The Al-Queada attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, were a spectacle of political violence and terrorism never witnessed before, or since, that fateful Tuesday morning. Through the hallways of Capitol Hill, to the university classrooms, to the boardrooms of the highest caliber think tanks, Americans then believed that dreadful moment in U.S. history would usher in a new order of politics and patriotism—one hallmarked by less hatred, more compromise and greater unity in the manner espoused by the great Founding Framers.
What happened?
There were, of course the obligatory few weeks of political togetherness where it seemed as though the country was headed to a new discourse of unity, cohesion and perhaps understanding. But this feeling of bonded nationalism, of patriotic identity, of country-over-party, was short-lived.
MORE: 9/11 Retrospective: People Sought Comfort in Their Faith In The Days Following the Attacks
What have we seen since?
It is hard to believe that since 9/11 the United States has not evolved into a country that understands who and what it is. A country focused on the framing intent of the Founders. Instead, it has devolved into a country marked by vacuous ultra-partisanship. A partisanship so venomous that each side prefers to destroy individuals opposed to its views rather than focus on hearing the other, solving problems, and moving toward a more perfect union.
Both sides of the political spectrum have leaped to the ideological extremes; the right has moved away from limited constitutionalism to a dangerous combination of populism and Christian nationalism, both political concepts, it is worth noting, that the writers of the “Federalist Papers” warned against. In fact, both were concepts used to illustrate a move toward despotism rather than toward democratic-republicanism.
[adrotate banner=”13″]
The left has also sprinted toward extremes. It, too, has embraced an anti-constitutional form of populism while disregarding the stability of religion, even in the private sphere, it seems. And, the left has embraced a form of post-hypermodernism that would surprise even 20th century philosopher Michel Foucault with its practical successes in transforming American politics and culture.
Neither of these excessive moves to the ideological extremes is too concerning by its self. What makes one pause is that both sides frequently use the same tactics of targeting, silencing and shaming as a means of usurping the political realm. Both sides seek complete control of the three branches of government and, more importantly, of the citizen’s soul.
An elementary reading of the Constitution and the “Federalist Papers” demonstrate how single-party control of the branches of government teeters on totalitarianism, even if it is a friendly, soft-despotism, à la de Tocqueville. Further, and maybe more troublesome, if a citizen does not belong to one side or the other, or dares to think independently, the side(s) that the free thinker abandons wants to cancel them out of existence or seeks to compel the thinker to accept the common views of this or that party. In other words, in less than 20 years, the United States has moved from a society based on free-inquiry and willingness to attempt noble discourse between alternative views. It has become a society that punishes dissent, difference, dissidence and even ignorance and unfortunate mistakes in speech and action. It feels as though each side seeks a tyranny of thought that silences the alternative and embraces an unyielding hesitancy of negotiation and compromise. And for both sides, it appears it has become party over country. Beware the party-system, once cautioned George Washington.
Further, in a truly revolutionary shift, the greatest danger from terrorism is now, for the first time in contemporary American history, not from outside the United States but inside. As the American intelligence community reports, domestic terrorism is the greatest threat to the national security of the US.
This threat appears to be emboldened by the hyper-partisanship on both sides. On the left, there appears to be a growing acceptance of anarchist and so-called anti-fascists, though the regime it envisions is co-equal with the conceptualization of fascism. The left has also developed a greater tolerance for political violence when it is in the name of social justice—even when that violence destroys cities in desperate need of better representation and renewal.
[adrotate banner=”54″]
On the right, there is much greater acceptance and action on behalf of nationalist militias, white supremacy groups and the “conservative” populism that resulted in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, an act that, in terms of political significance and consequences, will follow the consequences of Sept. 11. The threat of direct political action from both sides is ongoing and being monitored by appropriate agencies.
What is to be done?
As I reflect upon the tragedy of Sept. 11, I am reminded of the Socratic adage: Know thyself.
In the writings of Plato, one can read that in order to perfect any political regime, one must start with an unabashed assessment of oneself. To form a more perfect union, citizens must seek the hard path of self-improvement of mind, body and soul. One ought to see how one fits into the greater scheme of the Divine (however you define divinity, in Plato’s words). A greater understanding of the self will generate a true love of the other. That ought to be the new American dream if Americans want political renewal: to love one another as oneself.
MORE: 9/11 Retrospective: Effects of Sept. 11 Have Been Hard and Bitter
Democrats, Republicans, Independents, atheists, Catholics, Muslims, elderly and children died on that terrible day, and hundreds of thousands since. We honor them by honoring the other, by listening to the other, by embracing difference, by truly loving those who disparage one’s views.
The Founding Framers called us to a politics of representation of true interests and mutual respect—let us use the solemn occasion of the 20th anniversary of 9/11 to reflect on how we can better America’s political regime by bettering ourselves by truly loving our neighbor.
I write this in love for all, with a desire to be inoffensive to all, with the hope of a politics of understanding and “…in writing it I did not mean either to serve or to contest any party; I undertook to see, not differently, but farther than the parties…” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America.
Department of Social Sciences, is an
xpert on modern terrorism. Photo
courtesy Craig Albert.
About the author: Dr. Craig Albert is an associate professor of Political Science and the Graduate Director of the Master of Arts in Intelligence and Security Studies at Augusta University. He received his doctorate from the University of Connecticut in 2009. His areas of concentration include international relations, ethnic conflict, cyberterrorism and cyberwar, political philosophy, the American Founding and the scholarship of teaching and learning. He is widely published, including articles in the Journal of Political Science Education; Iran and the Caucasus; Politics; East European Politics; Chicago-Kent Law Review; Middle Grades Review; The Journal of International Social Studies; Politics and Religion Journal; Politics & the Life Sciences; and Cyber Defense Review. Dr. Albert has testified before a US Congress’ joint sub-committee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He has appeared in national and international media outlets including Fox News; CTVNews Canada; Veja.com (Brazil) and Gulan Media (Iraq) and has been featured on the Podcast, Team Never Quit with Navy SEALs Marcus Luttrell and David Rutherford. He has been quoted in FoxNews.com, Yahoo!News, and USAToday among others. Dr. Albert has presented at The Council on Foreign Relations on teaching international relations. You can follow him on Facebook/Instagram./Twitter @DrCraigDAlbert.
[adrotate banner=”51″]
