css Zen Garden

Contemporary U.S. Politics: The Four "G's"

           Whether it is played out as a balance between the two, or as a domination of one over the other, nostalgia and modernization (or globalization if we are to use the modern term) remain the driving forces in the act of creating and/or maintaining today’s world cultures.  Although there are a plethora of other highly important variables, searching for value in the past and aspiring for new developments in the future are the two prime motivating factors in how we are to live.  I have chosen to examine the volatile cultural landscape of the Visegrad nations (primarily Hungary) of Central-Eastern Europe in the late 20^th Century because the frictions in recent history and current culture do battle out in the open, with much less subterfuge than in more politically savvy “Western” countries.  However, the same struggle with remembering the past and envisioning the future exist around the globe, no matter how deeply or subtly the fight is hidden.  Although the act of coming to terms with history and deciding on a course of action for the future is strikingly obvious in the new post-communist worlds of Central-Eastern Europe, regardless of the level of awareness of the activity, the citizens and country of the United States are similarly engaged in acts of nostalgia and modernization for the purpose of creating a present situation, however constantly changing.

            In today’s political and cultural climate, there is a stark line drawn between urban and rural areas in the U.S., between the “red” and “blue” states.  Since Nostalgia and Modernization are irrevocably locked in constant dialogue and permanently bound in an overlapping monologue, I would certainly not suggest that “red” equals the past (nostalgia) and “blue” equals the future (globalization).  It does seem that the objective of a good portion of our society, much of the “red” along with the nation’s President, is actively engaging in what Boym calls “Restorative Nostalgia.” [1]   The attempt to return to a bygone time is inevitably a failure since the same river can never be stepped into again.  Danger lies not only in the attempt to return, but in the uncritical remembering of that illusive past as well.   

            In a New York Times op-ed piece, Nicholas D. Kristof writes of the four “G’s”—“God, guns, gays, and grizzlies”—as the deciding factors of the U.S. Presidential election. [2]   At least in relation to many of the hot issues involved in the first three “G’s,” the President’s stance seems quite clear.  At least the first three suggest a return to a more idyllic—or ideologically “correct”—time, which comes into conflict with the historical reality and the changes, which the passages of time have created.  Strongly advocating a religious view seems to usurp the supposed historical division of church and state.  “Reestablishing” God above America suggests that there was a time when all citizens were Christians in this land, which is in opposition to historical fact.  Regardless of the original intent of the Second Amendment, continuing to support weapon ownership by private citizens disregards the fact of technological advances that theoretically could grant every American the right to a nuclear warhead.  Similarly, the state itself continues to assert a similar right while the movement to limit nuclear proliferation hypocritically forbids other new countries the same access to such weapons.  The concept of gay marriage threatening traditional heterosexual unions disregards the historical evidence that, if anything, modernity itself has had a much more detrimental effect upon the institution of marriage.           

In every case, this is not only Conservatism, but also an attempt to roll back the clock and calendar to an alternate past reality where the country was a religious state, semiautomatic weapons were legal and available, and homosexuality never existed to threaten the contract of heterosexual marriage.  This potential domestic restorative nostalgia seems to go hand in hand with a renewed belief in progress, specifically a progress that arose from a Euro- and Christian-centric perspective. [3]   A new movement towards military/political imperialism may have replaced the previous quieter “cultural imperialism.” This new imperialism abroad may have returned to usher in, or forcibly reinstate, the proposed single correct direction.  Further examination into the link between the concept of progress and the desire for continued modernization is necessary for this argument, however.       

As I will discuss in my conclusions, the U.S. has an enormous influence on the future of Hungary, as it has on every nation around the world.  Although the example it sets with its view of its own past and future does not dictate an absolute direction, it is a power being closely watched by the rest of the world.  The cultural choices that the U.S. make domestically can become examples for the rest of the world to imitate, reject, or ignore, but they do not remain unobserved and forgotten.