In 1986, an influential French sociologist named Jean Baudrillard wrote a wonderful and important book called America. Embarking on a massive trip around the most powerful country in the world, Baudrillard described the state of the land, the people, and its politics in insightful fashion. When it came to leadership, he discussed the American movement towards the merging of politics and advertising. Of America’s leaders, he said, “They must produce all the signs of the American advertising ‘look’. The slightest failing becomes unpardonable, since the whole nation would be diminished by it.” The battle for popular legitimacy was grounded in image, he argued, not in substance. The evolution of American leadership from the ‘80s until today largely substantiates his claim. From Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush II to Obama, image has largely been everything. What is truly interesting about his commentary is his belief that the slightest failings are unpardonable. What we see in these recent presidencies is precisely that. Their slight failings have usually been called directly into question and they have even been called to account for them. Whether it was Bush the First’s famous “Read My Lips” moment or Bill Clinton getting blown, it is the mundane and ultimately meaningless slip ups that really threaten politicians. In offices other than the Presidency, this is also clear. Senator John Edwards, and Governors Eliot Spitzer and Mark Sanford have all fallen victim to public batterings on the heels of extra–marital affairs. Congressman Larry Craig was forced to resign after soliciting sex from a man in a public bathroom. Congressman Mark Foley exchanged illicit emails with a young male assistant and was promptly booted out of office.
Whether these activities warrant such punishment or not is not even the issue. What is at issue is that these are the only issues that the public demand real accountability for. An examination of the high crimes of the United States government reveals that the bigger you go, the less you have to answer for. Reagan perpetrated the Contra War in Nicaragua, laundering public funds to wage an illegal offensive. Bush the First was intrinsically involved in that situation. Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. George W. lied to the country and the world to falsely justify a war of choice in Iraq. He permitted torture and suspension of basic legal rights. Obama has reverted from his previous stance against wiretapping, while stalling on his commitment to shut down the illegal prisons in Guantanamo. Yet, for such activities, many of which are more properly called crimes, Americans have seen no accountability. Is this just because the system is so corrupt and nothing can actually be done? This may be part of it, but another equally important part is that there is a stunning lack of general political will in all of these situations. Sure, opponents of these Presidents and people on the fringes of the political spectrum have been known to protest, to sign petitions, to kick up a bit of a fuss, but ultimately the core of the American body politic doesn’t actually demand anything of its leaders. As the crimes worsen, Americans choose time and time again to rally around their leader, to ignore global criticism and internal dissent, because they are threatened by any disruption in the continuity of the all–important imagery of American power. This is God’s land after all, and the President must be God’s lead actor, his Rock Hudson. There is an uncomfortable similarity between this type of defense of the President and the defense of a false prophet like Warren Jeffs by his brainwashed followers.
