Our Samuel Goldman is now writing at The American Conservative’s State of the Union blog. Asking whether or not there can be a “decent” American Right for the 21st century–one which is suitable to this democratic age–he provides a link to Postmodern Conservative.
Mirroring some questions that Michael Walzer, in 2002, had for the Left after what he then deemed to be a successful military venture in Afghanistan–questions Walzer had regarding knee-jerk criticisms of the war as being beholden to the discredited ideologies of “rag-tag Marxism” and “blaming America first”–Sam likewise wonders if the Right has the resources to offer a similar analysis of contemporary conservatism.
In his post, Sam suggests that the critics of the Afghan war were in some way prescient regarding the failed policies of the last decade.
He even brings up the idea of American exceptionalism–
Can there be a decent Right?
The wisdom and justice of particular alliances or operations is not the issue. Rather, it is the ideology of “American exceptionalism” according to which all that the United States does is good, and all the good that is done has its source in the United States. From the French Revolution through the Cold War, conservatives resisted the delusion that any nation, class, or individual is the unique representative and judge of the human race. That is the principle on which a decent Right depends.
On the blog, Sam promises to explore what a decent Right would look like in foreign policy, economics, and culture. It sounds good, but after reading Ceaser’s excellent analysis of the idea of exceptionalism, I’m less inclined to find an adequate explanation of our problems in resistance to that particular “delusion.”
May 15th, 2012 | 5:19 pm
Sorry, I can’t be nice here. I think it’s an inauspicious beginning for Samuel Goldman at AmCon. Oh, they’ll like it all right.
But to begin there by suggesting a serious moral parallel between the question “Is there a decent right?” circa 2012, to Walzer’s “Is there a decent left?” circa 2002, which after all was made in the pages of Dissent and was an effort to criticize knee-jerk opposition to the initial Afghan war effort from the usual leftist suspects shading into the Chomsky-ite “Amerika!” nut-cases, well, that is to imply that whatever afflicts the Right today is akin to what was afflicting the Left, esp. foreign policy-wise, in the Chomsky-esque precincts of left-dom then.
Whatever moral failures we have now, they do not begin to compare with what Walzer was laboring against.
And yet Goldman implies that actually, a lot of those leftist rhetorical stances that Walzer regarded as moral failures were prescient insights!
Now, first of all, this screws up his parallel. It amounts to saying that the only thing his blog is really borrowing from Walzer is the title, the better to turn it against bad conservatism-ruining Neo-Cons who welcomed Walzer’s essay.
Second of all, we cannot learn a blithering thing about what we should do in Afghanistan now, or what we should have done three years ago, from the auto-pilot leftoid denunciations of the initial Afghan war.
Or maybe I’m making it too-Afghanistan focused, for here’s what Samuel says: “After a decade of futile war, the question is not whether the Left should overcome its resistance to a militarized foreign policy and the national-security state that is inseparable from it. On the contrary, many of the criticisms that Walzer dismissed as indecent look awfully prescient.”
Well, maybe there were some leftist anti-war types who made such a case in a responsible and charitable way in November 2001, but those were not the ones Walzer primarily wrote the essay against.
Or just what element of the overall Noam Chomsky analysis of a) the causes of 9-11, b) the initial Afghan war, and c) the larger war on terror, was PRESCIENT? Which pages of Chomsky’s corpus provide the antidote to right-wing (and Walzer-wing!) indeceny?
Or, when Bush was making his apparently “futile” decision in 2006-7 to keep fighting in Iraq and do the surge, a decision which may well have prevented genocidal civil war but which in any case did work for our pressing short-run purposes of avoiding outright defeat, just which element of Chomskyism should he have been meditating upon? Or was it Negri and Hardt that he needed to ponder?
So I look forward much more to Goldman’s sketches of what good conservative positions will look like in “foreign policy, economics, and culture,” than this borderline indecent rhetorical sop to the AmCon folks.
And, I’d much, much, much rather talk about Jim’s essay.
May 15th, 2012 | 6:10 pm
Carl, Please do not be nice because when you’re not, you’re spot on. Exactly who was prescient back in 2002? Chomsky, Hardt and Negri, et al.?
I thought the analogy between decent and indecent lefties on the one hand, and decent and indecent conservatives was inapt. That’s why I provided a few minor details from Walzer’s essay that Sam did not. You’re probably correct–Sam may have just taken the title
It is also true that the AmCon folks sure like their sops–as the recent review of Gottfried’s book on Strauss shows.
Like you, I’d rather talk about Jim’s essay, and I thought Sam’s quick usage of the term “American exceptionalism” fit into the standard academic (and confused) version of exceptionalism that Jim dissects.
So my title was posed as a real question whether a decent American Right can embrace American exceptionalism? And if so, which kind?
I was being nice when I posted this because Sam was nice enough to link to this blog as a version of decent conservatism. I always enjoyed his contributions here, and I like to think that my friends here are not indecent.
However, while it is a good thing, I’m not so sure decency is always the best thing.
May 15th, 2012 | 6:49 pm
Goldman defines American exceptionalism as the doctrine that “all that the United States does is good, and all the good that is done has its source in the United States.” Has any one of consequence ever advocated such idiocy? Who, exactly, is Goldman talking about?
May 15th, 2012 | 7:10 pm
Good catch djf. He may have just been trying to be provocative, but the article is silly. Goldman writes “many of the criticisms that Walzer dismissed as indecent look awfully prescient.”
Well, let’s look at the specific “criticisms” that Walzer dismissed in that short article on whether theyre could be a decent left. I can only find one.
“A few left academics have tried to figure out how many civilians actually died in Afghanistan, aiming at as high a figure as possible, on the assumption, apparently, that if the number is greater than the number of people killed in the Towers, the war is unjust.”
What is “prescient” about that?
May 15th, 2012 | 8:05 pm
djf, In much of the critical (primarily leftist) rhetoric surrounding American foreign policy, you often hear such assertions that “American imperialism” is based on a long standing belief that America is everywhere and always a force for the good. This belief, it is claimed, is demonstrative of a belief in American exceptionalism, which these critics view as a bad thing.
In fact, perhaps due to parts of my education in the wilderness of American Studies, I had never heard a conservative use the term American exceptionalism (but then again, I never heard a conservative say anything!). Rather, in my experience it was always leftist critics of the US who employed the term as one that opened American policy and belief to unending critique, if not ridicule and derision.
As Ceaser points out, neither Winthrop, Tocqueville nor Reagan ever used the term. To which I might add, neither did Crevecoeur, Jefferson, Paine, Emerson, Lincoln, Wilson, etc. But for my professors, American exceptionalism was always there to provide an explanation for an alleged American millenarian narcissism that justified any and all American sins. To be sure, my professors would then call upon the wisdom of Faulkner, and the notion of the “second fall,” as a way to use a Southern and generally conservative trope for a largely leftist critique of America.
Exceptionalism was therefore an abstract term of critique. It either meant that America was ideologically immune to revolution as in Max Lerner–as Ceaser claims was the first to use it academically–and the so-called consensus school of historians of the liberal tradition in America a la Hartz. Or it meant, as Ceaser also points out Jay Lovestone’s usage of of the term in the 1920s, that the reality of revolution would be “slightly delayed” in America. Either way, to the leftitst critics–and my professors who admired them–American exceptionalism, whether understood as ideology or reality, foreclosed the possibility of radical politics.
Perhaps this rhetoric simply looks to Ernest Lee Tuveson’s book title–Redeemer Nation–and projects all the back to the Puritan fathers and up to the current war in Afghanistan. Much of this is simply fiery (and dubious) rhetoric, and none of it makes the fine distinctions of kinds of exceptionalism that Ceaser makes in his article–like distinctions between political, philosophical and theological versions found in the Puritans, the political science of the founders, the Bancroft/Hegelian school, and the Darwinian school.
At least since the 1960s several left polemicists, such as Chomsky, have taken a critical tone with respect to American exceptionalism that elides and confuses Ceaser’s distinctions in their critiques of US policy. Michael Parenti has a book called The Sword and the Dollar where he claims American “imperialism” has been justified on the basis of a “superpatriotism” in regard to American exceptionalism (to borrow from the title of another of his books). A writer named Mel Gurtov wrote a book called Superpower on Crusade–i.e., the usage of American military force is a religious mission in the name of imperialism. Etc., etc.
Needless to say, I had encountered more measured accounts of American exceptionalism such as Seymour Martin Lipset’s book, or even by implication, in Ceaser’s Reconstructing America. But I had never heard conservatives defend it as a term descriptive of the truth of the US, until the 2000s. I thought the whole thing was rather strange. So Ceaser’s article really helps to clarify the issue–at least for me.
May 16th, 2012 | 5:25 am
“all that the United States does is good, and all the good that is done has its source in the United States.” Has any one of consequence ever advocated such idiocy?
Yes, In fact most folks of consequence advocate such idiocy, whenever they can sell it. They are persons of consequence by virtue of being able to sell idiocy.
The more important question is if anyone of consequence has ever bought into the bull shit.
Again, I think the answer is yes.
Lets simplify: “All that X does is good, and all the good that is done is done by X.”
In terms of branding or trademark, that is exactly where you want to be. “Rich as Croesus” when it comes to “goodwill”.
Is America so different an adjective from Nike? So different from “Jordan” (A brand that still causes folks to trample each other at the mall to pay $180 for a pair of shoes?)
It is neither silly nor provocative. That “ideology of American Exceptionalism” basically means trademark good will, or brand image. It is the holy grail, it is priceing power. Moreover the brand differs from Marine Corps to Army to Navy to Airforce. To some extent the “ideology of American Exceptionalism” is not hypothetical but resides in the Marine Corps Hymn.
In an important respect “American Exceptionalism” is a trademark a brand or an ideology that is “good will”. Obviously the State Department works to increase this goodwill, Consular’s do almost nothing else. The government is always trying to build up good will, and for the most part “conservatives” and “liberals” are trying to tear it down(albeit different aspects) On a trademark basis it makes no sense to say that “american exceptionalism” is uniquely conservative or liberal. Each side tries to puff its government programs, and the Libertarians try to undermine them.
Some versions of American Exceptionalism argue that the larger system of checks and ballances that pit the liberal, conservative and libertarians against each other, insure that the “good will” is kept in hand or well ballanced. The opposition will force answers, and prevent these bubbles of hubris.
John Presnal is shocked: “But I had never heard conservatives defend it as a term descriptive of the truth of the US, until the 2000s.”
Yes well that is because of September 11th, but if you studied Marine Corps mythology it isn’t a new concept.
Contra Pete Spilankos I also advocate a form of American Exceptionalism vis a vis the deficit situation. That is in my opinion the fact that the Federal Reserve has a dual mandate to control inflation and fight unemployment is significant, the fact that the ECB only fights inflation is significant. The fact that the ECB is structured as a corporation is significant. The fact that the U.S. is monetarily sovereign is significant. The fact that Greece is not is significant.
Any difference between the U.S. and Europe is
potentially significant. Potential grounds for American exceptionalism vis a vis the other country.
May 16th, 2012 | 10:42 am
John Presnall, I wasn’t questioning whether anyone ever advocated American exceptionalism, but whether anyone ever advocated American exceptionalism under the particular definition assigned to that term by Mr. Goldman.
Having quickly scanned John Lewis’s comment, I note that he fails to identify any particular person who advocated “exceptionalism” under Goldman’s straw-man definition.
May 16th, 2012 | 11:42 am
djf, I agree. I don’t think anyone has ever advocated in favor American exceptionalism under Goldman’s definition because those who have deployed the term in the past were always using it critically–whether they used it under Goldman’s straw man definition, or under more nuanced definitions.
As an explanatory TERM of academic and critical coinage I’m not sure anyone has ever advocated for American exceptionalism simply, even if it were more complexly understood.
That is no one advocated it as a term describing American reality and belief until the 2000s. Unfortunately for its own sake, American exceptionalism quickly became a bromide, testimonial to another instance of allowing one’s enemies to give a name to one’s own cause.
If it is to be used in defense of the cause of difference and specialness of the US and its larger mission, that is fine by me. Nonetheless, it’s advocacy still depends on what ways the US is truly exceptional. What is it about America that one holds to be both different and special? And different and special as compared to what? What is it about about one’s own that is worthy of defense as being better than the others?
May 16th, 2012 | 12:17 pm
John Presnall, I think you and I are in agreement. The adoption by conservatives of the term “American exceptionalism” is an unfortunate example of our allowing the opposition to name our own cause (like, on a less consequential level, our acquiescence in the leftist media’s self-serving “red/blue” nomenclature). What is more important is determining in what ways America is (or, more likely, was) unique in connecting its national identity to a particular set of political and social principles and structures.
May 16th, 2012 | 12:46 pm
To my previous comment, I would add that part of America’s claimed uniqueness is that its characteristic (or formerly characteristic) political/social principles and structures are somehow objectively the best for any human society as such, even if not presently acheivable in many or most societies (here, Iraq and Afghanistan, inter alia, come to mind). This is the part of “American exceptionalism” (as the term is currently used by conservatives, e.g., Romney) that the Left (here and elsewhere) finds most objectionable.
May 16th, 2012 | 10:00 pm
1) I am not exactly the Phosita for your TERM.
2) I could agree with you, but that would be less interesting, also less productive since if I am missing out on nuance how can I possibly agree or disagree on the same terms?
3) Lets agree that Romney’s comments on American Exceptionalism are rather flat and ludicrous. When you have a billion dollars you are pot commited to a certain sense of finding perfect justice and ballance in the status quo. Yes of course our principles and structures are “somehow objectively the best” for any human society as such! Oh and one can skip distinguishing American exceptionalism from Massachusets exceptionalism…You know that whole argument for why RomneyCare is constitutional or best policy for Mass but not for the U.S. But I suppose Romney is targeting an even lower level Phosita.
4) I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think you are getting Goldman right.
Goldman says: “Rather, it is the ideology of “American exceptionalism” according to which all that the United States does is good, and all the good that is done has its source in the United States.”
John Presnal says: “I don’t think anyone has ever advocated in favor American exceptionalism under Goldman’s definition…under Goldman’s straw man definition.”
Objection on the grounds that your use of TERM points to a sophisticated Phosita, and the fact that Romney himself deploys a less sophisticated usage.
djf wants me to name an advocate: Sgt. Mack, U.S. Army for one. Albeit it was a functionally irrelevant because he was not a policy maker, but it was more about ethos. Personally myself to a colorable extent, at least aspirationally I wanted to act as if the U.S. was always right, and the mission was good. Do I think this was the actual case, No. Probably a massive waste of taxpayer money, but I think the attitude was pervasive to an extent sufficient to boarder upon “strawman” land.
You object: Your Phosita is so unsophisticated, he probably watched ESPN and Larry the Cable Guy.
My Counter: Goldman said “ideology”, the actual Phosita for an ideology is less sophisticated. Also it is an assumption which begs the relevance/question of sophisticated advocates, and the role they play in forming ideology. I don’t see why September 11th the event in combination with music (see Toby Keith-Courtesy of the Red White and Blue) couldn’t have generated “all that the United States does is good, and all the good that is done has its source in the United States.”
Look I majored in philosophy, but I played Football(watch Friday Night Lights) and I was “there”(Iraq) man. I don’t know what the technical difference between an ethos and an ideology is, like “american exceptionalism” all the words I use to speak have potential variations in meaning. But not only do I think this ideology was present at various times and in different levels of strength, I know it was. In addition Goldman put “American Exceptionalism”(in scare quotes), this by my conventions signals a loose and broad interpretation, one that is capable of being scaled. All this augurs for a looser definition of the target phosita, in favor of actors like Sgt. Mack, and an ideology that was actually in the culture and peaking rather than esoteric.
You win your argument by narrowing the scope of “advocating”, but you clearly narrow it too much eroneously, unless you believe that events like September 11th, music, national mood, military ethos development are insignificant to ideology.
May 17th, 2012 | 6:55 am
Mr. Lewis, You are correct that 9/11 led to a great surge in patriotism and to a spirited defense of America which included strong use of military force. After 9/11 this patriotism and spiritedness led to claims that the US has a world historical mission, and perhaps even an important role in furthering providential design. At different times and by different spokesmen, it was stated clumsily or in an overwrought manner, but also with more nuance and thoughtfulness. In terms of American political rhetoric, there was nothing particularly new going on here, even if the circumstances were new and the stakes were high.
The critics of this post 9/11 mood and policy–of this reality and belief (from music to military ethos to policy)–called it another example of American exceptionalism, a term such critics have historically deployed for that which they do not like in American policy and belief. For whatever reason, the defenders of this policy took the term for themselves to define their cause, and began offering a defense of it so defined.
This is fine by me, but I’m not sure American exceptionalism clarifies the issues at hand, but Mr. Ceaser’s article is instructive of the various meanings of reality that this terms purports to explain.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact