A SERIES OF ETCHINGS

Peggy Noonan, conservative writer for the Wall Street Journal, trots out the truth behind the worries over Obama’s missing lapel pin. In her article “The View From Gate 14“, she suggests that it may not be for lack of patriotism that Obama neglected to undertake the symbolic act of fastening upon his collar an emblem of our nation’s flag (i.e. attaching to himself the signifier of a signifier).

Notice that this fuss over the lapel pin has resulted in the exaltation of the pin; the pin succeeds the flag and has supplanted it with an entirely new meaning. The flag itself, once the symbol of our national unity, becomes detached from its original meaning as it takes on a new significance, being redefined through its copy – the pin. The pin is itself a third-order simulacrum, a counterfeit representation of a representation, but now absent of the content and meaning found in the thing it was intended to mimic. As a result, our nation’s flag no longer embodies the essence of our nation, but is an essence unto itself which can in turn be embodied in yet further items of mass-production. This simulacrum, this subversion of the original, occurs when a simulation, a copy, replaces the original and becomes treated as though it were in fact the reality, what Baudrillard terms the hyper-real. The new meaning of our flag – a meaning to be found within the context of the pin – becomes clearer as the Noonans of the world reinterpret it through the narrative of Obama’s mishap.

According to Noonan, the absence of the pin signifies an absence of a certain species of patriotism. She fears that Obama may not love America for the right reasons; more to the point, she says Obama may not love Henry Ford or George Washington or the Wright brothers (more simulacra) the way that the rest of America does and apparently should. However, Noonan does give attention, in a rather insincere way, to what Obama does praise America for: its racial progress. And, somehow, by the end of her rather sophisticated article (sophisticated in that Noonan is less abrasive, emotive, and reactionary, and much more subtle and tactical than the typical conservative savant) we are left with the feeling that racial progress is only a marginal attribute of the American people. We feel this way because Noonan apparentley finds more to love in the Henry Fords, George Washingtons, and Wright Brothers of this country’s history than in the Martin Luther King Jr.s, Rosa Parks, and Jackie Robinsons. The former were, by all official accounts, the men who made America. America is their country – simple folk like us simply live in it. Is this the reason why Noonan acts as though there are two histories, separate and unequal?

In her defense, Noonan’s skepticism of Obama’s love for America is not without basis. He was, after all, raised in a different culture. This can hardly compare to McCain who was birthed on a U.S. Naval base in Panama–the most all-American way possible, approprately trademarked with the Imperial hubris the rest of the world loves to hate. Noonan further surmises that McCain’s all-American upbringing means he carries ‘in his bones’ the right kind of love for America; Hilary does as well, though not as thoroughly. Interestingly, Noonan doesn’t mention that McCain was against legislating into existence MLK Day; in fact so opposed that he voted against it in 1983 while a member of Congress. I’m sure America will come to see this as only a minor indiscretion, unimportant in the greater scheme of things and in no way indicative of the type of guy McCain really is.

In stark contrast to the Noonanesque/Wall-street way of interpreting American life, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! has something of her own to say about what Americans are thinking.

It seems that both wrote their articles after traveling a bit and observing day to day life, but each came to drastically different conlusions regarding the concerns of the average American. And yes, Goodman, like Noonan, talks of lapel pins, but in a slightly more disinterested tone.