Here is where the mangling, distortion, and shapeshifting of language deceives us, and alters the basic discourse. ""American exceptionalism" morphed too easily into a rhetorical justification for what George Soros apty terms "Supremist America." The applications of descriptives are critical.

Exceptionalism in terms of providing equality in and access to economic, political and social opportunties entirely diffenent and nobler application or use of the term, than the Bush government current mangling of Exceptionalism as a fundamentalist, indeed fascist assertion of a supremist ideology.

Any discourse along these lines must consider and carefully mark the astronomical divides and disconnects between the academic and rhetorical definitions, and the actual practical real world applications of these terms and ideologies.

For example, all the notable American social revolutions, or achievements; from independence, to ending slavery, to federal enforcement of labor rights, womans rights, civil and minority rights, and protections, to the tsunami of social resistance to the Viet Nam war, - were born, cultivated, and brought to fruition in the streets, through protests, violent upheavals and clashes with the ruling regimes, by the people en masse, - and the political system itself, and the politicians were only instruments, or mechanism that were forced to provide the legal, judicial, and governmental framework and structures realizing these social, cultural, and societal demands.

Governments and industries do not promote or advance the rights, protections, freedoms, privileges, or best interests of the people unless forced to by the people themselves through the processes of democracy.

The concept of American exceptionalism is moot, irrelevent, and hollow unless, and until the government truly derives it's power and authority from the consent of the governed.

The Bush panjandrum perverts and betrays America's core principles advancing Supremist America, not American exceptionalism

As a Democrat, I love getting lectured by David Brooks about what the Democrats are or are not.

Why oh why do I read his column every Sunday??? 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

"The question is how can we become a nation of true opportunity without the state making certain interventions?"

This is really the heart of the matter. Brooks's dichotomy between opportunity and equality is false.

When it comes to entrepreneurship, for example -- a quintessentially American endeavor -- how can people take risks without a safety net?

And isn't it a lot harder to find a good job when your education was subpar and, in any event, there are no decent workplaces in your area and buying a car is out of the question?

Don't small businesses have less opportunity to make their mark when huge corporations can do pretty much whatever they want and anti-trust laws aren't enforced?

For that matter, don't workers have less opportunity to earn good wages and working conditions when they have no say over how their workplace is run -- that is, when they're not unionized?

Most folks on the left aren't interested in mandating equality for its own sake. We talk about inequality because it points to the real problem: that some can and some can't, and that's not fair. And that's pretty much what the fight for opportunity is about.

I think the term ’American Excepionalism is significantly different from say“America’s Exceptionalism”.

When I think of American Exceptionalism I think of the American people and their characteristics rather than their government or the American system, characteristics such as the “Protestant work ethic” . Is this an example of an ethic which makes Americans stand out in the world? Are Americans really exceptional for having this ethic to the degree that they do?

Two anecdotes referring to American Exceptionalism in regard to work and productivity.

While traveling and doing some volunteer work in Nicaragua in 1985 I met many Europeans who were there as part of volunteer work “brigades” as they were called. The individual volunteers were called Brigadistas. As a group they were very politically aware from a Eurocentric point of view and fairly idealistic. They were there to help the Sandinista so they were critical of the US. Only a few brigades existed from the US and I was never around one.

One morning at breakfast in Managua at a little place near the “El Chepito” an English guy told me the following story.

He started out by saying that they paid a great deal of attention at home to US politics and wondered how a country could even function that would elect the likes of Reagan and which had such stupid and counterproductive policies. Then he told me that he had worked for months on a small hydro-electric project up near Jinotega. He said that one day an American group showed up, introduced themselves, looked around, rolled up their sleeves, and went to work. The next thing he knew the job was done. He said the Americans then threw a party where everyone got stinking drunk and all became friends. The next morning before the English brigade got up and started nursing their hangovers the Americans had moved on to their next project and word was that they had done the same on that one.
That English guy said that everyone involved had a new opinion of Americans and was tremendously impressed with their “get -it-done” attitude and ability.

By the way, I use “American” as shorthand for United States of America citizen with an awareness that many South and Central Americans have told me that they were “American” too.

