“You’re future”, said a Russian writer I interviewed in 1993 about the Soviet Union’s decline in soon 1991. I was an British scholar in St Petersburg, and he was referring to the United States.
His reasoning was informed by a pseudo-scientific statistical theory that may ultimately find favour in the Kremlin, but more amazing to me then was the optimism with which he spoke.
If this person is still intact, he may be feeling vindicated. America’s recent retreat from its engagements around the world — from gutting USAID to abandoning Western allies — constitutes a retreat of authority superior in living memory just to Mikhail Gorbachev’s punitive withdrawals from Afghanistan, Eastern Europe and elsewhere between 1988 and 1991 — straight before the Soviet Union’s collapse.
Accompanying both international plan about-faces, we didn’t overlook profound shifts in the two states ‘ intellectual bases.
Destabilizing king signifiers
Gorbachev justified his “restructuring” or perestroika by invoking the Soviet Union’s founding parents, Vladimir Lenin. He did thus, but, by observing that the traditional Lenin had pragmatically modified plans according to circumstances. That called into question the mythical Lenin— an infallible warrior whose values could not be questioned.
The Russian-born American archaeologist Alexei Yurchak argues that Lenin was the Russian state’s “master sign”.
As long as his sanctity remained unchallenged, referring to Lenin had justify a range of policies and actions. Seeing Lenin through a traditional lens, but, called his holiness into question. It thus became difficult for Russian members to agree on what policies and actions were reasonable. This issue of meaning allowed persistent social, economic and social problems to suddenly be devastating.
America’s master sign is its Constitution, reverentially enshrined in Washington, DC, more like Lenin’s system is in Moscow. Under President Donald Trump, but, breaches of the Constitution have become daily, and the federal government’s legislative branch has shown little can to protect its forces from professional invasion.
Like Lenin under Gorbachev, it seems that the spiritual core of America’s social system has become destabilized. As a written agreement, a constitution is easier to interpret than the thoughts of a dying person. Lenin’s benefit, however, was that he could represent traits considered noble in the Russian system.
Where was Americans look for that same kind of guiding lighting? For most of American history, it was George Washington — the first senator who swore to uphold the Constitution.
George Washington’s America
As a warrior of the Revolutionary War, Washington could have become monarch.
Army officers, frustrated at the central government’s weakness after the war under the Articles of Confederation, considered a coup d ‘état. Washington — the army’s commander in chief — could have led the overthrow ( as Oliver Cromwell had or Napoleon Bonaparte would ).
Washington refused, and after American acquiescence in 1783, he relinquished his demand to Congress.
In 1789, after the Constitution was ratified as a legitimate solution to the problems of union, Washington was unanimously elected leader. After two words, nevertheless, he rejected recommendations that he have for a second.
He often stressed the importance of routine in human affairs and reasoned that, if he clung to authority, Americans might not get accustomed to calm and regular movement of office. By retiring, he transferred much of the devotion that had accrued to him onto the Constitution.
Remembering Washington
Washington’s holiday falls on February 22, and Americans began observing it while he was still alive. In 1879, US Congress made the time a national vacation, an occasion for celebrating the example of noble public support and respect for the rule of law that” the father of his state” had embodied.
So it remained until 1971. In that year, the Monday Holiday Act went into effect. Adopted in 1968 at the behest of the business lobby, which saw in three-day weekends an opportunity for sales, the act moved Washington’s birthday commemoration to the third Monday in February.
Since many states also celebrated Abraham Lincoln’s birthday and the new date fell between his and Washington’s, some began calling it” Presidents ‘ Day”. When nationwide advertisers and calendar-makers adopted the term in the 1980s, it came to seem official.
The name change, of course, eroded the holiday’s connection to Washington, and insofar as it remained more than a shopping day, it came to be associated with all the presidents, effectively cheapening it.
Though the federal holiday officially remains” Washington’s Birthday”, few Americans know that.
The dangers of mythologizing
The shift happened to coincide with a wave of revisionist historiography that pointed out Washington— a slave-owner — was not perfect.
All historiography is revisionist in the sense that historians revise existing interpretations on the basis of new evidence. For those who wanted an untainted idol, however, it appeared either that Washington could no longer fit the bill or that historical facts had to be massaged.
Ever since, historical assessments have tended to get lost in culture wars, where neither side can accept a real person with both reprehensible and admirable traits.
In the Soviet Union, however, most citizens found it difficult to think historically about Lenin because, under the conditions of dictatorship, open public debate based on factual information about him had been impossible.
Dictatorship depends on mythological thinking that worships heroes and does not expose contradictions between official pronouncements and reality. In the early 1990s, Russians failed to establish the rule of law for a similar reason: they could not overcome the habit of mythologizing, which made them prioritize personality over policy.
The personality they chose as independent Russia’s first president — Boris Yeltsin — lacked Washington’s respect for the rule of law.
Losing sight of Washington
Thanks to Washington, the US got off to a better start. But by abandoning the widespread commemoration of his historically exceptional deference to the rule of law, Americans have lost an opportunity to practice historical thinking in the public sphere.
Not only has mythological thinking encroached, but it is now even possible for a president to style himself as a monarch and to emulate Napoleon, as Donald Trump has.
The Constitution — America’s master signifier — has lost its ability to unite citizens around a shared sense of meaningfulness. Will Washington’s country be next?
James Krapfl is associate professor of history, McGill University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.