Civilian Disconnect: Patriotism and the Global War on Terror

Following the attacks on September 11^th, 2001 American popular culture has been influenced maybe more than ever by simplified versions of foreign relations. This manifests itself, in one way, through what historian Drew McKevitt termed an “insidious sort of low-intensity patriotism” in his essay “Watching War Made Us Immune”[i] Though the Global War on Terror has been the subject of music, film, and political discourse, the rise of nationalism following 9/11 has diverted intellectual analysis of the GWOT, replacing it with a focus on the men and women who serve in the military. This is most clearly seen through the popular “support the troops” slogan commercialized with accessories and apparel. Two texts that help to understand the relationship between American civilians and soldiers are Ben Fountain’s 2012 novel ­Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, and the 2008 film The Hurt Locker directed by Kathryn Bigelow. In analyzing these texts and other examples of American popular culture post 9/11, it is apparent that the United States has developed disconnect with what it actually means to go to war. Instead, the GWOT has become an abstract symbol of the soldiers’ courage and sacrifice in fighting for American freedom, while critical discourse over the nature and effects of Bush’s war are deemed unpatriotic.

There is a misconception of what it means to “support the troops” while also opposing United States’ occupation and military intervention. In an article on Huffington Post, the founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Paul Rieckhoff, says that supporting the troops should be “separate from your feelings for or against the war.”[ii] It would seem compassion for American citizens serving in the military would directly affect support or objection to the United States’ military actions, but this is not the case. Understanding that war results in the physical and mental damage of Americans should initiate critical assessments into the merits of every conflict.

The kinds of support that Rieckhoff argues for are VA benefits and adequate body armor. Last year Republican Senators blocked the Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014. The bill proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders was expected to cost around $21billion with most of the money coming from the $1 trillion budget reserved for fighting global terror for the next ten years.[iii] Despite Republicans being the party to commonly invoke the “support the troops” slogan, it was blocked with a vote of 56-41. Laughably, they believed the bill was fiscally irresponsible even though the Iraq War alone has costs more than $2 trillion so far. All forty-one votes against the bill were Republican, while only two in support were Republican. Reickhoff’s argument is invalid because “support the troops” is commonly used in support (or disregard) of combat, and avoided when the actual welfare of soldiers is involved.  In the words of Billy Lynn, “they love to talk up God and country, but it’s the devil they propose.”[iv]

The nationalistic principles that inspire romanticized worship of soldiers go hand-in-hand with the hatred expressed towards the enemies they fight. In the eyes of “patriotic” Americans, 9/11 was a result of al-Qaeda’s hatred towards American liberty rather than the product of the complex effects of Westernization. On September 20^th, 2001, President George Bush addressed Congress and the nation where he called the United States a country “awakened to danger and called to defend freedom,” as well as claiming the attack was because “they hate our freedoms.”[v] In Fountain’s novel, Billy Lynn “suspects his fellow Americans secretly know better, but something in the land is stuck on teenage drama, on extravagant theatrics of ravaged innocence and soothing mud wallows of self-justifying pity.”[vi]  This revenge-driven misunderstanding of the nature of military intervention in the Middle East produces the naïve Manichean narrative that allows something as farcical as the GWOT to elude critical analysis. For many, questioning the GWOT equates to criticizing United States soldiers, and therefore being unappreciative of the freedoms they theoretically fight for.

Part of the hypocrisy in the “support the troops” movement can be seen in its characterizations of what makes a soldier a hero. In July 2013, Chelsea Manning was convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and sentenced to 35 years in Leavenworth. Manning released more than 700,000 classified documents exposing military corruption and war crimes.[vii] She has been labeled a traitor by the political right, despite her actions demonstrating the democratic virtue of free information. The Espionage Act that Manning was convicted under also reveals an example where American wars do not protect freedom, but rather justify infringements to civil rights. The trend of sacrificing freedom for “security” is more powerful than ever since the GWOT. American lawyer and law professor, Erwin Chemerinsky detailed a history of legislation responsible for this, while focusing on contemporary examples, in his article “Post 9/11 Civil Rights: Are Americans Sacrificing Freedom for Security.” A key existing issue that Chemerinsky presents is the success of the Patriot Act. Many of the provision in the Patriot Act were rejected before 9/11 for being too invasive, but were passed soon after without so much as a hearing.[viii] Popular culture in the United States focuses on the abstract idea of American soldiers fighting for freedom while ignoring the freedoms sacrificed for security, and denouncing whistleblowers that represent those freedoms.