The other story is from a Norwegian I knew for about six months at Culebra, Puerto Rico, named Peter Tangvald. He told of working at a yacht factory in Taiwan. He said the Taiwanese were great workers but a great problem the company had in quality control was the workers smuggling in counterfeit hardware, screws and bolts of low metal quality, and substituting them for the good stuff which they would then resale for a profit. They were that low paid as to make the practice worth the risk to them.

The factory did show a good profit one year and the workers were given what they considered a very good bonus. The most extravagant purchase he knew of was the purchase of new bicycles by a few employees. They were criticized by their fellow employees for not investing the money. My friend said he didn’t know how we could ever compete with the Chinese.

There are other ways to be exceptional besides productivity but in that particular case “Exceptionalism” seems nuanced and relative.

The whole idea that there can be anything like real "equality of opportunity" in a society that lacks a consistent prior commitment to equality of outcome is just ridiculous. It's a fatuous myth Americans tell themselves to avoid confronting the fact that they live in a society based on institutionalized predation and exploitation up and down the economic food chain.

Wealth is power. To possess wealth is to possess control over the objects of human desire; and if you control what people desire, you control people. In a society with significant wealth differentials, the wealthy will always control the government, and they will always use the government they control to accumulate even more wealth - for themselves and for their progeny and social peers.

The oppotunities possessed by a young person, in America or anywhere else, are those provided by the families, communities and social networks into which they were born. In the aggregate, the level of opportunity is directly proportional to the wealth poossessed within those social structures. Of course there are many individual exceptions to the general rule. Some exceptional parents and communities are able to provide opportunities that wealth can't buy; and some exceptional individuals manage to "beat the odds" despite meager opportunities. But these are the exceptional cases. Although we love to entertain ourselves and console ourselves with stories about little guys who beat the odds, these stories about isolated heroes only distract us from the untold numbers of those who didn't beat the odds, but ended up more or less in precisely the place where one would have predicted based on their economic class and social surroundings.

To have a society with even a semblance of true equality of opportunity it is necessary (i) to prevent great disparities in wealth from occuring in the first place by regulating the marketplace for human work and exercising democratic political control over compensation for work and transfers of wealth, and (ii) to confiscate some of the preposterous superfluities of wealth that the few sometimes accumulate, and invest them in building opportunities for the many.

A mere "safety net" does not provide equality of opportunity. A tight rope walker does not have the same opportunities for movement as the owner of a helicopter, even if the tight rope walker manages to bounce on the "safety net" each time they fall off. A safety net is better than a concrete pavement, but it's not sufficient for equality of opportunity.

It is also foolish to imagine that one can have a society that is "democratic" in any serious sense if that society exhibits great disparities in wealth and power. Again, wealth purchases control over the actions of governments. But even if the actions of government were equally responsive to the will of each citizen, high or low, very few of the choices that influence the direction of society are made by voting. Those governing choices are made by many individuals acting outside the framework of the institutionalized "government". For a people to constitute a democratic society - to be self-governing and sovereign, to collective guide their society and determine its future, and to participate equally in that work of governance - their decisions must count roughly equally. If a man in a board room can routinely make decisions that impact the lives of everyone in the society even more than any of the decisions made by the nominal "government", then the society is not democratic.

Perfect equality is unachievable, in part because equality is an inherently unstable situation. Human beings naturally tend to struggle and strive with one another, work to differentiate themselves and to grasp the largest share of goods they can get their hands on. Left unchecked by law and organized community power, human activity tends rapidly in the direction of struggle, aggression, conquest and inequality. We wouldn't want to eliminate all this striving and competition entirely, because we benefit from the regulated, competitive pursuit of excellence and achievement. But a society that values equality and democratic governance must exercise an eternal vigilence against the despotism of the wealthy by building institutional rules which check these natural tendencies toward inequality, and by keeping a wary eye on those who manage to amass large fortunes despite these rules.

The only way to have equality of outcome is to reduce freedom. If you are going to have freedom of choice of action of risk taking you will inevitably end up with an inequality of outcome.

Just as all big states did not share one political outlook and small states another wealth does not determine political outcome either. Therefore, it does not follow that wealth, by itself, determines whether there is a real democracy or not. WWI demonstrated to the sorrow of Marxists that nationalism not class really determined people's allegiances.

Founders of America did not create a democracy but a democratic republic partially so those more numerous but with less wealth could not use the levers of government to take away the weath of others. Through the years there been an agreement to allow the government to somewhat help in the redistribution of wealth. Bush has gone way the other way in favoring the "coupon clipping" class over those who earn their living.

It is not at all clear how outside of a totalitarian state one would could create a equality of outcomes in any society. How would you allocate jobs and incomes? What would you do with the entrepenurial class and the risk takers who will only act if their is adequate reward.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Opportunity is based on an economic theory where decisions and transactions are made in a social void by self-interested rational agents. And in our culture, equality is generally a social disguise to cover up the failures of the market place.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

right, but today we suffer from the hangover of "global warming," "polluted oceans," "reduced habitat," "mammal extinction," "genetic pollution," "water pollution," "top-soil loss," etc...

Even though George Bush will be (based on rumors) mentioning Kyoto Support in his state of the union, today's Kyoto signers, like Spain, haven't kept their promises.

The bible uses a great metaphor about man: "they're like locusts."

Political aims, of course, reflect "resource availability" at the time and, in the past, I think the government's benevolence was aimed at "job creation," since there were millions of "abled hands." As these "baby boomers retire," however, the government will need to convince the young people to change "adult diapers." At least, that's what I think the boomers hope "progressive politics" means.

Funny how the US is faulted for lack of opportunity, at a time when we have seen an enormous redistribution of wealth. At the end of WWII essentially all wealth in the US was controlled by WASPs. That era is long gone. I wish I had the numbers to cinch the case, but I don't. But, I suspect that the "numbers" may not convince anyone, as everyone's views are ideological, rather than fact based.

It would be interesting to know what "real wealth" is. Today, you can pay $300,000 for a two bedroom codo which basically means you pay both higher taxes and a supersized rent.

when Stirling Newberry used to post in these parts, he reminded people that-- and I hope that I'm interpretting him correctly-- when you buy stocks, you only own assets indirectly. My financial advisor, for example, has a Northwest Airline stock certificate hanging on the wall because it's worthless. Specifically, under the bankruptcy procedings, assets typically don't go to the share holders...

our economy is based on paper money, so how would anyone determine equality? I think we'd need the gold standard so we knew what part of a fixed asset we had. As Stirling used to note, we have an inflationary economy so, when the government can't pay off it's debt, it prints money and pays them off with inflated money.

equality is really measured when you try to spend your dollars and actually get, or not, what you need, like health care.

The Dems have tried to say "equality means everyone has health insurance" even though the ability to pay copays, deductibles and "part of the insurance costs" redistributes the premiums to the wealthy since they can afford the copays and deductibles and can, therefore, actually use the insurance.

I saw all of this because when you work out your numbers, how much "useless wealth" are people given? i.e. money that is inflated away, stock market capitalization that can't be realized or health insurance that you can't afford to use, etc...

Anytime anyone mentions socalled "free markets", I immediately dismiss all that follows because in practical reality there are no free markets. There are crony capitalist markets, and closed markets, - but there is no such thing as a free market in the modern world, anywhere in any capacity.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
*who has personally seen, with his own eyes, the Running Dogs of Wall Street*

Borh points take hcberkowitz. It would appear you and I are in total agreement that there is no such thing as socalled "free markets", and in the necessity of "destroying a cherished illusion of right wingnutters, who keep saying "let the market decide".

With regard to pejorative descriptions of the Bush government, I respect your opinion and the appreciate the comparison, - but my hope and single intent is to frame the Bush government in the most accurate terms and potent language I can muster, and to unravel, unmask, an de-pants the grotesque fictions and patent lies describing the Bush government as "compassionate, law abiding, bold and decisive, christians promoting liberty, democracy, or harboring the slightest glimmer of concern for the peoples rights, freedoms, protections, security, prosperity, or best interests.

These hilarious partisan inverted descriptions are as patently false as the delusional construct of American exceptionalism, freedom on the march, making progress in Iraq, the birth pangs of the new ME, and god speaking to Bush in the WH. Sloganeers and disinformation warriors, (and Brooks by the way is one of the most insidious) pen wildly inaccurate exaggerations, partisan propaganda, and patent lies. My terms while incendiary, are accurate.

Fascist warmongers and profiteers may upset your, and no doubt others civil sensibilities, - but I would challenge you to look up each word, and examine the context in which I use them, - and tell me with honesty and sincerity that each term is not accurate, justifiable, and perfectly applicable in best describing the individuals and policies of the Bush government.

Let me preface with a historical context. The idea of the leader-state generally originates, in modern terms, with Hegel and Nietzsche. Again in modern use, the term "fascist" was adopted by an Italian movement. Naziism shares a significant number of characteristics with that definition, although there are variations.

Using the leader-state definition more in the focus of means of government and ideas of civil liberties, most Soviet governments until Gorbachev reasonably fit under a broader definition of totalitarianism. Militarist Japan, with unique characteristics, also fit.

With honesty and sincerity, I believe that the terms fascist and warmonger are neither accurate, nor justifiable, nor applicable to the Bush government. "Profiteer" is a sufficiently vague term such that I can't judge.

Looking at the PNAC ideology, I would certainly accept hegemonic, and I'd listen respectfully to an argument for imperialism -- especially as the Bush administration's actions are perceived in former colonies. Much as I protest violations of civil liberties by the Bush administration, I do not see them rising to anywhere near the level of the aforementioned totalitarian governments. That this conversation is taking place argues against a fascist system, much as Pat Robertson or Dick Cheney might like one.

Frankly, I find "warmonger" a rather vague term. I do not reject the use of military force, and certainly the threat of it, as part of the range of options for enforcing a rational national policy. I agree that the "GWOT" is somewhat analogous to an Orwellian concept, but it is more an idea of thoughtcrime than general war.

Incendiary rhetoric, in my experience, may be useful for mobilizing True Believers, but it is counterproductive in reaching to a broader audience. If you were to "de-pants" the administration with cold, sober analysis of specific acts, rather than with incendiary adjectives of no specific referents, I believe you would get farther.

"Fascist" is not useful in the courts, nor would it be accepted within Congressional rules. I look for terminology that can be applied within the system that continues to exist, in spite of the Administration and, if you would care for a term at least mildly incendiary, its sycophantic and opportunistic toadies.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Without any question, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Crying "wolf", however, may obscure the real threat.

In the meantime, I see precise definitions and examples, which can carry into the courts, the legislative process, and lobbying as having more power than inflammatory rhetoric. The more the Bush administration overreaches, the more Constitutional mechanisms come into play. While I'm not yet ready to go for impeachment, it will be far easier to get censure, and drive Republicans further from the White House.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

If you were to "de-pants" the administration with cold, sober analysis of specific acts, rather than with incendiary adjectives of no specific referents, I believe you would get farther.

You don't think this has already been done, Howard? Or isn't constantly being done? Albeit, not by anyone as important and serious as David Brooks, or Fred Hiatt, etc.

THE PRESIDENT, in an interview given to 60 Minutes’ Scott Pelley, January 14, 2007:

The minute we found out they didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, I was the first to say so. Scott, all I can do is just tell the truth, tell people exactly what’s on my mind, which is what I do.

Is this de-pantsing?

THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. […] But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them. [May 29, 2003.]

H/T to Sadly, No!

Looking at the PNAC ideology, I would certainly accept hegemonic, and I'd listen respectfully to an argument for imperialism.

And hegemonic and imperialism go hand-in-hand with fascism and militarism, some would argue.

I think that MLK Jr noted that militarism, poverty and racism go hand-in-hand and Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival" also makes a case that US hegemony and imperialism is both fascist and militeristic.

How else can one country impose their will on another without force? or threat of force?

In fact, we can remember that the 50 years after the election of FDR were the the decades in which the US was BOTH the dominant economic superpower AND the engine of growth for a broad based middle class.
*******************************************

Frankly the US only became the dominant economic superpower after WWII when the other economic powers were either bankrupt (UK) or destroyed by the war (Germany, Japan, and the rest of Europe). It's not clear how well FDR's policies would have done without the war to wipe the slate clean and take out most competition to the US economy. It certainly had mixed results here before the war started

I really don't mind Bill Gates or the very small number of people like him. What I do mind are the legion of mediocre and often quite incompetent CEOs who think they too deserve Bill Gates' income (and get it) even when they drive their companies into the ground. "Pay for performance" and "Meritocracy" are the battle cry of the right-- except when it comes to those at the top (inclduing politicians) who are never to be judged by any lesser mortal.