The Rhetorical Dialectics of Citizenship, Deception, Violence, and Empire
Stephen J Hartnett
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/rap.2003.0031
2003-01-01
Abstract:The horrors of 9/11 forced Americans to confront one of the unsettling results of our international economic, military, and cultural dominance: that those who live in the shadow of Empire, whether poverty-stricken vagabonds or jet-setting Third World oil barons, harbor a mighty loathing of the nation they perceive [End Page 161] as exploiting their indigenous resources, hampering their local aspirations to power, and trampling their cultural specificity. Regardless of whether Al-Qaeda and its associated murderers struck out of hatred for the broad principles of modern secular democracy (the root of the "clash of civilizations" view favored by many on the Right) or out of resentment for specific results of U.S. global dominance (the root of the "blowback" view favored by many on the Left), it seems clear that as U.S. influence has extended to the farthest corners of the earth, so we—like the Roman, Greek, Spanish, Dutch, French, British, Japanese, and German empires before ours—have become inextricably interwoven in a labyrinth of indigenous economic, political, cultural, and increasingly military struggles. Such entanglements are one of the many unavoidable costs of internationalism. Blaming the existence of these struggles on the United States is as silly as expecting it to withdraw from them; rather, the pragmatist confronts the reality of U.S. Empire with the hope of expanding democratic practices, reducing violence and injustice, and ultimately producing a vocabulary capable of persuading anyone who will listen that there can be no peace without justice, no democracy without equality, and no freedom without meaningful civic engagement of all segments of society. The fate of democracy both at home and abroad is therefore an inherently rhetorical question of how to articulate these values in morally persuasive terms.