America: Are We Really that Exceptional?
BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE
America: Are We Really that Exceptional?
Well, there's that arrogant, xenophobic, and divisive phrase again - "American Exceptionalism."
President Obama is being roundly criticized by many conservatives for refusing to go around the world promoting the conservative vision of American superiority. Their shortsighted idea of effective American diplomacy is for the President of the United States to trot around the globe telling the people of the world that we're better than they are.
Liz Cheney, the daughter of the former vice president, has been all over the media complaining that "We've now seen several different occasions where he's [Obama] been on international trips where he's not willing to say, flat out, 'I believe in American exceptionalism.'"
I expect such nonsense from GOP demagogues - they consider the Republican rank and file stupid, so they say whatever comes to mind to appeal to their unthinking emotions. But now I find that thoughtful conservatives have bought into this ridiculous concept, and frankly, I find it not only shocking, but frightening, how easily the minds of highly intelligent people can be manipulated through their emotions. It goes a long way towards explaining how millions of God-fearing German people could just stand in silence while Hitler carried out the holocaust.
Ari Noonan stated the following in his article, The President's Difficult Relationship with His People at Home:
"Consider that President Obama, the most powerful multiculturalist in the history of the world, truly believes that the United States did not have a manifest destiny, that we are no better, no worse, the utter equal, of Bulgaria, Cuba, Hungary, Venezuela, Belgium -- pick any land on the globe.
"I couldn't believe that I was reading anyone in the 21st Century actually glorifying the manifest destiny. I thought the doctrine of Manifest Destiny was discredited in the 19th Century. If it is indeed possible for us to still have people among us who actually believe that it was God's will for Europeans to come to America and slaughter an entire civilization of people because he wanted the Europeans to have the land, then the horrors of the holocaust is far from behind us, and another one is just waiting in the wings for the next demagogue.
While I love this country, I love it in spite of its shortcomings. I love it because of its potential - because of the vision of its founding fathers, and the documents that they left behind outlining the American ideal. But I am under no illusions. America has never lived up to those ideals, and I have a fundamental problem with anyone who says it has.
The doctrine of Manifest Destiny is, in fact, the most profound argument against American exceptionalism. What took place as a direct result of that doctrine clearly documents that America has been any and everything but exceptional.
The only way that one can believe in American exceptionalism is to view the missteps of every other country in the world through a magnifying glass, while turning a blind eye to all the atrocities against humanity that the United States has committed. The fact is, America has committed more atrocities against mankind in its short 233 year history, than it took many other countries millennia to accomplish.
For example, while we demonize Nazi Germany for the extermination of 6 million Jews, we have very little to say about the 8 million Native Americans that the United States exterminated just to establish the nation. The fact is, the Nazis' could have taken a lesson from the United States, because there is still a thriving Jewish culture left, while the Native Americans have been all but wiped out as a people.
Then there's the issue of slavery. American slavery was one the most brutal atrocities of one culture against another in the entire history of mankind. The effects of slavery are still being felt by the families of its victims close to 150 years after it came to an end.
Then there was the Jim Crow environment that took place once slavery ended. Even in my lifetime, I remember standing up in school reciting the Pledge of Allegiance - 'One nation under God with Liberty and JUSTICE for all' - even as children younger than myself were being blown up in church, and people in the South were bringing picnic baskets to watch Black men being tortured and lynched in the town square after church.
Then there was the humiliation of Black war heroes. The Tuskegee Airman were among the most effective fighter pilots during WWII. They never lost one bomber that they were charged with escorting across enemy lines. At first the White Bomber crews refused to fly with them, but by the end of the war, those same White crews said that they didn't want anyone else to escort them to their targets - they wanted to make sure they got home safely. But after the war, as these Black heroes traveled by train through the South, they were forced to give up their seats to Nazi Prisoners of war.
Then there's the issue of terrorism. While we maintain that terrorism is when a malevolent group kills innocent noncombatants for political purposes, we turn a blind eye to the fact that we dropped not one, but two atomic bombs on the innocent men, women, and children of Japan. We try to justify by saying that it saved thousands of American lives. The only problem with that argument is that it suggests that terrorism is justified under certain conditions.
Then when we consider the millions of people that we killed, mutilated, and displaced in Vietnam, then during "Shock and Awe" (translated: terrorism), when we invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq for no other reason than monetary gain and a photo op, by our own definition, we're the most prolific terrorist state in the history of mankind.
The only difference between the United States terror under George W. Bush and Al Qaeda terrorist is that we have a more efficient delivery system. We've made Hitler look like a wannabe. The only difference between Hitler and what the United States has done over the years is that the people Hitler killed were White, so it was considered horrendous.
So tell me about American exceptionalism, but pay no attention to my gritting teeth, because by telling me that America is exceptional, you're also telling me that the annihilation of Native Americans, the brutal enslavement of African Americans, the killing of Black children in church, the lynching Black citizens, the humiliation of Black American war heroes, the incineration of Japanese men, women, and children, and the slaughter of millions in Vietnam and Iraq should all be fluffed off as simply, growing pains.
Yes, America is exceptional all right - it's been exceptionally brutal in its hypocrisy throughout its short 233 year history. But, believe it or not, I still love this nation. My eyes still grow moist when I hear the Marine Corps hymn. But I certainly don't love what it's been - I love it for what it's striving to become. For that reason, I've dedicated my life to fighting the Cheneys of this world, who yearn for, and even cherish, the illustrious brutality of our past.
Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.
Damn. Yet another stirring and awesome post, Eric. I just love reading your columns. Thanks.
July 14, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, LisB.
July 15, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe in American Exceptionalism; the problem is it's busy right now, fighting two neo-con wars!!!!!
