Robert Jensen thinks so, and I appreciate the application of the word “fundamentalist” to especially liberal MSM journalists, because it probably makes them squirm. Jensen pinpoints three types of fundamentalism within the invisible structural framework that all or most MSM journalists see through: 1) nationalistic fundamentalism (the “exceptional” U.S., which throws its military might around to remain on top), itself in bed with 2) economic fundamentalism (almighty capitalism, including military industrial contractors), and what I’d call the holy of holies, 3) technological fundamentalism (which just about everybody thinks/hopes will “save” us — though severely tested just yesterday at both the NYSE and United Airlines).
Jensen wonders if this framework is now crumbling, and if so, what should be our response. He urges investigating the roots of our assumptions and proceeding from there. Difficult. Here’s a fourth, perhaps even deeper fundamentalism: the cultural bias towards valuing only one side of any polarity rather than holding both as paradox. The relevant polarities here include: more rather than less, progress rather than contraction, moving up, rather than down, ascending rather than descending, reaching for the sun, rather than feeling the roots which, at this point, appear to be dissolving into what’s left of the poisoned soil.
There are three key elements to the dominant ideology of the contemporary United States—involving world affairs, economics, and ecology—which can be best understood as forms of fundamentalism. Moving beyond the religious roots of the term, we can understand fundamentalism as any intellectual, political, or moral position that asserts a certainty in the truth and/or righteousness of a belief system. In that sense, the United States is an especially fundamentalist country.