3. The Unfinished Tapestry
t remains is the unfinished debate as to "whom Reagan belongs to,"so to speak. There were tense moments when Argus came very close to providing us with strong textual support for his claims, yet for whatever reasons he did not provide. Perhaps he assumes that we will deduce the connection by a return to a strong and open reading of both Reagan and Bush Jr.. Having done this myself, I have found some notable connections that I have listed above. But the aporia of this situation lies precisely on how to make this connection without doing incredible violence to the autonomy of the authors’ theories. What Argus does not seem to acknowledge is—at least by my reading—is that Reagan and Bush Jr. appear to contradict one another as often as they are in accord, and neither one can really be used to strengthen the position of the other (which is perhaps the most fecund operation of performing an exercise of relation). Argus may only be indicating an historical quirk. The implications of this link may be utilized with profound force if only Argus could make an absolutely solid case for its existence. And then again, it may not change a thing, and biblical foreign policy will continue along its razing path, seeing it as the most efficient alternative available. That being said, the matter is far from being at a close. If a link is to be forged, then it must be done with elaborate precision, piece by piece, in a systematic reading of the authors in question so as to better inform the argument at stake. This matter must also resolve the multitude of interpretations that spin off from the Reaganetic system—perhaps a task worthy of Sisyphus. Argus provides the readers with just enough material to ensure that this link is not merely an arbitrary coupling or coincidental, but he fails to make a cohesive and truly viable claim to that effect. I would suggest that some revisions need to be made, including a very critical reading of both authors to determine—for good or ill—if indeed we can speak with univocity on this issue; otherwise, we are left with too many untied threads and a series of plaguing questions. I would undertake this myself, but that would far exceed the purposes of this paper. Rather, we should hope that Argus himself—who shows a great deal of promise in this area of inquiry—will realize the criticisms I have levelled against him here, and will make the necessary revisions in a future work which we may anticipate with welcome reception.
Kane X. Faucher is a doctoral candidate at the University of Western Ontario's Centre for the Study of Theory & Criticism in London, Canada. He has published in several academic and literary journals both online and in print. He also has published three novels, Urdoxa (2004), Codex Obscura (2005), and Fort & Da (2006). His web page is at http://www.geocities.com/codex1977.