July 14, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
While C-SPAN was cutting in and out the Sotomayor hearing, I noticed the D-George Miller of California on the floor of the House of Reps. paying tribute to African American men of Port Chicago were wrongly charged with mutiny because they refused to go to work after an explosion. The white men were allowed to take time off to collect themselves while black men were expected to be there no matter the danger.
I guess some lives are more expendable than others.
July 14, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact is, the Nazis' could have taken a lesson from the United States...
See the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. This is were eugenics was tested but then perfected in Germany.
July 14, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, so they did take a lesson from us.
Thanks. I'll research that.
July 15, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric - I believe your accusations that we're exceptionally bad are as misguided as any chauvinist claim that we're exceptionally good. Our faults and virtues are not dissimilar from those of other nations, except that they have been magnified by our power. On balance, I'd say tentatively we're probably a little bit better than most, and I say that without disputing the wrongfulness you've attributed to our actions in the past, but merely because we've been better able than some other societies to rectify our transgressions without having the corrections imposed from outside. I suppose then, that if President Obama is comfortable in not professing a belief in our superiority, I'm comfortable with his perspective. It's a huge improvement over past tendencies to lecture others on how to behave.
If anyone has 15 minutes to spend on a powerfully moving short story about a patriot who loves America but is not permitted to ignore its sins, read that old Stephen Vincent Benet tale, - The Devil And Daniel Webster. It's a classic for good reasons.
July 14, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I shouldn't claim you said we're exceptionally bad. I know you didn't, but your emphasis on the evils we've committed could leave some with that impression.
July 14, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, sometimes when we pump up our chests so much with this "America is the best" thing we can convince ourselves that anything we do is good because we're US. I appreciate the necessary deflations now and then. And I think Wattree did a fine job here. Eloquent and heartbreakingly honest. It's a good thing. GWB/Cheney could have taken lessons. . .
We don't need to be perfect to be good.
July 14, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ramona - I don't disagree with your main point. On the other hand, what I wrote was motivated by slight disappointment that Eric's article, which I thought began so eloquently, stepped over the line at the point he stated, "The fact is, America has committed more atrocities against mankind in its short 233 year history, than it took many other countries millennia to accomplish."
The catalog that followed described those sins in a manner designed to put them in the worst possible light in comparison with the analogous actions Eric cited for other societies, but this is exactly an example in reverse of what unreconstructed chauvinists do. The reason I was disappointed is that arguments of this type tend to turn off readers seeking realistic appraisals. I believe Eric's desire that we appraise our country realistically lost some steam at that point.
I believe it would have been more convincing simply to list the sins of America's past and recent history, without the invidious comparisons.
I was moved by the passion underlying Eric's remarks, and he's certainly more entitled than I to judge the consequences of slavery and segregation. My only regret is that at times, passionate advocacy can be less effective than a description of reality that is all the more devastating because it simply states the facts without using descriptions that seem aimed at telling readers how to respond.
July 14, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, Fred. I tend to agree, and most times that's the way I look at things, but I can appreciate the anger and frustration coming from others, and can't really fault them for expressing it in their own way.
The main point of the post, that America has dirty hands, can't be denied and should be talked about. I applaud any effort to bring it to the forefront so that we can talk about it. For too many years we've pretended that any dissent is un-American. Far from it.
July 15, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, Fred. I'll keep that in mind in the future. One should never push a reader beyond their ability to agree with you.
July 15, 2009 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was hoping that people would understand done to drive my point home.
Ari Noonan, the guy I quoted in the article is the editor of a conservative publication that has started to run my columns. He understood my strategy perfectly - and to my pleasant surprise, my feedback from his conservative readers is about 90% positive.
Ari told me that his wife is liberal - "So I'm not quite there yet, but I'm learnin'."
I told his readers that I'm a progressive, which is neither liberal nor conservative, but one who assesses every issue on its own merit. They seem to be quite receptive to that, which is bad news for the GOP.
July 15, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred,
I can't responsibly challenge anything you've said. People are the same all over the world. Inhumanity is more a matter of circumstance, motive, and opportunity than it is culture.
Every nation and every culture is capable of blind inhumanity. That's why it is so important to immediately repudiate the Cheneys of the world as soon as they open their mouths.
July 15, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liz Cheney, the daughter of the former vice president, has been all over the media complaining that "We've now seen several different occasions where he's [Obama] been on international trips where he's not willing to say, flat out, 'I believe in American exceptionalism.'"
There is an infinite number of things that Obama didn't say on his foreign trips but the only conceivable reason that he didn't take the stage in those countries, and tell the citizens of those countries that Americans are better than them, is that he hates America. It is starting to show. Liz is just pointing it out for the benefit of the "right thinking" folks that look to her and her old man for guidance in these troubling times.
July 14, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody please tell me what we're exceptional at doing anymore? Anything. Really. What do we do better than other industrialized nations? In order to achieve exceptionalism, we first must admit our failings and then we must correct them. We just don't happen to be so good at that either.
July 14, 2009 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Consumption of goods, (and services).
July 14, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're exceptional at pretending we're exceptional. Thus, we'll never learn, never change, never grow. . .
July 15, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's one: Research and development. The digital age, hatchery of the instrument with which you're doodling now, began and was nourished here.
Let's be more honest about ourselves. That would help. We've been forcefed the idea of a Demonic America. That's garbage, folks. In reality, America is no worse - and even sometimes better - than most nations and cultures. Here's a plus: The United States changes. It evolves. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. But what's here today, will be gone tomorrow. Guaranteed.
Something else: It's important, especially now, to stop simply reacting to what the Right says. If the Right says the sky is blue, we'll get a few TPM posts arguing at length that it's right, just and progressive - as well as anti-sexist and inclusive - that the sky remain yellow. Just because the far Right argues a point doesn't mean its invalid; generally, it's the argument's motivation that's toxic.
July 15, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We've been forcefed the idea of a Demonic America."
I don't think that's at all true though there are those that feel that way and I would say they are wrong to characterize our country as demonic.
More often it is true that we are force fed an unrealistic and untrue line wherein our country is presented as being without any flaws and those who point out the obvious truth that we do have flaws are marginalized and said to be "demonizing" America when that's not the case. Those who would argue the opposite of that positon are just as wrong as the advocates of ignoring our shortcomings.
People have to get out of this "either or" mentality. The insistence on neatly categorizing everything into simple good vs bad categories rarely fits any situation outside of mathematics where right and wrong are usually pretty recognizable and nonnegotiable.
America has some serious skeletons in its closet. The American government and American corporate interests are often up to no good both at home and abroad. America and Americans can do better and have a better country than they have. But that improved America can never be reached either by starting from a viewpoint where America is viewed as flawless or starting from a viewpoint that views America as demonic. Like people, our nation has good and bad. Sometimes one outweighs the other. As nations go we are, at best, in our adolescence. Anyone who has ever tried to raise kids knows just how outrageous, difficult, wrong, brilliant, recalcitrant and generally surprising an adolscent can be. That's our country. We have and do both good and bad. Trying to view our country from the overly simplistic standpoint of black and white, good and bad will not produce any enlightenment.
July 15, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liz Cheney, the daughter of the former vice president, has been all over the media complaining that "We've now seen several different occasions where he's [Obama] been on international trips where he's not willing to say, flat out, 'I believe in American exceptionalism.'"
This is another fake and irresponsible bit of Republican demagoguery aimed at raising a few 'huzzahs" from their ever-shrinking fan base. No matter how much they dumb down their message, Republicans keep concluding that their problem is that they have not yet gone dumb enough, and must go even dumber.
Somebody might want to inform these Republican stateswomen and statesmen that the purpose of diplomacy is to induce other countries to behave in ways that advance one's own interests, and that practitioners of the ambassadorial arts have not generally found messages like "We're way more awesome than you!" to be very effective tools of persuasion.
When abroad, Obama expresses his admiration and love for his own country with dignity and tact. Republicans purport to believe he should try chauvinism and bombast instead. But of course they don't really mean it. Young Cheney's complaints are just posturing for the yokels.
This kind of rhetoric is an example of how far the modern Republicans have drifted from the conservatism of their forebears. Many of those ancestors were a more stolid, tempered and unpretentious Protestant lot who tended to believe one did one's best, modestly and self-effacingly, for no other reward but the glory of God, gratefully conscious all the while of the unmerited blessings of divine grace to a sinful and undeserving humanity. The modern "conservative" isn't a conservative at all, but is an ill-bred, ornery and bumptious Jacksonian democrat, an insecure and temperamental bigot who wants his government officials to vent his unattractive insecurity on their trips abroad, in order to demean their hosts and accomplish nothing.
July 15, 2009 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is awesome! I left the Jacksonian out because most folks would not understand the reference, but I think most folks here would. Anywhoo! The tactic The Liz-ard, daughter of the bastard, is promoting is nothing short of being a loud-mouthed bully. It may fool some of the people some of the time, but that time has passed. Now we need something more reality- based.
July 15, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow!
Dan, I wish I'd said that.
July 15, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wattree this is good , really good. Thomas Paine would be proud of you. And as long as we have folks like you not only speaking , but speaking up , we are going to be alright. We are always in a ad hoc war of right against wrong. And it can never be won or lost. But those of us that feel we are on the right side have a duty to show up every day and fight the other side. You showed up and spoke up and you're doing your part very well. The things you say will inspire people to consider otherwise and do the right thing. And you're very brave to address this issue of American pomposity. But I too am very proud to be an American. But I realize that our great American idea is still greater then our American reality and we need to look more to achieve that great American idea. This is a absolutely great post.
July 15, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt that Thomas Paine would be too happy to see what was essentially his argument in favour of a republic so misunderstood by so many people today.
July 15, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like Emma Goldman on this--but she calls it by another name:
The other side of the coin is xenophobia
and there's plenty of fear of the other as well.
There's a further side to exceptionalism--the rules apply to everyone else except use. I demand justice where others are concerned. However, where I'm concerned mercy is far more appropriate.
Thanks for the post.
July 15, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks again, Wattree for this thought provoking post.
It is one thing to stand up for an idea, and another thing to stand up and die for that idea.
Dick Cheney hid behind draft deferments to avoid the chance of dying in VietNam. He sent our friends and relatives to Iraq in harms way for no reason that has been stated to date. And now in his capacity as Coward Emeitus, he hides behind his daughter's skirt. How very fitting.
July 15, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The phrase "American exceptionalism" has been usurped and distorted by the conservatives since WW II.
American exceptionalism as a theory was meant as the supporting argument in favour of a republican government at a time when intellectuals were openly discussing and debating what kind of government we were to have as a nation. It is often forgotten that until the Philadelphia convention, we still were not committed to any one form of government.
Those men who proposed a republic (Paine, Hamilton, Washington, Madison and others) argued that Americans were in a unique and exceptional position - they had no entrenched establishment; no church, no aristocracy, no hereditary monarchy and no class system. Because they were in such an exceptional position they were free to create a new government without the constraints and limitations that other nations had by the establishment. They did not have to consider special privileges and rights that adhered to institutions in a society by virtue of their existence.
After the dismal failure of the French revolution, the argument of American exceptionalism became popular among French intellectuals in rationalizing the failure of the French to succeed in creating a new government. France, it was argued could not create and sustain a republic because the estates of the establishment (clergy, nobility and commoners) were too powerful and jealous of their own prerogatives and unwilling to give up those privileges that would be necessary in a republic. Americans, they argued, were not constrained or inhibited by those estates and thus were exceptional.
It is truly a shame that this intellectual argument which provided the framework upon which we would build a republic, has been so misunderstood and mistated over so many decades. It was a source of pride, although not in the same sense it is today. It was a source of pride that Americans at the time recognized the opportunity and uniqueness offered by this exceptionalism and created something new - a democratic republic. It was never meant to convey the meaning that Americans themselves were unique and privileged among all other peoples, in fact, it was quite the opposite - it was meant to convey the exceptional situation that ordinary people found themselves in and were able to create a government for ordinary people, without exceptions; no privileges and rights stemming from place, birth or order of birth. Too bad.
July 15, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The phrase "American exceptionalism" has been usurped and distorted by the conservatives since WW II
I agree. It used to be a liberal thing. And not neo-liberal either, more on the isolationist side, it used to follow Washington's Farewell Address example--not to mention Emma Lazarus's poem on the Statue of Liberty--by example, rather than by meddling, the country would be a beacon to the rest of the world's nations on how to do things. (It went along with the idea of not wanting to be involved in WWII until attacked, and where we went off the rails is by getting involved in WWI and some of TR's adventures.)
Eric stresses the terrible negative sides of the whole manifest destiny thing as it actually played out, but as horrible as they were, one can't avoid that there was a positive side as to ideology of nationhood to the idea of lots of land available to newcomers. Like with several other "new world" countries, it was that you didn't have to have to be born here, or be of a certain religion or DNA or heritage or class, to become a full citizen here, that a melting pot of input was actually welcome. We know that it didn't work out that way very well in the actualities, but is the idea itself as something to strive for so very bad? When bringing up the previous inhabitants of the continent, again, it worked out terribly, but did all the tribes initially attack and run off the Europeans, or were some also open to the idea of living side by side in tolerance with "the other"?
I really think the key is sticking to George Washington's ideas, i.e., show others by your example, don't try to change them, let other nations be sorely tempted to copy you because they are jealous of what you have made.
July 15, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't look at history as bad or good, it just is. We can't go back and change things, we can't apologize to the people who are dead and we pay a disservice to everyone by not looking objectively and in context at history.
My contention has been and always will be that Santanaya was wrong - we don't repeat history because we forget it, we repeat history because we don't forgive it.
July 15, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both your comment and this reply align perfectly with my thinking on the topic, except for the part where they're more coherent and have better crafted sentences than if I had written them.
July 15, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I especially like your comment Santayana. The amount of innocent blood shed by people who were ignorant of history seems to be exceeded only by the blood shed by people have become slaves to it.
July 15, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't say that - I read your posts and find them well written and coherent. We do become slaves to the past as long as we hold onto it as a competition.
July 15, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Literally, we are one of the few exceptions to the various forms and iterations of Jus sanguinis. Our founding, like that of a few other other "new world" nations, is based on Enlightenment ideas rather than blood or tribe. I would say that the various indigenous "nations" that occupied the "new world" before that were mixed on the front of being open to newcomers with different DNA and culture etc. But it's really anyone's guess, because at the time, they all had the luxury of not being forced to chose which way to go by virtue of having plenty of open land. If they did not want to fight or mix with another tribe, they could just move.
Of course we are not the only exception, it's just that it's a "new world" thing--tied up with that often-considered-evil "manifest destiny" thing, which I rather see as a part and parcel of the radical idea of being able to try to chose a destiny, rather than being handed one from your ancestors.
July 15, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
American native tribes were no different than any other social structure - they constantly aligned, re-aligned, fought for territory and infringed on the territory of other tribes. It doesn't make them bad or good, it is part of their history. There is no point in making moral judgements but there is a point in accepting it as part of who they were.
July 15, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. But I do think there is special folly in sort of idealizing them in a victim role, as I feel many past revisionists have done. And it seems to me that the majority of those who know their own full tribal history well, and who also prefer to resist full assimilation in doing that, don't cotton to playing that role, either. While we might not learn a lot about what to do from history, we learn even less from simplified good guys/bad guys narratives about cultures.
July 15, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, a post like this one by Wattree is just as dangerous in its extremes as the very thing he criticizes. He bases his claim on a misunderstanding of a concept and then offers the most extreme and hyperbolic arguments with no basis of fact to support the claim he misapprehends.
I wonder at all the praise and kudos for something which is inherently wrong in its premise. It shouldn't matter which side of the political spectrum the post leans, the post itself is factually wrong.
July 15, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. There is however much underlying the hyperbole that bears listening to. I vacillated over whether to recommend this post for these reasons. Then again, (mis)understanding of 'American exceptionalism granted, stripping the hyperbole from Eric's argument, and saying our transgressions against humanity are merely another manifestation of the human condition doesn't feel quite right either.
July 15, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your dilemma and appreciate your comments, but this argument based on a complete misapprehension of the concept of American exceptionalism shouldn't be praised and encouraged. It is dangerous and propagandistic to promote this as an argument against American exceptionalism because there really is no argument against the concept as it was established by Paine, et.al.
Historically, we did not have the three estates that were typical of European governments.
July 15, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, both, BevD and Artappraiser, for the historical references. You brought some context to how far we have mangled history by allowing illusionists such as the neo-cons to recreate history in an image and likeness they desire. It is a distortion and you both have made things very clear with your comments.
Wattree, there are some distortions in your post above-mentioned, but your passion is very real and very accurately displayed here. I appreciate your willingness to air it out. Whether the accounts are 100% accurate or not, is irrelevant to how you feel about them. It is important for people to understand this.
There is no sight like TPM. We are the exception!!! LOL. But there is some truth to it. This post and these comments are something to be absorbed and acknowledged. Yes, we have very dirty hands. But they're working hands and we are still building. It's good that we have removed the Architect of the previous ADministration. His designs were destined to collapse.
July 15, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree this is a very exceptionalist site as far as the blogosphere is concerned. :-)
July 15, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet I wish retain the ability to whine about it at times being too Amerocentrically tribal as far as the globosphere and cosmopolitanism is concerned. Hmmm, I was just thinking, though, that would get a tad uncomfortably Wilsonian, hence a conundrum.... :-) I go back to Old George, I think he had it so right: trading (and talking and chewing the fat while doing so,) but when they want to argue or fight or create power structures with someone to do someone else in, slipping away with a "thanks but no thanks, it was nice talking with ya, I'm happy with this rum, you take this tabacco," that's the way. On the internet, too.
July 15, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point Bev! I do believe that is where the phrase "Novus Ordo Seclorum" comes from. It is that new order we all (hopefully) strive to attain.
July 15, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I would hope so, Oleeb. I don't know if this experiment is over yet or not. Most of the time I think it is, we have an ungovernable oligarchy with no respect for boundaries.
July 15, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps it is because we have not watered the tree of liberty in a long time by getting rid of the oligarchs and leveling the economic and social playing field. It will take a major uprising now to displace the malefactors of great wealth who continue to be fully in charge of our country despite our electing a leader who promised real change.
July 15, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, BevD,
You've just made me a little less ignorant than I was when I get up this morning. That's why I love this site - I've never come here without learning something.
I wish I'd had this information when I wrote the piece. It would have really made me look smart - and I love fooling people.
July 20, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"While I love this country, I love it in spite of its shortcomings. I love it because of its potential - because of the vision of its founding fathers, and the documents that they left behind outlining the American ideal. But I am under no illusions. America has never lived up to those ideals, and I have a fundamental problem with anyone who says it has."
I completely agree with this. The great potential of America as a result of it's ideals is what we all love about our country and we need to keep working toward. I do think that is a job that may never be finished, but one that is always worth working on.
In terms of your theme, I think it is important to understand that Obama is not a departure from the basic past American posture of being "better" and wanting to make the world more like ourselves. Right wingers simply are unable to absorb the more subtle approach someone like Obama has. They require all the breastbeating and loud talk about how great and how much better we are than anyplace or anyone else and so on. They have completely lost touch with reality in the past 60 years since America so tragically started down the road toward worldwide empire.
Obama is in tune with the more mainstream American imperial approach of the widely revered TR of speaking softly and carrying a big stick. Though even there he is only speaking softly in comparison to the boorish Bush. Obama has not deviated one bit from the imperial schemes and policies of George Bush but, in fact, has chosen to dramatically escalate the imperial American adventure in Afghanistan with no apparent goal in mind other than domination and control.
Obama has done nothing to reduce the obscene and unnecessary military spending that escalated exponentially and needlessly during the Bush years even when considering the two wars. Let us not mistake Obama's sophistication and lack of delusion about our country when dealing with the wider world for any real and substantive departure from the basic American orientation toward the rest of the world in the past 60 years. Obama is clearly an imperialist just like most of our officials in Washington are (of both parties). His policies clearly demonstrate his imperialist bent. He has simply returned us to a less bellicose and clumsy version of American imperialism which is closer to the historical norm than the previous 8 years had been as a result of the control of government and foreign policy by radical right wing extremists.
Great post!
July 15, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand the concept of 'we as a nation' at all. I didn't invent baseball. I didn't create Social Security. I didn't write the Constitution, win an Olympic event, or invent the airplane. That was all done by other people who happened to live in my country, and we share a similar cultural environment. I didn't create any of this. So we'd be fooling ourselves if we're more than a little bit proud of things our countrymen have done. It's all a relic of our tribal brains.
Conversely, why should I feel shame that my government has, for example, continually exploited the developing world or provoked a war with Iraq? Why should a young German person feel guilty about the atrocities of the Nazi era? Why should we criticize him for it? I think any group identity, unless its of all humanity, is completely meaningless.
July 15, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely put. One might expand that identity to all living things, or even to all things. I would posit that it isn't our "tribal brain," (a tribe is just a small nation), but part of our brain that developed along time ago, when our ancestors, who existed long before homo sapien sapiens, first began to gather in social groups. This social bonding instinct then merged with language, and now we have what we have. Identity to constructs that have no direct relation to here-and-now reality.
July 15, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
America is not exceptional when it comes to the history of empires. Empires collapse when what we now call The Military-Industrial Complex drains the treasury dry. The unsustainable debt the empire then accumulates hastens the retreat from colonies and client states. Based on this historical trend and the record breaking debt the U.S. now must shoulder, I predict that
America's armed forces will soon be forced to withdraw from more countries overseas(besides Iraq and Afghanistan)while our average standard of living simultaeneously contracts.
July 15, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Words, as the tired slogan goes, have meaning. Extermination means just that. And Native Americans either were wiped out - or they weren't. From the beginning, Native Americans have been one of the most successful groups assimilating in American culture. For every one of the 4.5 million in this country that identify themselves as Native American, there are dozens more with Indian ancestry.
Loving something for its "potential" is ridiculous. Here on earth, there are no perfect countries. One of the problems accepting this country's history is the wildly distorted hyperbole surrounding it. Extermination? Then who's living on all those reservations? Even more important: Who's getting all the gambling money?
July 15, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that the initial impact of realizing the multi-generational American program of displacement and destruction of indigenous culture, land, and peoples is startling to those who were brought up in the elementary level education of America the Beautiful. The effect is similar to finding out Santa Claus is a fairy tale but much more magnified because nearly all adults don't believe in Santa Claus, but many adults insist on believing in Thanksgiving.
July 15, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think extermination is too strong a word to describe the policy of the US toward the native Americans. It was not complete extermination, nor was it industrialized was the Nazi attempt to wipe out the Jews, but most of the native people's and cultures that were here when the white man arrived have disappeared because they were deliberately wiped out. Had they found it convenient, or in their eyes "necessary" for whatever reason, our white ancestors would have completely exterminated the native people of America and not thought much about it. Only a remnant of the vast and complex native civilization remains though, as you point out, the native population has recovered to some degree now that nearly a hundred years has passed since the war by the US government and white settlers against the native peoples ceased. I say this as one of those you note who is both of white and native descent.
July 15, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Native Americans have been one of the most successful groups assimilating in American culture.
In most of the literature it says Native Americans were thought by Anglos to have the capacity to assimilate therefore they were allowed to do so. They were truly the "other". This has to be reconciled with the Trial of Tears, Wounded Knee among other incidents in this country.
A funny thing happen the Racial Integrity Act I mention above became vogue. Native Americans like black people were officially "colored". That meant no more assimilation.
I wonder how Native Americans feel about their success or lack thereof in this country?
July 15, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only if the intervening time since these incidents and the Virginia Law you mention has vitrified, frozen. I can ask at least one Native American how he feels about his lot in America. Ben was born and raised in Montana's Crow Agency and owns a Goodyear dealership down the street from me; I'll run it past him next time I'm shopping for tires.
July 15, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not meaning to quibble but I probably could ask a Native American the same question but that doesn't prove or disprove how Native Americans in general feel about this country. It would probably be a gross generalization.
I will concede that as time passes so does people and relationships between people. I have been particularly interested in the colonial period when indentured servants, white and black had the ability to purchase their freedom. These people were fairly close in societal status despite different ethnicity. As I started reading more and more literature about this period, I became interested in what lead to the wholesale incorporation of slavery for black indentured servants if they had not finished their indenture while white indentured servants will allowed to finish their terms and earn freedom. The only conclusion I can come up with is ethnicity.
This is were I don't understand the history of this country. Why after signing the Constitution, did slavery persist? It even persisted after the signers of the Constitution said that it was to be outlawed in 1808. I believe in the Constitution but one has to ask how can I believe in it when it prescribed a different role, status if you will, for individuals who happened to share, for the most part, my ethnicity?
July 15, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason slavery continued to exist was very similar to why we continue to allow a for profit healthcare system to exist in our country even though it has become a malignancy with respect to our people and to the economy: powerful economic interests/factions refused to yield and demanded the continuation of it.
The "slave powers" as they were called, found their "peculiar institution" far too profitable to let go of literally without a fight. And they did this despire knowing full well how barbaric, cruel, and indeed sinful a practice it was. Grant points out in his memoirs that prior to the cotton gin, the profitability of slavery was trending downward and some slave states came very close to abolishing slavery on their own, Kentucky was one of them. However, the introduction of the cotton gin made enough of slave labor highly profitable enough again to serve as an incentive to cling to the institution because of the hideous character flaw that some humans have which is to justify any crime, any barbarity, any injustice in the name of profit.
Had slavery not made the slave owner rich, they would not have so tenaciously fought to preserve it at any cost.
July 15, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was also the 3/5 compromise, which allowed the southern states an edge in terms of census apportionment of representatives.
Ahhh... Eli Whitney, inventor of both the cotton gin and the bolt action rifle. What a peculiar karma.
July 15, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't a more worthwhile examination be: What are the social and economic factors driving slavery today? In the places in the world where slavery is still a scourge, answers to that question might even be useful as means of ending it.
July 15, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree but as long as we have disparities in this country we can't help noticing how the disparities seem incessant from the beginning of the republic.
July 15, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exceptionalism is nationalism. Nationalism is a mythology. I would even go so far as to say that in many US peoples' minds, the United States as a nation is equivalent to Christ in terms of power, grace, and lack of sin. I think that this is deliberately cultivated from cradle to grave, and it is a very difficult mythology to extricate one's self from. Nationalism takes on the features of the popular religion and folklore in the country of origin.
I think your post is iconoclastic, but in the wrong manner. You are acting as a member of the church criticizing the church from within. You have been disillusioned, but not yet "enlightened." The enlightenment is that there is no church. The very belief for or against exceptionalism is a dialectic for or against a dogma whose major premise is unproveable. So detailing a list of America's sins by no means proves or disproves a faith-based metric as to whether or not America is exceptional. Instead, it will become a shouting match that will be reduced to quantity (body counts) or quality (civil rights policy). You will quickly discover that any nation that has moved from south to north (third world to first world) has committed a rather startling series of atrocities.
For example, I will illustrate using China, Russia, and the United States and the transition from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy. All three nations had variations of slavery/indentured servitude. The United States had imported slaves, whereas Russia and China had serfs and peasants. Both Russia and China relied on the Theory of Productive Forces, which emphasized abundance as the key to sustaining a post-revolution Communist government. Slavery and serfdom (the lowest possible rung in society) could not be abolished without the industrial tools that made their existence obsolete. Both of these nations proferred variations of collectivization, and the consequences of both were millions of deaths. Stalin's method was more forthright. His government made most farmers and serfs expendable and they were imprisoned and worked to death. Mao's method, while more outwardly benign, still led to massive famine that killed on a level commensurate with Russia. The United States had a civil war, with approximately 1 million military casualties, and a conservative estimate of over a million civilian deaths and untold displacement of local populations.
Now, you can play a game of who is the most atrocious, or you can try and analyze what it is about human nature that begets these common fiascos. I will not hesitate to criticize the United States, but I always strive to be a realist. I believe that this nation can and should do better, but I do not believe it will be easy or even possible unless we accept some truths about what it is to be human. One of those truths is that we are constantly engaging in acts that are universally (on the outward "super ego" level) considered evil. The banality of evil is no joke. A can of soda is link in a chain that contains war, famine, refugees, endangerment and extinction. In order for a bottling corporation to expand to the point that it can supply its product globally, its footprint crushes many lives and alters the history of entire regions.
Therefore, I think it does not behoove those of us with an idealistic streak to engage in mythbusting. Far better for us to expend our energy and devote our will to devising an approach to existence that does not entail such massive consequences in the name of civilized progress. To not repeat or magnify the mistakes of our ancestors is one of the noblest acts a human can strive to attain.
I do appreciate this post. It is well-written, and I look forward to reading more. You definitely make me think.
July 15, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
American exceptionalism isn't nationalism. That is a misapprehension of the meaning of American exceptionalism. Now here we have an argument over a complete misunderstanding of an idea that was vital to our founding as a nation and a complete buyin to the neo-conservatives' notion of what American exceptionalism means.
Yes, it does behoove us to engage in myth busting, this is a myth that desperately needed busting.
July 15, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I so agree again. Part of the Exceptionalist thing is that this is a new kind of nation not like all those old "nationalist" nations. Matter of fact, I think of the independence of the states as the bone to old style nationalism, the workaround to allow for the tribalism, which most states were at the time. Out of many, one. They didn't say you had to get rid of the "many" (tribes.)
July 15, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
BevD, why are we always at loggerheads?
""Those men who proposed a republic (Paine, Hamilton, Washington, Madison and others) argued that Americans were in a unique and exceptional position - they had no entrenched establishment; no church, no aristocracy, no hereditary monarchy and no class system. Because they were in such an exceptional position they were free to create a new government without the constraints and limitations that other nations had by the establishment."
This is bunk. Hokum. They argued this, but certainly not with a straight face. And this is certainly NOT what is defined as exceptionalism in modern times. This wasn't even true to begin with. The 3/5 compromise is most certainly an indicator of an entrenched class system, with landowners being given the natural aristocratic privilege of souls for the census.
"It was never meant to convey the meaning that Americans themselves were unique and privileged among all other peoples, in fact, it was quite the opposite - it was meant to convey the exceptional situation that ordinary people found themselves in and were able to create a government for ordinary people, without exceptions; no privileges and rights stemming from place, birth or order of birth. Too bad."
Once again, I call BS. This may have been what was presented... and perhaps many believed this in good faith. But it is most certainly myth-making. A glance over certain facets of the Constitution, a study of the biographies of those who signed the document, and the royalist faction that became the Federalist Party all betray a much more nuanced and troubled situation... a situation that was rife with certain pointed concerns: slavery, trade, the national bank, piracy, the Indian problem, and many other facets that indicate that we were not free from entrenched interests in the slightest. In fact, much of the same entrenched interests have only MAGNIFIED with time and become the very crises that we are attempting to manage today.
"American exceptionalism isn't nationalism. That is a misapprehension of the meaning of American exceptionalism. Now here we have an argument over a complete misunderstanding of an idea that was vital to our founding as a nation and a complete buyin to the neo-conservatives' notion of what American exceptionalism means."
The problem is that the traditional interpretation is no longer valid... in fact, it was absurd back when it was first proposed. The term has most certainly and keenly transformed into nationalism and is part of the great jingo in the sky.
At its historical root, American exceptionalism was a veil which obscured flaws... the same flaws that are kicking our ass today.
July 15, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now how in the world can American exceptionalism as the intellectual underpinning of the promotion of a new form of government be "bunk" or "hokum"? Unlike other nations, we didn't have the clergy, aristocracy and commoners as entrenched institutions. It was and is a perfectly good argument in support of experimenting with a republic and absolutely true, historically. It may well be as the French proposed, the reason why our revolution was successful and others such failures.
Like Wattree and Cheney, you're confusing American exceptionalism with American virtue and finding it not only wanting but virtually absent from this nation. They are not the same thing. That makes the "traditional interpretation" of American exceptionalism even more important than it was when most Americans actually understood its meaning.
Of course men like Paine, Madison and Hamilton could argue such an idea with "a straight face", they never expected a nation without flaws, in fact the purpose of the constitution was a recognition of the inherent flaw in believing that the people are without fault. Men like Paine and later Lincoln, recognized that this is indeed an experiment and will always be so as long as Americans understand and appreciate this concept of exceptionalism.
Do you know why propaganda works, Zipperus? Because propagandists know they can fool people who are unaware, unread and unversed in history. Now we have two people, one liberal and one conservative, neither of whom have an understanding of the concept of American exceptionalism arguing over which side of a bad penny is the "right" side, when neither are right. What was once an ennobling and noble experiment, that of creating a government without constraints of heredity and privilege and furthering that experiment has become a petty and meaningless argument over whether we as Americans are good or evil.
July 15, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
While they may be ignornant of the original intent of the term, doesn't it hold true that if two people agree that a term means "that," for them it is true it means "that," regardless if another two people earlier had agreed it meant "this." The evolution (another concept that has morphed over time if there ever was one) of the language being what it is.
July 15, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't think that is so. If two people agree on a wrong definition of a term or word, that doesn't mean that the then acceptable meaning of the word has changed. It hasn't. It still means what it means.
The connotation of the word "gay" may have changed, but it still means light and happy.
July 15, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have heard a number of biologists and other scientists grumble and grind their teeth when they hear people talk about the evolution of human society, the evolution of fashion, etc. To them, evolution has a very specific and rigid definition. Societies and fashion cannot evolve. So to them, those people are using the term incorrectly. But the people who use this term in these ways are not implying that within the populations that there has been a genetic change over generations. And the people they are communicating to generally understand what they are implying.
The concept, the very definition, of "evolution" has expanded. It retains its scientific definition, but now also refers to a system, etc that changes over time, among other things. These changes become valid to the extent that are agreed upon by a group of people who choose to use these new definitions when communicating.
Someone who says "I'm gay" when referring to their homosexuality is not wrong, although there may confusion if the others being communicated with have not accepted this new definition.
Gay used to mean "this," now it means "this" and "that."
Of course, if someone says "I'm gay" and means so in older definition of the word, one would be wrong to state that this person is declaring their homosexuality.
July 15, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
To them, the verb "evolve" is intransitive.
There is also a transitive form of the verb "evolve," meaning "develop."
Maybe they should consult a dictionary once in a while, since both forms evolved from Latin. It'd be easier on their teeth.
July 15, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What was once an ennobling and noble experiment, that of creating a government without constraints of heredity and privilege and furthering that experiment has become a petty and meaningless argument over whether we as Americans are good or evil."
Did you read my first post in its entirety? I was making the exact point that we need to move beyond the typical moral argument because civilization moves in a direction that is antithetical to conventional morality.
I am not confusing a single thing. You see noble experiment, and I see a variation on a theme. The founders of this nation knew very well they were playing a variation on a theme. I mean, look at the noms de plum they took up in the Federalist papers: Publius, Cato, etc. They were attempting to redo the Roman Republic, but correctly on a clean slate. But there were entrenched interests. No matter how de Toqueville (who popularised exceptionalism) characterized the United States, the core of this nation was an experiment in an old way of governing with modern tweaks that has since bloated into a high-tech empire.
"Men like Paine and later Lincoln, recognized that this is indeed an experiment and will always be so as long as Americans understand and appreciate this concept of exceptionalism."
I am sorry, but that is a rather schoolmarmish take. Are you saying that since we have lost this concept of exceptionalism, we have strayed from the noble experiment? Do you realize this sounds precisely like a preacher praying for the redemption of lost sheep?
I still hold that the founders, if they truly believed in the tabula rasa exceptional argument, were unintentionally erecting a mythology that has since equated the United States with holy writ and the modern definition has become de facto.
And, finally, heredity and privilege is exactly what happened... swiftly. Heredity and privilege was simply begun anew. I mean, hell BevD, why are they called the "founding fathers" if heredity and privilege had not become woven into our national narrative?
July 15, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how close is the "founding fathers" to the "father who art in heaven" in minds of so many. If there ever was a patriarchy...
July 15, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read you post, Zipperus, several times, and you are still wrong. It is an historical accuracy that at the time the government was founded as a republic there were no entrenched estates vying for power in this country. Now that is the meaning of American exceptionalism. You are doing exactly what Wattree and Cheney are doing and that is conflating virtue with exceptionalism and misapprehending the intellectual arguments that promoted the viability of a republic. We cannot re-arrange facts and historical accuracy to fit this year's fashion.
July 15, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The idea of "American exceptionalism," in the sense that is expressed by Liz Cheney et al., is tied to conception of an American nation, which is tied to conception of American state, and, thus, the American nation-state. American excpetionalism becomes one facet that can be applied to this monolithic entity that is seen moving through history.
And ideas like American exceptionalism can only exist as long as we keep the monolithic entity alive, which is dependent on our ability to maintain the illusion that we all share in a common (and unbreakable) bond. Not only are we all citizens of this country, but we have a shared identity and bond that separates and distinguishes us from those who are not part of our nation, beyond simply the name of state that is on our passport. And it goes without saying that I will root for the team from the US at the Olympics, rather than the Finnish or Bulgarian team, not because of my legal status of citizenship, but because “I am American.” And when a plane crashes in the ocean, I am to be more upset about the Americans on board than I am about those “other” people, you know, the ones not part my nation.
As a citizen of the United States, I take responsibility for participating in the nature and makeup of my government, and a shared responsibility for the actions of that government. Growing up in this country, I am aware of the culture of which I am immersed and shaped by, but also aware that is not a single monolithic Culture, rather a composite of a multitude of cultures that collide and merge around me.
But do I belong to the American nation? Which is exactly what? What exactly am I identifying with, bonding with? Whose history is my history?
Can I say I belong to no nation, that I am just a member of a multitude of communities that run from the geographical to the virtual to whom I feel a moral obligation to be a “good” member. Communities whose boundaries fluctuate, but when all is said and done, include everyone, and all living things. Of course, I can just as well call these communities nations. The term to be used is in the end arbitrary. As are all the words we use to try and categorize ourselves, and to categorize others.
In the end, nations (that arbitrary construct) do not commit atrocities, people do, sometime acting within the apparatus of the state, sometimes with the blessings of the state, and sometimes not. Those people need to be held responsible and accountable for their actions, and if they are working within the state they need to be removed (which should happen if they held accountable). Sometime the atrocities are driven by differences in class, other times in religion, or in ethnicity, or language. Pick your difference. Some differences emerge regardless of whether we want them to or not. The problem with nationhood is just another difference in the mix which doesn’t have to be there. We have enough on our hands getting along with the differences we have to live with.
July 15, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink