Life after the end of history is a slow crescendo of the narrowing of potential futures. Conflict and crisis rage, and while options exist to reduce the damage, there are fewer and fewer hopes to escape from the cycle completely. In Denis Villeneuve’s right-wing fantasy of anti-cartel border violence Sicario (2015), that same sickening sense of dread descends on FBI agent Kate Macer (Emily Blunt) as she’s subjected to the increasingly violent whims of her CIA handler (Josh Brolin) and his enigmatic Mexican counterpart Alejandro (Benicio Del Toro). At one point, she complains to her superior in the FBI that her presence only exists to provide a veneer of legitimacy to an illegal and dangerous operation. His response? Don’t worry about it. Someone above you has decided this is the only maneuver possible to advance the front lines of the War on Drugs. He tells her that “these decisions are made far from here by officials elected to office, not appointed to them,” to trust the democratic process and let yourself become its instrument. There’s no room for moral qualms when the alternative, a house filled with corpses, the opening shot of the film, is too nightmarish to consider. The stakes, he tells her, are simply too high.
The core progression of the plot is the slow revelation to Kate of a shadow world, a zone across the border where anything is permissible, where CIA agents and their proxies torture, hunt, and kill The Bad Guys with impunity, woe betide anyone standing in their way. The core conflict, then, is Kate’s moral, ethical, and legal objections to the horrors of this state-sponsored violence. It demands that the viewer consider the alternatives: Is there a part of you, deep in your heart, that understands killing and torture to be necessary?
What does conscientious objection to a shade of gray even look like when it’s counterposed against the darkness of true evil?
The ideological purpose of a film like this is to create a set of narrowed horizons. You have to believe that the film’s protagonists, however morally compromised, do evil in pursuit of good, and that objections to it are a form of relatable weakness in the face of horrible duty. This type of narrative encloses possibility; we live in a world with two choices, in the words of one ex-President, “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” It’s hard to imagine a more apt metaphor than this for our current electoral moment in America. Once again, we’re asked to participate in “the most important election of our lives,” in the words of one fundraising email and countless social media posts, to vote to save democracy from fascism. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of innocents, a large number of whom were children, are dead in Gaza and Lebanon with the help of American arms wielded by an American client state. And the border is effectively closed to asylum seekers, a decision made by Democratic president Joe Biden, which flies in the face of international law.
These are evil actions, but as we are often reminded, from a purely electoral sense, they are a lesser evil. Compared to Trump’s suggestion that Israel should “do what you have to do” with a free hand in their genocide, or engage in mass deportations aided by militarized police and federal law enforcement, they represent a dark but preferable alternative to the nightmare horrorshow represented by Trump’s GOP. That Harris would be preferable should go without saying.
But what sort of world would Harris have us live in?
During her acceptance speech at the DNC, as the American-sponsored Israeli genocide machine marched on, Harris affirmed her support for the ethnic cleansing project. “I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself, because the people of Israel must never again face the horror that a terrorist organization called Hamas caused on Oct. 7, including unspeakable sexual violence,” repeating a racist and, at this point, largely debunked claim about the weaponization of rape. She claimed that she would “ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world,” on the heels of two disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that killed hundreds of thousands, left millions displaced, and which largely failed in their grandiose nation-building aims. Finally, she bragged that “Joe [Biden] and I brought together Democrats and conservative Republicans to write the strongest border bill in decades,” referring to a law that would have made it significantly more difficult for asylum seekers to gain legal residency and which has been described by immigrants’ rights advocates as “the same policies, the same postures, that MAGA Republicans were fighting for about six years ago.”
Many of us, then, begin to feel that same sense of unease Kate did when she started to grasp the scope of the CIA’s border operations in Sicario. We begin to be dragged down by the moral weight of complicity; isn’t this counterproductive, isn’t this wrong? And then, Kate’s FBI boss, or thousands of liberal social media scolds, tell us to trust the democratic process, that our system legitimizes these positions. That torturing a corrupt cop or touting an endorsement from archvillain Dick Cheney are all small prices to pay for the promise of eventual safety, from Trump or narcotraffickers.
Eco’s Ur-Fascism lists an exhaustive set of criteria for the ideological underpinnings of fascism, most of which very neatly apply to Trump’s GOP. A contempt for the weak, a call to action for action’s sake, a rejection of pacifism, all of these critical components are present in the MAGA ideology. But in the early 2000s, we called Bush and Cheney fascist for their imperialist war mongering, cultivation of anti-Arab racism, Christian supremacy, and militaristic machismo. We castigated their silencing of dissent via the creation of a massive domestic surveillance apparatus, their “enhanced interrogation” of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. And yet, in the fight against Trump’s fascism, Harris enlists the endorsements of these policies’ architects, and often elects to continue the policies themselves in the hope of winning over the American electorate. These are strategic choices more than anything, they represent the will of the people, choices made, to echo Sicario, by “officials elected to office” and who want to stay there.
In the wake of the twin forever wars, the War On Terror and the War On Drugs, and their expansion of direct imperial hegemony in the Middle East and in Latin America, zones were established where the law provides for its own suspension. From CIA black sites where captives were subjected to “extraordinary rendition” (the American-supervised torture of detainees by allied nations’ intelligence services to skirt US laws) to a questionably-legal asylum ban implemented by Joe Biden, in a large part of the world, American hegemony exists as a legal free-for-all of induced suffering. This is nothing new. Slavery, Indian removal, and genocide are part of America’s founding precepts, and the 19th century’s analogue to what Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben calls the “state of exception” today, the legal framework by which extraordinary and limitless powers are legally conferred to sovereigns that allow for actions outside the rule of law. At the border, and in the Middle East, the state of exception reigns, because this is what the American ideology demands, this is what America has demanded since its founding. We find ourselves already existing within the framework of a hyper-capitalist, settler-colonialist state; as much as Harris represents a clear and distinct difference from Trump, our horizons have been effectively limited to choices that allow the continuation of this project of settler-colonialism and capitalism.
As the election looms before us, we are stuck with fascism in one way or another.
Sicario treats this realization with a resigned nihilism. When Alejandro finishes his hitman’s job across the border, the eponymous sicario comes to Kate’s apartment and asks her to sign a form that would retroactively clear the operation as legal and above board. She hesitates at this last moment, considers her career and perhaps literal death if she refuses, and finally, gives in, sobbing. Leftists in marginalized communities go to the ballot box with the same resignation. Given the choice between two futures, we hope for the safer one, but we can feel evil’s tendrils working their way into mainstream society, and know that true safety is not on offer. We may flail wildly on social media (as I have doubtlessly done over and over again) and, like Kate pointing her gun at Alejandro as he walks away calmly, make some futile rhetorical effort to threaten the system that pulls inexorably towards fascism. But, to quote perhaps the most fascistic line in the film and the final dialog before the credits roll, “this is the land of wolves now,” and regardless of what happens on Tuesday, we will elect a wolf.
Thanks to June, Janus, Rae, and Ezzy for feedback on this essay.