best of American promise. But what is that promise? What, beyond those three foundational words, is the heart of that tradition? If vision is rooted in memory, are some memories better than others? Might there be some memories that need to be re-evaluated if we are to proceed with hope and an alternative vision?
Let’s take the memory of racism. Here Obama and his supporters clearly tap into the memory of the civil rights movement. This election is a momentous vindication, four decades after King’s assassination, of that movement. That history, those memories, those sacrifices come to an important and liberating moment of fulfillment and fruition in the historic election of November 4, 2008. Praise God! An Obama presidency is not a post-racial presidency, but, we hope and pray, a post-racism presidency. The original sin of America was slavery. Today is a day of redemption. Today is a day of Jubilee. Praise God!
But we must remember that slavery and racism have always been part of a larger imperial narrative. If vision for the future is rooted in memory, then just as a post-racist presidency must tap into the roots of the civil rights movement, so also must a post-imperial presidency revisit some of the foundational memories of America.
American exceptionalism is rooted in a narrative of a city set on a hill, a special blessing of God upon the founding of America, and a story of the inherent goodness and moral superiority of the American people. These are imperial narratives and imperial deceits that can serve no redemptive purpose in a post-imperial presidency.
American military and international dominance is rooted in a narrative of Manifest Destiny, a mythology of American innocence, and a secular providential theology. These are blasphemous narratives at best and they can serve no redemptive purpose in a post-imperial presidency.
And finally, the American economy is rooted in an ideology of economic growth as the foundation of civilization and the very engine of history and progress. This is an idolatrous ideology that offers up our children, our planet, the poor, and the very civility of society to be sacrificed on the altar of consumerism And this too can serve no redemptive purpose in a post-imperial presidency. May it never happen again that a President of the United States should offer comfort to his people in a time of threat and crisis with the words, “America is still open for business.”
Can Barack Obama be a post-imperial President? I hope so, and I pray so. But to offer that kind of prophetic and faithful leadership he will have to radically subject the imperial memories of America to the liberating memories of the Scriptures that are at the heart of his Christian faith.
Can we imagine a post-imperial America? Can we remix the empire? No we can’t. But yes, He can. Let us pray that Barack Obama will be blessed with vision rooted in deep biblical memories. Let us pray for a post-imperial presidency.
[Editor’s Note :: In addition to the many comments published below, we received one email from Henk Hart, Professor Emeritus at the Institute for Christian Studies. We have published these reflections as Obama and Cyrus, A Meditation in the Garden.]
19 Responses to “Barack Obama: A Post-Imperial Presidency?”
lisa
Well said, my friend!
(honestly I was wondering all day what Walsh had to say about the whole thing.)
fruitful faith.net » an end of the pax americana?
[…] Barack Obama: A Post-Imperial Presidency? […]
Taste & See » Blog Archive » thoughts on the election
[…] Brian Walsh […]
Good Article « Wandering Thoughts 2
[…] in Check It Brian Walsh has a good article on the recent election of President Barak […]
links for 2008-11-05 | kingdom praxis | a.k.a. eliacín's blog
[…] Barack Obama: A Post-Imperial Presidency? « Empire Remixed Obama stands in the tradition of King by appealing to the founding vision of America and calling America to fulfill that vision. And he is right to believe that there can only be a vision for the future if that vision is rooted in memories that can engender and sustain such a vision. And he was politically wise to argue that we must reject the Bush legacy because it departs from the best of American traditions, the best of American promise. But what is that promise? What, beyond those three foundational words, is the heart of that tradition? If vision is rooted in memory, are some memories better than others? Might there be some memories that need to be re-evaluated if we are to proceed with hope and an alternative vision? (tags: politics) addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Feliacin.com%2F2008%2F11%2F05%2Flinks-for-2008-11-05%2F’; addthis_title = ‘links+for+2008-11-05’; addthis_pub = ”; Category: Uncategorized […]
Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Obama: Moving from Symbol to Substance
[…] Walsh blogs: Like many of my neighbours to the south, like many of my neighbours in Toronto, especially in the […]
Christine Sine
Brian,
Well put. I have just had the opportunity to vote for the first time in an American election and though I am delighted at the results I too struggle with the imperialism of the American system. I am not sure that change is really possible from the up down. I think that particularly as Christians we need to be exerting our influence at the grassroots to bring about a true revolution of hope
Blessings
jake
Please continue with this important perspective as we continue to observe the reality of the day – your reminder about memory/narrative preserves like salt – a beacon on the hill – we must reclaim our stated status as prophet, priest and king – continue to believe in your work – prod us to greater awareness – lead us to go up stream – and challenge the traditional means as we reform our means- jake
I PRAY
HOW MUST I GRASP THE MATH
THE FIRST SHALL BE LAST
AND THE WORLD IS ON ANOTHER PATH ?
HOW DO I JOURNEY ?
I PRAY
THROUGH PACKAGED THOUGHT
AND THE CULTURE OF SO MANY GODS
YOU SPEAK AND MY SOUL AWAKES
SPARKS FLY AND QUICKLY DIE
BUT THE FOUNDATION DON’T LIE
YOU SEE THE END FROM THE BEGINNING
PORTION IT ALL OUT IN BITE SIZE CHUNKS
I PRAY
SO THAT MEMORY OF A GOOD CREATION WILL NOT GO ASTRAY
AND BECOME AN ALIBI FOR JUST ANOTHER DAY
NOVEMBER 4 IS A BRAND NEW DAY –
I PRAY
SPEAK, LORD
MY PILLARS ARE SHAKY TODAY
PRESERVE THE DAY
I PRAY
THAT THE GLARE IN MY WINDOW TODAY
BECOME TRANSPARENT AT THE END OF THE DAY
TO LOVE GOD AND NEIGHBOR ANOTHER DAY
AMEN
David Wheeler-Reed
Dear Brian: I really enjoyed the blog post. You wrote down a lot of things Kari and I’ve been saying to one another in our more realistic moments as Americans who witnessed this historic election. I was talking to our mutual friend Grant LeMarquand the other day. I told him that there are two things that worry me at this point with a transition to an Obama presidency. First of all, Obama made the old Kennedy reference to “crushing those who want to tear down this world.” America has to get away from violence! Jim Wallis of Sojourners has sent a note to Obama asking him to use diplomacy instead of violence in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But, sometimes I feel that with Obama the US will leave Iraq only to get mired down in Afghanistan on an even greater witch hunt for bin Laden. (And, one has to ask at this point: What’s the point in finding bin Laden? Aren’t there more diplomatic ways of making the world safe? And isn’t there more important things for the US to do such as fighting climate change and global poverty?). So, when I voted the other day one thing that kept running through my mind was, “Well… with McCain you get stuck in Iraq and with Obama you get stuck in Afghanistan.” From a Christian perspective, neither are helpful.
Second, I’m worried that the Church here in America will forget that the real agent of change is Jesus. The past few months I’ve been speaking in Catholic churches telling them, “Whoever gets elected we are still called to be the ‘city on a hill’ not McCain, not Obama, and not the United States of America! The church is called to be the ‘city on the hill’ and the ‘light to the world’!” For some reason, this message is a hard one for American Christians–even liberal Catholics–to get through their thick skulls.
But, I’m cautiously optimistic. It is a whole new day down here in the States. In fact, people are actually saying “hi” to one another on the streets, and several people have said, “It feels like a burden has been lifted from our country!” The problem is–and it’s just like you said in your blog–I don’t know if the majority of Americans realize that the burden we’ve felt for years is imperialism. So… we… shall see… but the tears keep flowing… and all I can think of to sum things up is some lyrics from Bruce Springsteen:
It’s gonna be a long walk home…
Hey pretty darlin’ don’t wait up for me
It’s gonna be a long walk home…
A long walk home…
Your friend,
David
chris haw
i appreciate the nuance and concerns here. but i’m not sure i understand where you end: that obama (being on the “inside”) is the only one here who can “remix empire.”
i suppose we might need to talk about what we mean when we say “remix empire.” there are surely different accounts and i think we generally mean, “in the way jesus did.”
but if this is so, there seems to be no reason to think that it is up to someone on the inside to mix it up. its not that, categorically speaking, he can’t change something. but empire is no longer (only) about governmental legislation but also about trans-national patterns of economy (which is surely coupled with legislation). and this puts the ball in everybody’s court.
