The cowboy's honorable orientation to violence

I have written about the cowboy before.Bush likes to draw upon the American heroic archetype of the cowboy, and a deeper exploration of the cowboy archetype explains some of what has polarized this election.

In 1954 Robert Warshow asserted that the enduring appeal of the cowboy is based on his successful orientation to violence. That is, the cowboy is clearly capable of violence (he's a gun-toting hero), and the cowboy is willing to use violence (don't make me have to kill you)—but he doesn't use his capacity for violence except to defend his honor—which makes him trustworthy. Warshow claimed that it is the cowboy hero's self-restraint that makes him such a popular American archetype. To make this point more clearly, the cowboy uses his capacity for violence to defend himself and his honor; if he uses violence for profit or to intimidate the weak, he crosses the line between cowboy hero and gunslinger.

The cowboy expresses the American identity in that America is willing to use its capacity for violence, if necessary, but can be trusted to restrain that violence unless attacked. The red/blue split in this country can be attributed to these two sides of the cowboy: one half of the country finds that Bush expresses the capacity and willingness to use violence—and for that reason, will vote for him, because they don't trust the pacifistic Kerry to express that willingness to violence. The other half of the country feels that Bush crossed the line between law and outlaw when he invaded a country that had not attacked us—and for that reason they will not vote for him, as he is no longer the cowboy hero, but instead, the cowboy outlaw. For this group, Bush did not restrain his capacity for violence, so he is not to be trusted.

Bin Laden is playing on Americans' identity with the cowboy hero. He has studied us closely and well. He's mocking the president by refuting the idea that Bush is capable and willing to use violence (by portraying him as more interested in a children's book), which brings out the protectiveness of the Republicans, who rush to defend Bush's honor with their vote. And he is playing the "instigator" card for the Democrats, who are horrified by this tidal change in our foreign policy. With Bush's war on Iraq, we have now attacked a country that has never attacked us, which displaces us from the moral high ground and aligns us with nations we fought against throughout the Cold War. This group blames Bush for our loss of honor among other nations.