Likely influenced by the recent “Eric Sheppard Challenge,” a video has gone viral depicting protests against an attempted flag burning demonstration on LSU’s campus by Ben Haas in 2011. My intention is not to endorse flag burning, but to consider public reaction in the context of post-9/11 patriotism. Ben Haas’s purpose in attempting the demonstration is not important because the response was against his attempted action and not his intention.  For the many who were opposed (and they were very opposed), Haas’s attempt was an offense against the freedoms represented by the flag, and the soldiers who died for those freedoms. His method was admittedly radical, and the reaction was no surprise, but it does demonstrate a strongly perceived connection between soldiers and American liberty in contemporary culture. This type of thinking involves a holistic model of symbols and Manichean dogma, and a reliance on emotions instead of logic. Regardless of the actual outcomes of the GWOT, an uncompromising certainty that soldiers exclusively defend liberty from foreign threats is stronger than ever, and it only inhibits important and rational analyses.

Fountain’s novel illustrates this type of thinking, and demonstrates how, though the intentions are good, it leads to a lack of connection with the true experiences of soldiers. When asked to speak about his friend who died in his arms, Lynn thinks that “silence [is] truer to the experience than the star-spangled spasm, the bittersweet sob, the redeeming hug, or whatever this fucking closure is that everybody is always talking about. They want it to be easy, and it’s just not going to be.”[ix] In a sense, “support the troops” is a selfish attempt to make the plight of the American soldier about oneself. Removing the complex implications of war and simplifying them to convenient patriotism and depthless sympathy does nothing to find solutions.

In his essay McKevitt compares the themes of TV shows, music, and films depicting the GWOT that succeeded and failed in the years since the war started. One film that he analyzes is The Hurt Locker from director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal. The film does not “moralize about an unnecessary war and the culpable leaders who started it,” but instead uses fiction to depict the trauma and struggle to survive.[x] The success of this film demonstrates popular culture’s tendency to focus on the courage and sacrifice of soldiers instead of the global social and political consequences of war.

One of the observations that McKevitt identifies is that the films that most notably define popular culture’s understanding of Vietnam “all came years after the war’s end.”[xi] His suggestion that perhaps the United States is not ready for films confronting the Iraq War seems a likely case. However, if popular culture maintains an assertion in linking soldiers and freedom, any popular discourse will continue to conceptualize holistic and abstract ideas of Iraq and the GWOT.

[i] Andrew C. McKevitt, “Watching War Made Us Immune: The Popular Culture of the Wars,” Understanding the U.S. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (New York: NYU Press, 2015).
[ii] Paul Rieckhoff, “Can You Support the Troops but Not the War? Troops Respond,” Huffington Post, July 31, 2006.
[iii] H. A. Goodman, “41 Republican Senators Voted Against a Landmark Veterans Bill in February, Today They Blame the VA,” Huffington Post, May 27, 2014.
[iv] Ben Fountain, Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk (New York: HarperCollins, 2012), 235.

[v] George W. Bush, President Bush’s address to a joint session of Congress and the nation, September 20, 2001, Washington Post, web. (accessed May 16, 2015).

[vi] Fountain, Billy Lynn, 11.

[vii] Peter Walker, “Bradley Manning Trial: What We Know from the Leaked Wiki Leaks Documents,” Guardian, July 30, 2013.

[viii] Erwin Chemerinsky, “Post 9/11 Civil Rights: Are Americans Sacrificing Freedom for Security,” Denver University Law Review 81, no. 4 (2004): 759-773.

[ix] Fountain, Billy Lynn, 137

[x] McKevitt, “Watching War.” 7.

[xi] Ibid, 6.

The New Deal Gave Birth to the Greatest Generation

When President Obama first ran in the 2008 Presidential campaign, many of his supporters likened his politics to Franklin D. Roosevelt.  This has sparked a continuation of the debate on whether or not the New Deal was successful. Democrats will say the New Deal pulled the United States out of the Depression, while Republicans will claim it was WWII and private enterprise. In his book, A Concise History of the New Deal, Jason Scott Smith gives a fairly detailed description of the initiatives and legislation that made up the New Deal, as well as its lasting impact on the post-WWII United States’ political and economical atmosphere. Scott demonstrates that the New Deal modernized industry in the United States for workers and employers, largely contributing to the rise of the middle-class, the post-war economic boom and wealth compression.

