Ponnuru and Lowry respond to their critics. I’m the sure the sphere will be all over this within hours. But a few particularly egregious points are worth noting.
1) Ponnuru and Lowry claim that Obama rejects American exceptionalism in favor of the “Wilsonian project of relocating American greatness not in our fixed constitutional principles but in our supposed ability to transcend those principles.” This is silly for a three reason, apart from the atrocious grammar.
a) The “Wilsonian project” in no way excludes American exceptionalism. Nor could anyone who’s ever read Wilson think so. Instead, it offers a different view of what makes American exceptional than Ponnuru and Lowry’s. That view may be unconvincing, or even pernicious. But it attributes the same quasi-providential status to the American regime that they insist on.
b) The difference between “Wilsonian” exceptionalism and the NR kind doesn’t revolve around transcendence of constitutional principles. It’s a disagreement about what those principles are, and the rank order among them. Does the Constitution’s promise of a “more perfect union” trump its formal limitations of government? Are the blessings of liberty material as well as political and juridical? To condemn progressivism as hostile, as such to founding principles is to avoid the argument on the merits, and to ignore the long history of sincere attempts to articulate a left-wing conception of American values. Regrettably, that’s the tendency of the whole piece.
c) Ponnuru and Lowry admit that Obama has explicitly acknowledged America’s exceptional principles and role. But they dismiss this with the observation that it “would be remarkable if any president did not say such things.” Which is true enough. But in that case, the argument becomes trivially psychologizing: Obama SAYS he believes in American exceptionalism, but he doesn’t really MEAN it. As far as I can tell, Ponnuru and Lowry present no evidence for that conclusion except some quotes in which Obama suggests that the election of a black man, namely himself, to the presidency was sort of a big deal. I guess that can be seen as narcissistic. But I seem to recall a similar sentiment expressed in the pages of NR and Commentary back in November.
2) The psychologizing continues a few paragraphs later when Ponnuru and Lowry reaffirm their contention that liberals, progressives, etc. support the policies they do because they secretly think Europe is cooler. Support for mass transit is highlighted: “we suspect that much of the enthusiasm for these subsidies among liberals is based on mass transit’s association with Europe.” Well, I know a lot of progressives and mass transit enthusiasts. And I can’t think of a single one who appreciated the reliable trains, quiet buses and streetcars, and clear bike lanes found in many European cities BECAUSE they’re European. Actually, many Americans find it pleasant and convenient to travel this way. And they wonder, not unreasonably, if it wouldn’t be nice to enjoy similar infrastructure at home. It’s true that arguments for mass transit often fail to consider the real differences of the American landscape and lifestyle. But that’s a serious question worth debating in particular cases–what works in Berlin may also be good for New York, but probably not for Tucson –rather than the status envy of Upper West Siders.
3) Victor Davis Hanson is praised for the observation that America exceptionalism is connected with the lack of a feudal past. Ponnuru and Lowry admit that ” Sadly, a worse institution took root here, but never became part of the national psyche.” The worse institution, of course, is slavery. But anyone who can say that slavery and the ideology of white supremacy NEVER became PART of the national psyche really should not be taken seriously as a guide to the American character, although how large a part and for how long are open to dispute. Don’t take my word for it, though. Go back to point (1)–all you need to do is read Wilson.
March 9th, 2010 | 2:09 pm
[...] in particular cases–what works in Berlin may also be good for … Here is the original: American Exceptionalism Revisited » Postmodern Conservative | A … Share and [...]
March 9th, 2010 | 4:50 pm
[...] Goldman makes the point well in an excellent post at Postmodern Conservative: Well, I know a lot of progressives and mass transit enthusiasts. And I can’t think of a single [...]
March 9th, 2010 | 6:56 pm
I like Mr. Lowry’s work quite a bit, and Ponnuru’s too. I’ve learned lots from those guys.
But I fail to see what’s so exceptionally important or useful about the term American exceptionalism. I don’t get why it’s being talked up of late by various conservatives. If it means that many Democrats have, er, issues with their patriotism, and a related gullibility about how wonderful the most modern European things/views are, well, that’s very old news and not much to build upon. Different folks at different times define it in different ways. The fine new Amer Govt textbook by Joseph Bessette and John Pitney, for example, defines it in terms of insisting upon a greater moral emphasis in foreign policy. That fits right in with Sam’s fine point about Wilson above. Others want to define it in terms of our MIA socialist movement. For others, its federalism.
But not all things exceptional to America are good. Our feminist and our pro-choice movements, for example, have long been far more strident than those in Europe.
And the most exceptional things about America ought to be regarded as the result of luck or divine favor. T. Roosevelt is fairly eloquent and pious about this in his first inaugural, and consider what Madison says about the relative success of the Convention. Tocqueville’s discusssion of how our geographic isolation from well-armed potential enemies shaped several major features of our government, including its comparative lack of centralized administration, comes to mind as well.
As I once heard a bibliophilic wise man known to some around here say, “Only LOSERS aren’t patriotic.” He was speaking, I believe, of some French intellectuals and Russian intellectuals who weren’t. But that means the patriots of one nation respect and encourage the patriotism of another…and he’d be the first to agree to the obvious limits Christianity puts on patriotism. Nor would he deny that politics has its internationalist dimension–what claims the USA makes for itself and its values do matter to politics around world, as do what claims the EU makes, or Putin’s Russia makes. Is talking up our exceptionalism against some vaguely-felt set of Obama’s sins against it something that other nations can benefit from? Done quite carefully, it can, but that doesn’t seem where this is going.
Finally, Sam, I do disagree with you on 1b. At least with the way you’ve framed it. I mean, yes, give the American progressives and the whole leftist attempt to speak American its due, report fairly what it wants to say about itself and its understanding of the Const. and such. But no, it is by no means simply a difference about which parts of the Const. to emphasize when (as you’re saying) the Progressives simply want to run with the Preamble (and with new-fangled interps of the 14th’s liberty) and ignore the rest. That is, the Progressives as you represent them (most were actually more moderate on the Const. back in the day, esp in all official statements) simply are against OUR constitution’s transcendent principles.
March 9th, 2010 | 8:16 pm
Mr. Goldman, on your points
1. a) L. and P. do address the Wilsonian (and I suppose John Dewey and Herbert Croly) arguments for left-of-center Progresive and reformist American exceptionalism. They just dismiss it as a rejection of the American founding and argue that in practice, according to that evolutionary conception, France is more exceptional than America. L and P are defending a particular kind of American exceptionalism which they defined earlier in the article and did not invent themselves. They argue that Wilsonian Progressvism rejects and would undermine the distinct qualities that they identify. One could define American exceptionalism in other ways – in our exceptional love of American footbal over soccer (one that our current President shares with the average American), but without undermining or even addressing L and P’s point.
b) If one understands constitutional principles as the principles of those who wrote the Constitution and those on the other side as substituting them for another later set of principles and pretending to read those later principles back into a document that they cannot sufficiently formally change or abandon, then yes, it is an argument between two different set of principles. One involves a group that believes that the public philosophy of those who wrote the Constitution was basically right and a group who believes those principles to be bascially wrong (or right for the time but having been superseded by later and better, more relevant for the time principles). One doesn’t have to be wholly in either camp to recognize that this is an argument between those who would seek to uphold the principles of the Constitution (as they understand them) with those who think those principles need to be put aside. Trying to read backwards a statist 19th and 20th century conception of “general welfare” in order to avoid having to avoid the “formal” structures of the Constitution cannot avoid the nature of this conflict.
c) Fair enough. I thought that was the weakest part of the article. Obama has turned out much better on foreign policy than I feared. I think there are also more points of contact between a Progressive (but less rigid and utopian than Wilson) collective security approach to American foreign policy and conservative collective security orientation than we tend to hear in our national debates. I think that is a good thing.
2. This formerly regular (and now occasional) rider on the MBTA agrees with L. and P’s point as expressed in their clarificaton. Maybe you haven’t met any left-of-center folks who had an unhealthy enthusiasm for mass transit and who argued for it less based on the merits and th preferences of their fellow citizens but as a way of bringing America more in lne with the healthier societies of Western Europe. The conversation would eventually get around to how American liked American football too much and it was too bad we didn’t embrace the world’s game. I remember listening to NPR several years ago. It was an interview program in which the host and the guests were trying to figure out ways to get Americans to use mass transit more and live in denser urban environments. Ideas that came up included making it more expensive to drive on highways and decreasing the funding for suburban schools. I dont remember them suggesting that the homes and cars of suburbanites be firebombed, but I might have missed a segment. But fwiw, I think that L and P agree with you that the argument over mass transit should be conducted on the merits, though they might disagree about both the merits and how often the debate is conducted on that level.
3. Again fair enough.
I think you make a really important point about the Progressive/evolutionary patriotic narrative of American exceptionalism. It is unfortunate that this narrative was swamped on the radical left by New Left disgust with the US and by a combination of New Deal/Camelot/Great Society nostalgia, class war and client group politics (think Ted Kennedy or Walter Mondale) on the liberal left – not that the latter two were ever wholly absent. Obama has managed to make this rhetoric of liberal patriotism confident and relevant again. Conservatives haven’t really found the range yet in confronting it.
March 9th, 2010 | 8:55 pm
Look, I’m not defending the Deweyite/Progressive version of exceptionalism. Like you, I think it’s based on bad philosophy, and worse history.
But I also think it’s usually deployed in good faith. And that it is, partly for this reason, a serious and sometimes valuable part of American intellectual life. What ticks me off about Lowry and Ponnuru is their attempt to avoid serious arguments with insinuations of illegitimate pedigree and motives.
