In reading an essay by Peter Collier on the late Christopher Hitchens in the February 2012 issue of the New Criterion, I was brought up short when I came across this: “…former New Leftists who, like us, had resigned from our radical generation and embraced America as the hope of the world rather than its curse.”
American exceptionalism is nothing new, of course. It’s not even exceptional. Russia had a tradition of considering itself the Third Rome; the Roman Empire itself, in the Aeneid, is thought of as having a divine mission; and France under Napoleon crusaded for liberty, equality, and fraternity. In addition, the Noam Chomskys of this world are also American exceptionalists—only they see the U.S. as exceptionally evil rather than exceptionally good.
What surprises me a bit, I confess, is how frequently and insistently the idea of American exceptionalism now appears among conservative intellectuals. One hopes for a keener sense of human limitations and a general sober-mindedness that does not consider any human being or human institution as either the hope or the curse of the world. It seems, though, that much of the American right has fallen into its own brand of political romanticism. It may be that any democratically active conservatism tends to shy away from the salutary astringency of, say, Reinhold Niebuhr or Irving Babbitt, to say nothing of Genesis 8:21 (“…the inclination of the heart of man is evil…”).
February 7th, 2012 | 1:13 pm
There is hardly a nation on the planet that doesn’t think it’s exceptional . . . Israel, Great Britain, France, Greece (pre-crash), Italy, China, Japan…. Heck even Canadians think that their system is exceptional due to their “new and sexy” Constitution (see Joe Knippenberg’s post). Why did you only cite the United States?
February 7th, 2012 | 3:47 pm
Not sure how to feel about American exceptionalism, still conflicted. Would enjoy a follow up post that laid out the points in a thoughtful way. With that said, as a Christian I cringe at statements about America being “the last great hope.” But I also cringe at the America-bashing that tends to flow out of our newfound global sensibilities. Surely there is a balance somewhere?
February 8th, 2012 | 12:21 am
America, the Last Hope of mankind?
1) USA has the most permissive abortion laws in the entire world.
2) The American Govt has committed itself to aggressively proselytize for homosexual rights worldwide.
February 8th, 2012 | 7:01 am
Is there something special about the United States of America such that the world would be poorer if it did not exist?
Consider the question posed by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address: whether a nation founded on the concept that all men are created equal, and are endowed with rights by God that cannot be taken away by any government or society, can actually endure in a world that has seen predominantly conquest and inequality. If the Confederacy won the Civil War, establishing the precedent that states can secede with a one time vote of their legislatures, then the real power of the Federal government established by the Constitution would have diminished, as it was held hostage by any state that threatened to secede. There could have easily been additional secessions, so that three or more week nations stood in the place of the USA. What would have happened in the rest of the world?
How would the Axis powers have been defeated without the USA? How would the Soviet Union be worn down without America?
In the real world we live in, the peoples of Europe and Asia, from Britain and united Germany to Mongolia, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, owe their current freedom to the USA. Without the freedom of Europe, the freedom of their pre-World War II colonies through Africa to India and Southeast Asia would not be a possibility.
Without America as a nation with both the united economic strength to oppose the conquerors of the Twentieth Century, and the democratic ideals that set the standard that nations strove to emulate, and the unwillingness to become a new empire in its own right, the world would be a much worse place. Unlike the usual case in history, the nations defeated by America have been among the major beneficiaries of American victories, including my native Japan.
I think those who believe America has a special role in the world, perhaps one ordained by the Divine Providence invoked by the Founders, have solid reasons for our belief. America’s flaws are the common flaws of nations, but the best of our achievements have been crucial for what freedom and equality exist on the earth.
February 8th, 2012 | 8:11 am
Every one of us can think of a hundred things we would change in America. The question is whether you think America is a force of good in the world. Most Americans believe in America. That is, they believe that a free and self-governing people can preserve and keep their liberty.
The founders held that for the republic to survive and flourish, its people must pursue and display religious faith and morality. The republic can survive only if its people follow moral standards. The present danger is that the rejection of American exceptionalism, threats to liberty, and the dismissal of the essential traditions of morality all seem to go hand in hand.
February 8th, 2012 | 8:17 am
Maybe someone can imagine that the intentions of the hearts of men are always suspect, *and still* think that the principles of separation of powers and secularism are the hope for the world. Maybe they can think the later *because* of their understanding of the former.
February 8th, 2012 | 11:42 am
Mr. Lee: I would say every country thinks of itself (and actually is) somehow unique, which is not quite the same thing as excepptional. I also did mention three other examples of exceptionalist doctrine in my post.
Mr. Stone: One balanced approach might be to say the U.S is a strong, prosperous, stable country witha relatively decent regime. Indeed it may well be that American exceptionalism gives an encouragement to the Chomskys. If the U.S. does not live up to the romanticized view of it, then some, foolishly, will conclude it is exceptioanlly evil.
Mr. Stephen; I think it is a mistake to posit political (as opposed to moral) absolutes. Separation of powers, for example, may work well for the U.S.. That does not necessarily mean it works well everywhere.
Mr Lee: Like anything human, the U.S. is a mixture of good and evil. Mr. Gian points out two examples of American evil.
Mr. Swenson: I cannot help but recall the proverb: Pride goeth before the fall. (I say this in regard to the U.S., not you personally.)
February 8th, 2012 | 12:17 pm
Two of your three examples were from the past (The Roman Empire, and France under Napoleon). The French still believe they are a world power, and the lengths to which they go to preserve French language and culture indicates a level of hubris equal to the USA. To think that present day Israel doesn’t view itself as exceptional, or chosen, is naive at best. China and Japan as well . . . the list is endless. It’s only those with an axe to grind against the United States that persist in the mythmaking that United States is alone in viewing itself as exceptional.
February 8th, 2012 | 1:53 pm
Publius, True, but the French, Chinese, and Japanese have neither the military power (though if Obama stays in office that may change) nor the cultural influence of the United States. For better or worse, we have been a global hegemon since 1918 and _the_ global hegemon since 1945. Some, particularly on the liberal left, but also on the isolationist right, believe this is a bad thing, that the US is not entitled to be a hegemon, that our power comes at the expense of others’ freedom, that there is nothing extraordinary that qualifies us to be the premier power on earth.
Others, particularly on the political right, believe (or pretend to) that our exceptional institutions and values uniquely qualify us to be the global hegemon, that our power is a net gain for the freedom of others, and that the world is a better place than it would otherwise be for our exercise of political, military, economic, and cultural power.
In my view, many of the “exceptionalists” are naive or cynics exploiting American public sentiment for their own purposes. Nonetheless, the world _will_ have a hegemon. It has since ancient Sumer. If we lose, or abdicate, that position there will not suddenly be an era of international equality and cooperation. There will simply be another hegemon. To an extrordinary degree, we _are_ exceptional, especially compared to past hegemons like Rome, Spain, or even Britain or to any potential hegemon currently existing. For all our flaws, I’m very hard-pressed to imagine the world better off with Russia, China, or some Islamist Caliphate as hegemon.
February 8th, 2012 | 4:15 pm
Fred makes a number of good points but I do not think the world always has a hegemon. I believe the more common situation is that there are a number of powerful countries more or less equal. Think of Japan vs. China historically or continental Europe with Germany, Russia, France, and Austria-Hungary.
By the way, I am neither on the left nor the isolationist right. I simply think American (or any other) exceptionalism is political romanticism and that political romanticism is a dangerous thing. Call me an anti-Babelian (as in the Tower of).
February 8th, 2012 | 5:06 pm
Tip o’ the hat to Mr. Ben-Gad, who has succeeded in his quest to spark some thoughtful argumentation. Nobody has gone ballistic or ad-hitlerum yet, so I must say we have achieved a level of discourse which is rather “exceptional” in Combox World.
You may put me in the box that has this verse as its heading: “Put not your trust in princes, in men in whom there is no salvation.”
February 8th, 2012 | 10:10 pm
Shmuel, Absolutely there have been hegemon-less periods or periods where two or more equivalent powers struggle for hegemony. But generally, those have been periods of violence, chaos, and poverty or at least have led to them. Think Europe after the fall of Rome, Europe before World War I, the imposition of a balanced order after the Congress of Vienna that ultimately resulted in the Revolutions of 1848. The “religious” wars of the 17th century. There is a reason periods of hegemony become known as the Pax Whatevera (Pax Romana, Pax Brittanica, Pax Americana). Nature abhors a vacuum.
I stand by my statement that if America loses or abdicates its position as hegemon, another will eventually arise to take its place and is not likely to be as benign. I guess my point is that exceptionalism is not necessarily political romanticism as long as one realizes that exceptionalism is relative and, while no hegemonic power will ever be perfect or perfectly benevolent, some are more so than others. A nation with America’s institutions and values is much more likely to be much more benign as a hegemon than one without those institutions and values, and no other nation in the past or that currently exists combines those institutions and values with economic, military, and political might in the same way as the United States.
February 9th, 2012 | 12:54 am
Julianne Wiley writes:
Nobody has gone ballistic or ad-hitlerum yet, so I must say we have achieved a level of discourse which is rather “exceptional” in Combox World.
*************
I’m not sure, but if I were to write that Shmuel Ben-Gad’s notion of “political romanticism” may be connected with Carl Schmitt’s, would I have made a reductio ad Weimarum?
The above was perhaps not a very useful statement. A symptom of my frustration, no doubt: I’m still in the dark as to what Mr. Ben-Gad’s position precisely is, especially after learning – as late as post #10 – that his beef is more with “political romanticism” (PR) than with “American exceptionalism.”
May I ask, which version of PR is he referring to here? Carl Schmitt’s? Frank Capra’s?
Also, why does Mr. Ben-Gad believe that his version of PR, whatever it is, “is a dangerous thing”? Is it more or less dangerous than, say, his expressed desire that Conservatives and other people of good will should possess “a keener sense of human limitations and a general sober-mindedness that does not consider any human being or human institution as either the hope or the curse of the world” (my emphasis)? One wonders:
1.) Are people engaged in a dangerous activity if they claim that political movements like communism or the several fascisms, or human beings like Stalin, Mao, Franco, Saddam Hussein or Him-Who-Is-Not-to-be Named, are the curse of the world?
2.) If a Mr. Jones were to argue that men such as Hirohito or Tojo were the curse of the world back in the 30s and 40s, would that entail that Mr. Jones argument is lacking in keeness and general sober-mindedness?
Unfortunately, we have “achieved a level of discourse” here that is as unenlightening as it is polite. One wishes that Mr. Ben-Gad would be more forthcoming about which soapbox he’s speaking from.
February 9th, 2012 | 5:05 am
As a European, I would suggest that a large part of what is referred to as “American Exceptionalism,” is the extent to which loyalty to the nation is equated with loyalty to its political institutions.
By way of contrast, I have known French people, for example, patriotic to the point of chauvinism, who detested the French Revolution and all its works, referred to the national symbol of Marianne as « la gueuse » [The beggar woman/Slut] and attended the annual Mass of Reparation on 21 January at the Chapelle Expiatoire for the “parricide” of Louis XVI. Love of the nation and hatred of the republic can co-exist quite happily together.
It would, I would imagine, be impossible for an American to distinguish his loyalty to the nation and his loyalty to its form of government in a way that seems natural to a European, even, perhaps especially, to a “nationalist.”
February 9th, 2012 | 12:14 pm
But generally, those have been periods of violence, chaos, and poverty or at least have led to them. Think Europe after the fall of Rome, Europe before World War I, the imposition of a balanced order after the Congress of Vienna that ultimately resulted in the Revolutions of 1848.
