A Vengeance Valley

The Jacksonian America, patriotic and belligerent, was surprised to find out that it is actually Barack Obama who will enjoy the glory of the world for the elimination of the arch-criminal bin Laden. This is about a deeply-rooted American ethos, from the days of the wild west.

The masses that crowded the White House gates, the celebrating multitudes roaring in Times Square in New York, the young people who were out on the streets of American cities to cheer; warlike cries, shouts of revenge, raised fists — all of these caused a certain confusion in refined European capitals and discomfort amidst trendsetters of all kinds. The liquidation of Osama bin Laden, although totally justifiable and even epitomizing a remarkable victory in the war on terror — but to take such a pleasure in killing someone? A little vulgar, isn’t it?

But this is America too, the America that is not less real — and maybe even more real — than the glamor shops of 5th Avenue, the silent library halls of the Ivy League universities, the grandiose villas of the California shores; a deep-seated, patriotic, belligerent and often chauvinistic America; America, whose honor had been trampled on Sept. 11, 2001, and who did not find peace for herself until Osama bin Laden was “brought to justice” and punished.

That’s the Jacksonian America, named for the 19th century president Andrew Jackson, a passionate supporter of personal rights and a bad enemy of blacks and Indians; America defined by the foreign policy expert Walter Russell Mead, mentioned in this column a lot. In the Jacksonian view, there is no greater crime than an insult to America’s national dignity — and in the terror attacks on the twin towers, America was humiliated to dust, perhaps even more than on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, “a date which will live in infamy.” This is the America that does not rush to interfere in wars which are not hers, but when she eventually gets involved, she does not recognize any other option except for a total victory, by any means and at any price.

Therefore, there wasn’t any one more surprised than the Jacksonians when it became apparent for them at the beginning of the week that the one to enjoy the glory of the world for the bin Laden elimination — will actually be Barack Obama, the president who by his character, his background, his temperament, his color, his education, the wording of his speeches and values he represents — was considered till now a complete antithesis to their world outlook. Obama has never ever been an indecisive leftist, as his enemies tried to depict him — and now they will also be forced to admit that. The majority of them will never vote for him, but a part of them will start giving him, from this moment on, a bit of the respect he deserves.

For indeed, as hard as they will try to deny this, there can be no doubt that the color of Obama’s skin and his middle name are among the key factors of hostility towards him, distrust towards his motives and a grotesque dubiety that awakened concerning his birthplace and citizenship. In this meaning, taking out bin Laden became the real initiation ceremony of Obama, that “levels the playground” for him, removes the hump from his back, makes him, perhaps for the first time, a legitimate president, even in the eyes of his opponents, at least for the less fanatic ones.

At the moment — after he provided his birth certificate as well — there is a chance for opening a new page between Obama and the Americans. Should it be this way, history will record that the first black American president was elected on Nov. 4, 2008, and sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009, but it was only on May 1, 2011, when he got back from the battlefield with bin Laden’s scalp, that he won the official recognition by the most of the American nation which he heads.

High Noon

The personification of the terrorist attacks on the twin towers in the demonic figure of Osama bin Laden, the fact that he has turned, personally, into a symbol of an absolute evil, has strengthened greatly the impact of his liquidation in the consciousness of the Americans. The personal confrontation of Obama vs. Osama — the dramatic dimension of which probably intensified precisely because of the catchy similarity of their names — has touched the deepest fibers of the soul of American culture, from the days of the wild west and conquest of the frontier and the struggle against the Indian savages, as exemplified in a duel in the center of a small town between a good sheriff and a blackguard.

This is the fundamental ethos, rooted deeply from the days of the sensational newspapers of the end of the 19th century, in the Tom Mix comic books and in the violent movies of the early past century, Hollywood classics from the middle of the 20th century. So Obama has filled in the big shoes of the cultural icons like Gary Cooper in the movie “High Noon,” Burt Lancaster in “Vengeance Valley,” John Wayne and James Stewart in “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance,” Clint Eastwood in “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,” and even Harrison Ford, aka Han Solo in the Star Wars futuristic westerns.

On the other hand, before we get too enthusiastic about the transformation Obama’s standing has seemingly undergone, we must not forget that the ultimate black sheriff in Hollywood is undoubtedly Bart in a crazy and so-not-politically-correct comedy by Mel Brooks, “Blazing Saddles.” How can you forget the scene, hilarious to tears for the genre lovers, where the new and handsome sheriff meets on the streets of the town an old white and sweet lady, and when he takes off his hat with a smile and greets her good morning, she gives him that suspicious look and answers him — and here we moderate the translation, believe me — “Up yours, (n-word)!”

The Theory of Relativity

The significant rise in the percentage of support for Obama following the bin Laden elimination, has also a scientific name: a “syndrome of consolidation around the flag,” originating from the book written by a professor of political science John Mueller in 1973 — “War, Presidents and Public Opinion,” where he asserted three rules for such a phenomenon to take place: 1) this should be about an international issue; 2) the U.S. and the president should be directly involved in this; 3) this should be about a specific, dramatic and focused event.

The most drastic rise ever in public opinion support had been for the previous president, George Bush the son, when his approval numbers skyrocketed from 32 percent to 90 percent immediately after the twin tower attacks. After him in the tally of the record jump in public support for presidents is George Bush the father, who at the beginning of 1991, with the liberating of Kuwait and attaining victory in the Gulf war, won a stunning 89 percent of support, and many commentaries determining that the numbers guaranteed his upper hand in the 1992 elections — but with the passage of 18 months, he had to vacate the White House for Bill Clinton. Obama, in the polls published during the weekend, has not crossed the 60 percent support mark, which shows that the pockets of opposition to him remain profound.

And you are to take into account as well that over the two decades which have passed since 1991, the news cycle has been considerably accelerated, with the barging of the news networks reports on TV, and after that — the newsflashes of the Internet, Facebook and Twitter; the shelf life of every newsworthy story, important and loud as it may be, is growing shorter. So even if the liquidation of bin Laden is not irrelevant when trying to estimate Obama’s chances to get re-elected in November 2012, we have to take into consideration that very soon, maybe in the matter of days, someone will already ask: “BIN LADEN WHO?”