FEMINISM AND TERRORISM/COUNTER-TERRORISM IN THE PLOT AGAINST AMERICA 

(CHAPTER 7 PART 1)


Introduction

Under the implement of Homestead 42, Jewish families who have been chosen by the OAA are obligated to move out from Newark to Kentucky for the purpose of assimilation or the so-called Americanization. By seeing one by one each of the families move out throughout the summer in 1942 and hearing his mother’s farewell words, “Don’t forget to write!”, Philip comes to realize the reality of their “defenselessness,” claiming that Homestead 42 is “the beginning of the destruction of our world” (255). According to Philip, this “world” that the Ross family chooses to stay in is no different to Kentucky where other families are exiled: “We, after all, were no less enjoined to an unknowable future than were our exiled friends” (255). After all, it shows that remaining in this present “world” has far more consequences to bear than moving to a place of Other, whether it be Kentucky or Canada. This is because staying in Newark is to openly oppose the policy of the American government, which can result in the conspiracy of terrorism. Indeed, in chapter seven, Ross has become the target of the FBI after the case involving Alvin, due to his incorporate attitude towards the law of Homestead 42. Another incidence that is connected to terrorism is the terrorist attack during the presidential campaign run by Winchell in South Boston.

It is suggested that these plots, combining with the plot of Lindbergh’s positive response to Hitler’s persecution of Jews and the plot of Philip’s post-holocaust imagination in the previous chapters, serve as a key to juxtapose the terror of 9/11. As Douglas suggests, “it was impossible to think about a novel published in 2004, composed between December 2000 and December 2003, and titled The Plot Against America as not being about American emergency post-9/11, war hysteria, national propaganda, religious fanaticism, and American exceptionalism” (784-5). Similarly, Scanlan claims, Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America, which can be seen as a novel of “alternative history, […] plays with the way we remember, forget, and reinvent the past, proves an apt medium for interrogating America after 9/11” (505). This setting, according to Scanlan, can be seen as Philip Roth’s attempt to offer a challenge to the reader “to bring new insight to their own times” (506).


As a reader, I see a new light in bringing the idea of feminism into the discourse of terrorism that can be found in the novel. In this presentation, I suggest that Homestead 42, which resembles Hitler’s terrorist administration,[1] represents a plot against feminism/humanism through focusing on the struggle faced by Bess and Ross. Furthermore, I argue that the abuse of power by the superior forces (mass media/government etc.) reflects terrorism while the suspected terrorists (Ross, Winchell) who strive for equality should be seen as counter-terrorists.


What it is to be Jews: Feminist/Humanist

To many Jewish people, Homestead 42, a government program designed to unify and strengthen the American people, is nothing but Lindbergh’s attempt to teach them “what it is to be Jews” even though many Jews, like Bess, do regard themselves as first-class American citizens: “We only think we’re Americans” (255-6). Furious with this policy of Jewish execution, Ross exclaims, “He dares to call us others? He’s the other. The one who looks most American—and he’s the one who is least American!” (256). Again, Bess and Ross’s descriptions echo the Declaration of Independence of America, in which “all men are created equal.” However, like the policeman in Washington has claimed, “but not all rules are created equal,” the system of justice and freedom in this country are nothing but based on the power of the privileged group. In the novel, Rabbi and Evelyn, who becomes his wife, represent the privileged group, as only authoritative people attend their wedding, which includes educators, bankers, mayors, and also the wife of the president, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, who sends him a letter of congratulation to authorize and share their political power:


Of many blessings bestowed upon our nation by God, none is more valuable than our having among us citizens like yourselves, proud, vital champions of an indomitable race whose ancient concepts of justice and freedom have sustained our American democracy since 1776. (249; underline mine)


Citing Deut’s description, (Jewish-Christian thinker) Edward Kessler claims that the Jewish ancient concepts of justice and freedom are based on the master-slave relationship between God and oneself. As in the Hebrew Bible, the concern for freedom is illustrated through the observation of the Sabbath that is tied to the liberation from Egypt.


Observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days shall you labour and do all your work, but the seventh is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; you shall not do any work . . . Remember that you were slaves in the land of Egypt and the Lord your God freed you from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day. (Deut. 5:12-15; qtd. in Kessler 77; underline mine)


Kessler further claims, Sabbath “not only reminds one of the value and equality of humanity […] but also reminds Jews of the time when they were in slavery” and as a result, “Jews still associate the Sabbath with their redemption and freedom” (77). If one puts this idea of redemption and slavery into the context of Anne Lindbergh’s description, one understands that Jewish people are seen as redeemers by the First Lady of America; it is only through the showing of their redemptive behavior—supporting the project of assimilation—that the master-slave relationship between the (white) Americans and themselves can be dissolved and thus they can be “equal” and “free” in this country. From this aspect, to be free is to be enslaved by the superior forces.


For those who oppose this hierarchal redemptive system, they can either give up their civil rights or fight with the system. The Tirschwell family chooses the former by fleeing to Canada while the Roth family, under Ross’s “obstinate” attitude, chooses the latter (255). In order to fight the system, Ross quits his job at the government office and makes his family remain in Newark. According to Philip, the reasons why Ross would quit his job and remain in Newark is not only because he is fearful of the inappreciable future after relocating to Kentucky but also it is “his nature not to yield” when he is “bullied by superior forces” that urges him to do so (255). Philip sees this nature of his father as a positive quality, as he calls Ross a “strong” man as he is “ruthlessly obedient to [his] idea of fair play” (255). As a reader, I see Ross’s insistence on the idea of equality as his effort to strive for feminism/humanism.


Unlike Ross, Bess, who seems to have anxiety syndrome, urges the family to flee to Canada. Bess’s anxiety syndrome is obvious as she will “read the letter [from Tirschwell] to herself twice over, then folds it up to carry around in her apron pocket to look at it another ten times before passing it on to Ross” (253). In order to reduce her anxiety, Bess starts putting money into her Montreal savings account. As Philip claims, the money “is enough to get us across the border and started in Canada if we should have to flee at a moment’s notice” (239). This approach is supposed to be wise in that if Ross failed to protect the family, they could still start up a new life in Canada immediately and until then, as the connector between Canada and America, Bess has the time to ponder the best possible solution for her family. Meanwhile, Bess also quits her job at Hahne’s. “My mother was no longer a working woman” (239)—this changing status of Bess uncovers the fact that Homestead 42 is a step backward for feminism and furthermore, directly conflicts with the stability, security, and survival of the Jewish American community in Newark.

As Rabbi Steven Riskin suggests, “What makes Jews remarkable is not that they believe in God after Auschwitz, but that they have children after Auschwitz; that they affirm life and the future” (qtd. in Lowenstein 72). Whatever the Roth parents do all they want is to “safeguard [their children] against the anti-Semitic subterfuge” that they understand Homestead 42 to be (239). From this aspect, the Roth parents are humanist/feminist who strives for equality for their children regardless of their own rights.


What it is to be Jews: Counter-Terrorist

The consequences of opposing Homestead 42 are overwhelming: the risk of losing secure jobs, the exclusion from relatives (the Roth family is not invited to Aunt Evelyn’s wedding), and even being treated as a suspected terrorist (in Ross’s case). As Philip claims, “The second time the FBI entered our lives, it was my father who was under surveillance” (249). Ross’s immediate cutting off the connection with the government makes him a potential terrorist, thus the FBI starts to investigate what he is saying to people about America and president Lindbergh. Eventually, it is through bribery organized by Uncle Monty that the FBI leaves the Ross family in peace: “The money that makes all trouble go away” (252). Regarding this, Ross’s feeling is complicated: he is shameful of the master-servant relationship between his brother and him (“about the mortifications attendant upon serving his brother”); he feels it is unfair because he has to work more but earn less; he feels helpless and defenseless in the way that he has to receive his brother’s help in getting rid of the FBI (“all he ever said was ‘He’s been this way since he’s ten years old, he’ll be this way till he dies’” (252)).


Unable to release these complicated feelings accompanied by the changing of life style, Ross becomes obsessed with drinking: “In the morning, the first thing when Ross arrives home from the market is to have a short glass of whiskey before even taking off his dirty clothes”; “Ordinarily in our house a bottle of Four Roses lasted for years” but now it is not the case anymore (238). From suit with tie and polished shoes to dirty shirt and boots, from eating dinner with him to eating alone at ten in the morning, from a non-drinker to a daily drinker—this transformation of Ross shocks Philip the most, as though this father that he saw now was not the same one as before.