Brian
Hmm, I think, Chris, that maybe you misread my last paragraph. When I wrote, “Yes, He can” the upper case was intentional. “He” ain’t Obama, and Obama ain’t Jesus! My point is that only Jesus ultimately remixes (or transforms, or converts, or turns on its head, etc, etc) the empire. And I’m not arguing that all of this depends in any final way on governmental change, though we agree on the importance of legislation. And yes the ball is in everybody’s court. But what I’m addressing in this blog is the ball that is presently in President-elect Obama’s court. Is it possible to be a post-imperial President of the United States? Generally speaking, I got to admit that I don’t have much faith that it is possible. But then again, there is this recurring rhetorical question in Scripture: “is anything impossible for God?”
Lance D
Hi Brian,
helpful article thanks for taking the time to capture many of our thoughts. I too missed your subtle point regarding the true subject of change – ‘He’ vs. ‘he’. I read it in the same way Chris Haw did and, despite our ‘misreading’, still tend to agree with him on the importance of emphasizing the responsibility of every Christ follower to see our walk as significantly prophetic, however unlikely influential in the eyes of the world. If Obama fails in remixing the empire, most likely it will be because the body of Christ did not seize this moment to re-shape the imagination of ordinary believers to what is truly possible as redeemed signs and instruments of Jesus’ kingdom. Obama is the catalyst, but we are the change, and in the final analysis that is where the focus of every movement toward justice must remain.
Obama and Cyrus, A Meditation in the Garden « Empire Remixed
[…] Philosophy, Institute for Christian Studies) in response to Brian Walsh’s musings in “Barack Obama: A Post-Imperial Presidency?” We liked them so much that we asked Professor Hart if he would allow us to reprint them […]
(post-election) links « signs of life
[…] Brian Walsh wonders if President Obama signals an end of American imperialism (a question with interesting assumptions and implications). But there’s a problem here. It is the problem of empire. Obama stands in the tradition of King by appealing to the founding vision of America and calling America to fulfill that vision. And he is right to believe that there can only be a vision for the future if that vision is rooted in memories that can engender and sustain such a vision. And he was politically wise to argue that we must reject the Bush legacy because it departs from the best of American traditions, the best of American promise. But what is that promise? What, beyond those three foundational words, is the heart of that tradition? If vision is rooted in memory, are some memories better than others? Might there be some memories that need to be re-evaluated if we are to proceed with hope and an alternative vision? […]
News for November 7 - Xenia Institute
[…] Barack Obama: A Post-Imperial Presidency? | Empire Remixed How will an Obama presidency break with the imperial pretense of not just the Bush/Reagan dynasty, but with the imperial pretense of America herself. Can you be a President of the United States of America and not be imperial? Or to put the question in terms of this website, can Obama remix the American empire? […]
NextReformation » Fitch, Walsh on Obama
[…] Walsh writes HERE. “… It is no overstatement to describe the presidency of George W. Bush as imperial in […]
Reflections on an Obama Presidency | jordoncooper.com
[…] David Fitch and Brian Walsh offer up some thoughts on what a Barack Obama presidency will mean for the nation and what it means […]
Fleming Rutledge
Thanks, Brian, for the hope and for the critique. The evangelical left in America is small and has too few telegenic personalities to be heard much above the din, but many of us share your hopes and your worries.
Vive la resistance–
JDP
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/war.spending/index.html