On his TV show airing on The Blaze, Republican talking head Glenn Beck described what he believed to be the defining characteristics and effects of the New Deal. Though he presents his opinion with the authority of a well-read historian, his synthesis of the New Deal comes with falsehoods and misrepresentations. Glenn Beck’s opinions are obviously his own, but they do demonstrate a trend in the political right that demonizes any sort of government regulation in capitalism. In Beck’s story, the Depression was alleviated and the war was won because “government got out of private life and industry.” What he fails to recognize is that the military mobilization of WWII, and ever since, is essentially a large stimulus by the government. “The wide-spread impact of large scale federal investment” is something Smith argues had its foundation in the New Deal. [1]

The men and women who suffered the depression and then contributed to the war effort moved on in the post-war years to become the strongest middle class the Unites States has ever had. This generation is commonly referred to as “The Greatest Generation,” made popular by Tom Brokaw’s book of the same name. Regardless of the effects one perceives the New Deal having on the Depression, it laid the foundation for the post-war economic boom and the prosperity of its generation.  As Smith notes, “the New Deal’s spending spurred dramatic advances in economic productivity, improving the nation’s transportation networks…expanding domestic military bases and facilities, and drawing up the blueprints for a national highway system.”[2] Furthermore, with the Wagner Act, and regulations applied to investments and banking, the New Deal is arguably responsible for the “Great Compression” that followed WWII.

While disputes over whether the New Deal saved the United States from the Great Depression will never be settled, it seems clear that the years that followed would likely not have been as prosperous or economically egalitarian without the legacies of the New Deal. It is sad, but almost comical, that the middle-class of the 50s and 60s that American conservatives love to praise, was largely prosperous because of these legacies.  It seems unfortunate that the New Deal is often singled out to its time, while its strong influence on American economics lasting until the 1980s is removed.

[1]  Smith, 169.

[2] Smith, 177.

Batman, Bateman, and the Bourgeoisie

At the end of the 1970s the United States was marked by the Iran Hostage Crisis, high unemployment and inflation.  Ronald Reagan promised the nation an increase in military strength and laissez-faire economics. The Reagan Era was characterized by increased government spending in defense and more lax government restrictions for wealthier Americans.  Furthermore, with the use of crack cocaine in poor urban environments and the war on drugs, crime became even more evident in the minds of citizens. Beginning in the Reagan Era, the United States experienced a rise in income equality that has remained a trend until even now. Mary Harron’s film American Psycho (2000), based on Bret Ellis’s 1991 novel of the same name, is a social criticism on the lives and consumer culture of Wall Street investors in the 1980s. Frank Miller’s reinvention of Batman in his 1986 graphic novel, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, instead depicts ideas of urban crime and individualism. These texts serve as insights into how Americans since the Reagan Era have understood wealth inequality and urban crime, as well as a belief in capitalism having the ability to “work things out” on its own.  These ideas can especially be seen in the rhetoric of the post 9/11 political right in regards to free-market capitalism, crime, and social unrest.

Mary Harron’s film focuses solely on the lives and interests of Wall Street executives in the 1980s. Though the film was produced in 2000 and the book in 1991, the criticisms of Wall Streeters is a trend that exists today. Harron depicts the greed and corruption of the rich through the life of disturbed serial killer Patrick Bateman. Bateman is a sociopath who is obsessed with controlling and owning everything from his extravagant lifestyle to the way he treats the people around him. Though Bateman is a serial killer, all of the businessmen in the film are frequently confused for one another, suggesting Bateman is really the same as all the others. His actions are motivated by a sentiment that “self-preservation [and] dignity” are crucial, and that it is “impossible in this world we live in to empathize with others, we can always empathize with ourselves.”[1] Bateman’s idea of self-preservation and dignity is never used for defending himself. Instead, it fuels his envy and greed, causing him to inflict harm on others.

The interests of the Wall Street investors in the film depict a greedy and shallow upper-class of men who never actually do any work.  They spend their time wishing to get a table at Dorsia (a high-end exclusive restaurant) and obsessing over the subtle differences of their business cards. Regarding their relation to the rest of the world, they only express insincere interests in abstract foreign problems like terrorism in Sri Lanka. When Bateman sarcastically suggests domestic issues that should be fixed, they only joke and move on.   Ultimately, Harron’s film suggests an upper class that does not produce anything and is antagonistic towards society as a result of their greed.  This illustrates an idea in popular culture that, especially since the 1980s, the majority of the wealth in the United States is controlled by an indifferent class that remains in its own world.

Rather than focusing on the rich, Frank Miller’s Batman depicts a hostile culture of urban poverty and crime. In the 1980s, poor urban environments experienced the introduction of crack cocaine. Being cheap and highly addictive, it is undoubtedly one of the most harmful developments to ever influence poor communities. Ronald Reagan’s aggressiveness towards national defense influenced an individualistic approach toward self-preservation, resulting in a belief in the moral superiority of traditional American culture. This self-righteous sentiment and his strong opposition to drug use resulted in a hostile approach towards solving drug culture and crime. Rather than searching for ways to treat victims of substance abuse, Reagan’s approach consisted of a large scale war on drugs. Reagan outlined what he believed was the effectiveness of his approach in his speech on September 14^th 1986, where he boasts a rise in the arrests of drug related criminals. Reagan’s approach, not surprisingly, coincides with the rise of the private prison industry in the 1980s, and its influences reaches into how the United States has reacted to drug culture ever since. For instance, the amount of people in prison for victimless drug crimes increased from 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 by 1997, and today it exceeds 2.3 million.[2]

The individualistic, self-preserving idealism that emerged in the 1980s is central to Miller’s reinvention of the Dark Knight. Some of the most obvious examples of this come from the public’s reactions in the media towards Batman’s crusade against crime in Gotham; Citizens are quoted stating “with stupid laws and social cowardice. He’s only taking back what is ours,” and, “I regard it as a symbolic resurgence of the common man’s will to resists… a rebirth of the American fighting spirit.”[3][4] Furthermore, the members of The Mutants (the gang depicted as the source of crime in Gotham) are illustrated as subhuman, heartless, and bloodthirsty, even though many of them align with batman after he defeats their leader. Miller demonstrates a belief that the only way to combat crime is with aggressive action, while at the same time showing how easily influenced the youths participating in criminal activities are.  Though he demonstrates their impressionability, Miller’s solution remains aggressive.  Despite working outside of authority, Batman protects the class structure of the bourgeoisie instead of searching for a solution to the crime that is merely a side effect of urban poverty and inequality.

In a talk given on March 15^th, 2015, Atlantic columnists Ta-Nehisi Coates described one of the problems he finds with the way the United State’s combats social and economic problems. Part of the problem he finds is the United States’ insistence that it can always alleviate its problems with aggressive behavior. Rather than approaching issues involving persons with substance abuse issues reasonably, drug users are labeled as addicts and criminals. This approach is a result of the aggressive war on drugs that rose significantly in the Reagan Era.

The modern political right seems to be obsessed with what they believe to be the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Despite the most radical conservatives naming their movement for the Boston Tea Party, social unrests such as Occupy Wall Street or the Baltimore Uprising are labeled as un-American, destructive, and criminal. This is a result of the belief that laissez-faire capitalism naturally finds balance, and that police departments consist of morally responsible individuals. Part of the legacy of the Reagan Era is a misplaced trust in some of the post powerful groups in the United States.  Just as the citizens of Gotham believed Batman was morally incorruptible and approached crime effectively, the political right today believes in the dignity of police departments, and ignores the social problems that have resulted in the Baltimore riots. Instead of listening and attempting to fix the issues that black Americans identify, they focus on condemning the rioting that is also a side effect of urban poverty and inequality.

The wealth gap that was greatly increased with supply-side economics resulted in the rise of an economically superior class concerned more with self-preservation than social problems, as well as an economically deprived lower class suffering from a lack of resources, opportunities, and proper education. The aggressive approach towards national and domestic security taken by Ronald Reagan has resulted in a middle-class that praises the principle of self preservation and the advancement of capitalism, while blaming the victims of its rampant misuse.  The Wall Street investors in American Psycho are even more wealthy and hold even more influence in today’s politics and culture, while the members of society that were pushed to the bottom still experience an environment that makes upward mobility nearly impossible. While these texts illustrate the rise of these separate-but-related developments in the 1980s, it is important to recognize that the Reagan Era has a profound impact on today’s political and social environment.

[1] American Psycho, directed by Mary Harron (2000; Lions Gate Films).

[2] Herron Keyon Gaston, “Race, Morality, and Law: The Lingering Effects of the War on Drugs,” The Huffington Post, January 27, 2015, Web. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/herron-keyon-gaston/race-morality-and-law-the_b_6544286.html

[3] My Italics

[4] Frank Miller, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns (New York: DC Comics, 1986), 65, 41.

Reactionary Populism: How the Modern Day Tea Party Relates to the Second Ku Klux Klan

In Nancy Maclean’s book Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan, she analyzes the characteristics of American society leading into the 1920s that made the second Klan so appealing for many. Though her argument is certainly not sympathetic to the sentiments of the Klan, it more fairly depicts the Klan as a rational response to changing times, rather than an irrational outburst of barbarism. Contrary to the popular narrative, Maclean depicts the Klan as what many would interpret as “the best” Americans.[1] The beginning of the 20^th century was characterized by a change in the social hierarchy in relation to gender roles, class structure, racial structure, and liberalism. The political and social superiority of the white, land-owning male was not as effective, and in a fear-driven attempt to regain relevance, the white middle class resorted to what Maclean defines as “reactionary populism.”[2] Though the environment is different and compromise has been necessary, the fears that inspired the second Ku Klux Klan are directly tied to the way the modern Tea Party movement reacts to the current social climate.

Perhaps the closest similarity between these groups is their roots in religious fundamentalism and evangelicalism. Both the Klan and the Tea Party would argue that the United States was founded on Christian ideals, and “an attack upon one is an attack upon the other.”[3]  They would also argue that the United States was built by hard working middle class whites with traditional family values.  Conveniently placing themselves at the top of their hierarchy, and believing in their own moral and patriotic superiority, both groups exhibit nationalistic tendencies. Furthermore, that these beliefs are rooted in the “authority of the Almighty” makes them both superior and unquestionable.

There is no denying that the founding fathers of the United States almost entirely identified as Christians. Despite this, it is also clear that they intended to build a secular state. The definition of what is secular has changed between the 1920s and today. In either case, religious fundamentalism is used to justify everything that these groups find moral, and to criticize anything they find is not in line with their idea of morality. Without the support of local churches, the Klan would have likely not risen to having so much power. Klan chapters would often find many of their members through churches. For many, the Klan was an organization which dedicated itself to replacing the idea of God back into society. Similarly, the modern Tea Party is a movement supposedly dedicated to the same thing. On Fox News, Ann Coulter described, without any examples, what she and many fox correspondents refer as a “war on Christians.”

Though the Tea Party never uses religion to attack adulterers, divorcees, or “greedy elites,” it used for nearly everything else, including science, birth control, LGBT rights, and even socialism. The Tea Party being a product of post-9/11 America, religion is also used to justify xenophobia. Just like the Klan, the main anxiety of the Tea Party is a loss of power for middle-class whites.  During the 2012 election, Bill O’Reilly claimed that fifty percent of American’s now “want things,” and will vote for Obama. He also goes on to say that the United States is no longer the “traditional America,” and that “the white establishment is now the minority.” The implication of this is a belief that real, white American’s will vote for Romney, but Barak Obama will likely win because lazy blacks, Latinos, and women want free things from the government. I for one am ecstatic that white men have become a minority in the United States. A more diverse democracy will likely produce a more egalitarian society, but I suppose that is precisely what the second Klan feared in the 1920s and what the Tea Party fears today.

[1] Maclean, xii

[2] Maclean, xiii

[3] Maclean, 92

From Benjamin to Rabbit

Nineteen seventies American life was characterized by series of crises, economic decline, changing social structure, distrust, and disheartenment. Jimmy Carter, in what became known as his “malaise speech,” summarized the general mood of the country, with considerable backlash. In what he called a “crisis of confidence,” Carter argued that American consumer culture and individualism had caused “growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.” This sense of malaise attributed the common mood of the United States was especially influential to pop culture in the 1970s. Many of the films produced in this time present themes of dreariness, hopelessness, skepticism, and paranoia. The existential crisis that Carter refers to can be seen in the anxiety-ridden, post-college Benjamin Braddock in Mike Nichols’s 1967 film The Graduate, and in middle aged Harry “Rabbit” Angstrom in John Updike’s 1981 novel Rabbit is Rich. Both of these texts offer perspectives into how American’s related to life in the United States, while also illustrating the changing culture and how it related to the country’s mood.
Though the 1960s are more known for activism that sought political and social egalitarianism, the fight, particularly for women, was still happening the 1970s. The changing social structure caused by second wave feminism, and the more assertive women that came with it, are represented in both texts. In The Graduate, Mrs. Robinson represents a change from the traditional woman’s role as a wife and housekeeper to one more openly sexual and firm. The monotony of suburban life in the 1970s coupled with the trend of self-indulgence influences Mrs. Robinson to look for something more fulfilling, and in 1967 she had the freedom to do so. The film illustrates how feminism was challenging the traditional male role. This is most apparent in Mrs. Robinson’s domineering relationship with Benjamin. Even after he attempts to break things off, Mrs. Robinson continues to try and control the relationship. It is also worth recognizing that although she is unfaithful to her husband, they are able to maintain a relationship. Mrs. Robinson’s daughter, Elaine, belongs to the same generation as Benjamin, and must also deal with the new sense of individualism in the United States. At the end of the film Elaine runs out of her wedding to be with Benjamin. In this scene, she disregards the demands of her parents and puts her future in her own hands. If her parents and their demands represent the former generation, Elaine’s elope with Benjamin demonstrates her freedom to make her own choices. In the novel, Rabbit’s midlife crisis is partly caused by a loss of masculinity. His wealth is exists because of the women in his life, and he resents it. Relying on the business owned by his mother-in-law, while living with her and his wife, has made him irrelevant and replaceable. While these themes do not necessarily contribute to the malaise of the 1970s (except for men who were insecure), they are certainly a part of the decade that stood out for people in the United States.
The sense of malaise attributed to the 70s comes largely from the United States’ declining economy, stagflation, and unemployment. While living in the wealthiest country in the world, many people in the United States still felt unsure about their futures. Although Benjamin has just graduated college with honors, he feels a great amount of anxiety towards what his future holds. Benjamin’s anxiety is most obvious in the beginning of the film. While being bombarded with questions about his future from his parents and their friends, he repeatedly says that he does not know what he is going to do. Eventually, his concern turns into apathy as he lies around in the pool doing nothing and “taking it easy.” Even by the end of the film, Benjamin has not decided what his career will be. In Updike’s novel, Rabbit Angstrom is lucky enough to benefit from the energy crisis, but still expresses feelings of an unfulfilled life. He truly felt content when he was a basketball star, but lacks a sense of self-importance as a general manager at a car dealership. He may be middle class, but it was not his own success that achieved it. The lack of determination towards reaching a fulfilling career was widely felt by people in the 1970s. This was in contrast to the 1950s when workers felt accomplished in building the United States’ economy.
When Jimmy Carter gave his “crisis of confidence” speech, the backlash was largely because he accused American’s of worshipping consumerism. The Graduate takes place in the heart of upper-class suburbia, and therefore the heart of consumer capitalism. His parents and their friends are excited for Benjamin’s future and pressure him to immediately begin a successful career. His father boils his own advice down to one word: “plastics.” The communal pressures that insisted on creating the ideal suburban life were largely pressures favoring consumerism. One was expected to get a job producing things so they could buy other things. This is also represented when Benjamin’s parents buy him a sports car (which they boast about with their friends), and the unnecessary scuba suit that they encourage Benjamin to use in the swimming pool. In Updike’s novel, Rabbit is obsessed with consumer culture. As a business manager, he often deals with buying and selling cars, and where to turn a profit. He also shows interests in investing in gold and silver, and he mentions reading Consumer Report. Despite being financially successful, Rabbit reflects the lack of self identity and spiritual fulfillment that many people believed described the United States.
Another point that Jimmy Carter made was the harm caused by individualism. With a lack of faith in national leaders, and a skepticism towards trusting others, people in the United States turned inward in the 1970s. In The Graduate Benjamin shows this in his habit of being an introvert. While the questions roll in from his parents and family friends, he never really expresses how much his anxiousness bothers him. One can see from his behavior, especially in the beginning of the film, how apprehensive he stays. He remains on edge and always replies immediately, but his mind always seems elsewhere.
Between the making of the film (1967) and the timing of the novel (1979-1980) the United States experienced the end of Vietnam, Watergate, Kent State, Ted Bundy, Three Mile Island, the Energy Crisis, the Iran Hostage Crisis, the threat of global terrorism, and increasing tension with Soviet Russia. America was becoming dark, and it was happening quickly. Though it is more difficult to identify the themes and moods that characterize a time while it is happening, it shows through the art that is produced, and the culture that is transformed. For cultural historians, things like films and fictional literature provide ample amounts of information that allow patterns and themes to show. For the history of a decade as recent as the 1970s, where many of the typical resources used by historians are not available, the information presented in pop culture becomes even more important.