I prefer the view of history that sees structural formations as cyclical.
Empires break up, creating lots of little states. Little states grow into empires. I view this as a spiral path – we go around in circles, but “upward” when we learn things that make us more “civilized” (this is my definition of what it means to be civilized).
The “concert of Europe” struggled to find better ways to wage war and peace, and it has to be recognized: they did learn a few things. Unfortunately they also “learned” that propping up an artificial peace can be like covering the hole that vents steam from a cooker.
That does not mean that seeking peace is a waste of time, or “bad”, or counterproductive. What it suggests to me is that we have to try to learn what we can and apply that learning toward living a better way.
February 10th, 2012 | 8:11 am
Exceptionalism is meant as a description of the foundation of the USA, and the type of country that now exists. That foundation was in ideas regarding human nature, as in the Declaration of Independence, and the limits on social or governmental action placed in the Constitution. The foundation of other countries was in ethnic or tribal groupings, or in geography. Since ethnic dominance was not the foundational basis for the USA, new ethnic groups were not completely barred from rising to prominence, so long as they were willing to adopt to the ideas of the Declaration. Geographical dominance varied from one part of the continent to another. Contrast that with the USSR, where even under the idea of socialism, Moscow remained dominant and the Politburo really had no tatars or other ethnic minorities. American exceptionalism is not meant to describe a kind of ethnic chauvinism, nor to celebrate military power: the USA was exceptional even when it was weak and much like a third world nation, in the early 1800s.
February 10th, 2012 | 8:24 am
The Declaration and the Constitution, together, show sovereign persons and states, who do not base their rights on a grant from any earthly entity, joining in a pact granting only limited power to a central entity. The ideas that are the basis of other nations such as France and USSR assume centralized government is the source and support of all rights and good things for their people. The USA is exceptional to the extent that power is not centralized, but diffuse, and so leaves room for innovation and justice at the individual level.
February 12th, 2012 | 5:26 pm
I thank everyone for their comments.
Michael PS: I think you are absolutely correct. The U.S. has no ethnic identity and no dynastic loyalty, so a lot of patriotic emotion adheres to the Declaration of Independence and the constitution. In theory, one might favor the “ancient regime”of the articles of confederation that preceded the constitution but I am not sure if there is anyone, aside, perhaps from isolated individuals or fringe groups, who seriously hold to that position.
Benighted Savage: Actually I opined in the last paragraph of my essay that American exceptionalism is a form of political romanticism. As for why I regard that as dangerous it is because it tends to make hubris and killing too easily indulged. (I am no pacifist by the way.) C.S. Lewis in his The Four Loves deals well, I think with this issue:
“Patriotism has, then, many faces. Those who would reject it entirely do not seem to have considered what will certainly step–has already begun to step–into its place. For a long time yet, or perhaps forever, nations will live in danger. Rulers must somehow nerve their subjects to defend them, or at least to prepare for their defense. Where the sentiment of patriotism has been destroyed this can be done only by presenting every international conflict in a purely ethical light. If people will spend neither sweat nor blood for ‘their country’ they must be made to feel that they are spending them for justice, of civilization, or humanity. This is a step down, not up. Patriotic sentiment did not of course need to disregard ethics. Good men needed to be convinced that their country’s cause was just; but it was still their country’s cause, not the cause of justice as such. The difference seems to me important. I may without self-righteousness or hypocrisy think it just to defend my house by force against a burglar; but if I start pretending that I blacked his eye purely on moral grounds–wholly indifferent to the fact that the house in question was mine–I become insufferable. The pretense that when England’s cause is just we are on England’s side–as some neutral Don Quixote might be–for that reason alone, is equally spurious. And nonsense draws evil after it. If our country’s cause is the cause of God, wars must be wars of annihilation. A false transcendence is given to things that are very much of this world.”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact