This article may be deleted soon. | ||
---|---|---|
American exceptionalism is, for the purposes of this article, a political philosophy that the United States, as opposed to the majority of nations, was created based on shared ideology rather than shared history. American nationalism is a subset of this belief system, a subset that affects national conduct. It can be argued if distinguishing between exceptionalism and nationalism is meaningful, but that is the assumption here. Historically, the term was defined by Alexis de Tocqueville. "...qualitatively different from all other countries," and based on the values of that creed as liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissez-faire economics.[1] Not all agree with his principles, especially egalitarianism. [2] Seymour Martin Lipset observed that the U.S. is based on a shared creed rather, than as most nations, a shared history. He quoted G.K. Chesterton as saying that creed is "set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the U.S. Declaration of Independence." [3] Others, including Samuel Huntington and Gunnar Myrdal, add to that creed democracy, the rule of law, and general "progress."[4] Elaborating on shared creed versus shared history, he mentioned Winston Churchill's opposition to banning the Communist Party:
Current political use[edit]A number of contemporary conservatives define it as essential to their view of America, often putting it in the context of Barack Obama not believing in it. Newt Gingrich said the President does not understand "American exceptionalism refers directly to the grant of rights asserted in the Declaration of Independence," and that it is a term "which relates directly to our unique assertion of an unprecedented set of rights granted by God." In a Financial Times interview, Obama said
Sarah Palin countered in her book, Going Rogue, "Maybe President Obama grew up around coaches who insisted that all the players receive participation 'trophies' at the end of the season and where no score was kept in youth soccer games for fear of offending someone . . . when President Obama insists that all countries are exceptional, he's saying that none is, least of all the country he leads." "With a more intellectual sheen than the false assertions that Obama is secretly a Muslim or that he was born in Kenya, an argument over American exceptionalism "is a respectable way of raising the question of whether Obama is one of us," said William Galston, a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution."[5] It is a basic assumption of the Tea Party movement. International effects[edit]Given global communications, attitudes, as presented to the world, can produce reactions. While Benjamin Barrett, in Jihad vs. McWorld[6], deals with Westernization and globalization rather than explicitly American values, the point of cultural communication is well made. Kohut and Stokes, writing for the Pew Research Center, certainly do not deny there is Japanese exceptionalism and Argentinian exceptionalism, to take two examples. These forms of exceptionalism do not present a unique problem because even Japan's economic power is not as wide-reaching as the difference produced by the magnification of American attitudes by the many dimensions of American power. The Falklands War did not have the impact of the Iraq War. When they write "others often resent those differences," they refer to attitudes. [7] They suggest three main forms of American exceptionalism "that shape both the ways that U.S. citizens look at the world and the ways that the world looks at them", although they agree the categories are not exhaustive:
Misunderstood exceptionalism[edit]Outside the U.S., some of the major concerns are "religiosity" and "nationalism". According to a 2003 article in The Economist, [8] only one thing unsettles George Bush's critics more than the possibility that his foreign policy is secretly driven by greed. That is the possibility that it is secretly driven by God….War for oil would merely be bad. War for God would be catastrophic." While the Obama Administration is not overtly religion-driven, the Christian Right is still highly visible, and internal and external perceptions of it may well vary. Concern about religiosity may confirm existing prejudices, such as that the U.S. is on a systematic war against Islam. Traditional strong U.S. support for the State of Israel, including Christian Zionism, is certainly an issue with both pragmatic and propagandistic aspects. Kohut and Stokes say "nothing is more vexing to foreigners than Americans' belief that America is a shining city on a hill -- a place apart where a better way of life exists, one to which all other peoples should aspire. ... Americans also hold a number of other attitudes that mitigate their nationalism." The misconception part here refers to polling data that shows that despite the statements of some politicians, "Americans' pride in their country is not evangelistic. The American people, as opposed to some of their leaders, seek no converts to their ideology." Polls indicate that democracy promotion is not a widespread goal of the average American, although American security is important. Only 31 percent agreed with George W. Bush's point, in the 2005 State of the Union address, in which building democracy in the Middle East should be a major goal of U.S. foreign policy. " Their real priorities were preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and maintaining U.S. military power, not planting the flag of American-style democracy in far-away places." Conditional exceptionalism[edit]The "American Creed" does conflict with the ideas in other societies. However, they also contain two immense flaws, which are indeed implicit in the term "creed."[7]
Problematic exceptionalism[edit]"The world's biggest complaint about the United States is that Washington too often acts unilaterally, without concern for the interests of others. Certainly the American public is ambivalent about multilateralism, running hot and cold on whether the United States should cooperate with allies or adopt a go-it-alone approach." [7] Also, Kohut and Stokes express concern with the rhetoric of "taking back" America and restoring an older, purer American society", expressed by certain American conservatives, often but not necessarily linked to the Republican Party (United States) and the Christian Right. It "reflects the continuing conservative religiosity of many Americans; it has also, however, always been an expression of social, economic, and ethnic anxieties." That this is not universal, however, is evidenced in the current restructuring of the U.S. political right. Another dimension is not true American exceptionalism, but "big power" exceptionalism, such as being one of the five declared states with nuclear weapons or one of the permanent "veto"-bearing members of the United Nations Security Council. One delicate negotiation added Russia to what was then the Group of Seven economically powerful nations. References[edit]
|