Another person who resembles Ross’s experience is the Jewish reporter Walter Winchell, who begins his resurrection as a presidential candidate soon after Jergens Lotion fires him. The reason why Winchell gets fired is obvious, as he openly criticizes Homestead 42 as “a fascistic strategy to isolate Jews and exclude them” and calls Rabbi Bengelsdorf an “anti-Semitic master” and so forth (241, 242). In response to this, Rabbi Bengelsdorf declares Winchell’s column as a “Big Lie technique” and “the greatest threat to democratic freedom everywhere” (242). Similarly, The New York Times, “a paper founded and owned by Jews,” follows the superior forces by criticizing Winchell’s misuse of journalism as “A Professional Disgrace”:


“Journalism as it is practiced by the Walter Winchells of this country is an insult as much to our enlightened citizenry as to the journalistic standards of accuracy, fairness, and responsibility, toward which Mr. Winchell, his cynical tabloid cohorts, and their money-hungry publishers have always displayed the utmost contempt” (240-1; underline mine).


To Winchell, this is nothing but a disguised replacement of a concept, in which the NYT is uncritical of Lindbergh’s policy toward Hitler’s Germany while projecting him as a potential terrorist leader by using the word “cohort.” According to OED, the word “cohort” means “a group of people with a shared characteristic” or “an ancient Roman military unit,” or “a supporter or companion.” This, combining with the words Winchell has used on himself in his last column—“‘the warmonger,’ ‘the liar,’ ‘the alarmist,’ ‘the Commie,’ ‘the kike,’”—could lead those who endorse Lindbergh to think of him as a terrorist leader (242). On the contrary, to some Jewish parents and most Jewish children, Winchell seems to serve as a counter-terrorist leader in opposition to the Hitler-like president Lindbergh: “They plunged headlong into a thousand fantasies, and the very small children also caught the spirit and went skipping and dancing about, chanting, ‘Wind-shield for pres-i-dent…Wind-shield for pres-i-dent’” (244).


Even though Winchell is not openly regarded as a terrorist, it is obvious that he is treated unequally, as when he is shot at and inflamed by someone during his campaign in Boston, the “Boston police did nothing to restrain the rioters” (262). Perhaps the Boston polices see this event as “a terrorist attacking another terrorist” and thus they can just ignore it. On the other hand, Winchell seems to see himself as a counter-terrorist, as he thinks that “He had at last brought the Lindbergh grotesquery to the surface, the underside of Lindbergh’s affable blandness, raw and undisguised” through endangering himself (262). In other words, Winchell thinks that he demonstrates a good example about how the state can terrorize a civilian population by legally enforcing violence: “Lindbergh’s storm troopers can lock me away in a concentration camp to shut me up […] They can even lock you away in a concentration camp to shut you up” (260).


Winchell further sees this gun-shot event as “a signal from the organizers to the rioters or as a warning to the marked man from ‘Jew York,’ or as both” (262). Winchell’s description recalls for the reader a historical event in 1964, in which three Jewish civil rights workers who strove for equality got abused and were killed by the terrorist group KKK with the “help” of local officials:


In 1964, a coalition of leading civil rights groups organized the Mississippi Summer Project, better known as “Freedom Summer”—an attempt by local African American activists as well as white northern volunteers to promote black voter registration. When three civil rights workers, […] an African American, […] a Jewish civil rights worker, and […] a Jewish New York City social worker, […] went missing . . . Two months later, the bodies of the three men were located in an earthen damn, having been beaten and shot to death by KKK members in a conspiracy with local law enforcement officials. The deaths of these three men came to symbolize the black-Jewish alliance and the risks American Jews were willing to take in support of racial equality. (Zola and Dollinger 319; underline mine)


Thus, the point is made that the mechanism of terrorism and counter-terrorism can be exchanged due to the abuse of power and legal forces. In the novel, Ross and Winchell represent terrorists against the Lindbergh government. However, from Philip’s and the reader’s perspective, their acts belong to the counter-terrorist movement while the superior forces, sadly, can perform their terrorist acts legally.



References


Notes:

[1] According to OED, terrorism means “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” In this sense, Hitler can be claimed as a terrorist because he used terrorist acts (the unethical use of concentration camps and violence to exterminate all Jewish people etc.) to achieve his political desire. Drawing on this, Glenn B. Infield, the biographer of Nazi commander Otto Skorzeny, further claims, “Terrorism, the Skorzeny Syndrome, is flourishing in the modern world, a reminder that Hitler and Nazism are still taking their toll more than three decades after the Third Reich collapsed.”