Re mass transit and the world’s game: people say all kinds of things on NPR, and everyone’s got their anecdotes. But I sincerely doubt that any significant constituency is animated by Euro-envy–as opposed to, say, the wholly understandable demand that THE GODDAMN GREEN LINE SHOULD RUN ON TIME. To say nothing of taking the train from Patriots games…
March 9th, 2010 | 10:10 pm
Mr. Goldman, I never thought or suggested that you approved of the Progressive version of American exceptionalism. I also think that those who are for it argue mostly in good faith, though their reformulations of the Constitution and the Declaration are often misleading to the lay reader or listener. But that has little to do iwth L and P’s identificaton of certain elements of of American poltical culture as distinctive, desirable and at risk of being diminished by Obama’s political agenda. You are right that the merits of those elements are open to debate, but to argue that L and P’s definition of American exceptionalism is an affront to the honor and patriotism of those who disagree with them is not to argue on the merits. One can expect than other conservatives will use the L and P narrative to do just what you suggest, but complaints will be properly laid at the feet of the offenders.
I do think that kind of envy of Western European political culture and more statist political arrangements generally exists in significant numbers among the American upper middle-class. As for its significance? I dunno. It is a minority taste and the pople who share it are almost entirely in the pocket of the Democratic party. No American politician could be elected to the White House who exuded such envy as an expression of their alienation. Thomas Friedman is probably speaking for somebody.
I never had a problem with the green line getting around Boston. In most spots there is a green line train every ten minutes or less during the work week. But when you are trying to get into northern Boston from Newton it can take forever. It was waiting for the buses during offpeak hours that bugged me the most.
March 9th, 2010 | 11:31 pm
[...] See also Matthew Schmitz and Samuel Goldman, the latter of whom offers a similarly structured critique, though in a different [...]
March 10th, 2010 | 4:23 pm
“L and P are defending a particular kind of American exceptionalism which they defined earlier in the article and did not invent themselves.”
I know it gets tiresome for people to keep bringing the discussion back to this point…but where the hell were L and P when George W. Bush was crapping all over the reality of American Exceptionalism, which is a great deal worse than not appropriately genuflecting before the concept?
Mike
March 10th, 2010 | 4:26 pm
Ponnuru is a long-time friend and contributor to First Things; he deserves better treatment than the intemperate remarks of some blogger grad student who’s not fit to wash Ponnuru’s jock. Goldman should mind his manners.
March 10th, 2010 | 4:47 pm
And by the way, there clearly is a brand of Euro-envy running through a certain segment of urban liberal elites. Matt Yglesias is a great example of it whenever he starts whining about why the United States should have a parliamentary government.
Mike
March 10th, 2010 | 5:23 pm
[...] Goldman responds to the response [...]
March 10th, 2010 | 5:59 pm
[...] ability to transcend those principles.” This helps make Linker’s point for him. As Samuel Goldman has said: The difference between “Wilsonian” exceptionalism and the NR kind doesn’t revolve [...]
March 10th, 2010 | 8:17 pm
Mike, sure it is tiresome, but not for the reasons you seem to think. It might also indicate an unwillingness to engage with uncongenial ideas or discuss those ideas without resorting to crude partisan gestures.
Will, I think that Mr. Goldman is mostly wrong and partly right, and am second to none as a Ponnuru suck up, but I think he makes serious points.
March 11th, 2010 | 10:47 am
“Mike, sure it is tiresome, but not for the reasons you seem to think. It might also indicate an unwillingness to engage with uncongenial ideas or discuss those ideas without resorting to crude partisan gestures. ”
I would think that in the wake of a Presidency that included BOTH one of the worst foreign policy mistakes in U.S. history and one of the worst financial crises in world history, being “congenial” shouldn’t really be that big a concern.
And frankly, what L and P are doing is as crude a partisan gesture as you can get. Crude in that they’re essentially arguing that the President of the United States isn’t as American as he should be. Partisan in that they’re criticizing Barack Obama for things he’s said after cheering on or silently assenting to things George W. Bush did that turned American Exceptionalism on its head.
I wouldn’t listen to a Jenna Jameson lecture on chastity unless she repudiated her old thinking and behavior and had honestly come to a new perspective on the subject. Until there is a full and honest accounting of conservative errors in thought and judgment over the last decade, why should ANYONE listen to anythng they say?
Mike
March 11th, 2010 | 7:06 pm
Mike,
“I would think…”
No, apparently you wouldn’t. Your statement is a reflexive, hysterical, and (saddest of all) probably sincere excuse for your inability to consider ideas you disagree with in a thoughtful, measured, or even civil manner. Hopefully your assertion that it was partisan for National Review editors to criticize Obama for things he has said was a moment of conscious self parody.
The thing is you never needed an excuse to avoid thinking seriously about why people like Lowry or Ponnuru might disagree with you, and even if you had, partisan-passion induced incompetence (hopefully temporary) would have been good and true enough.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact