We need to jettison "American exceptionalism" once and for all!

Great Debates
1

In this thread (“Ask the Neo-Con” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=268701) – Captain Amazing and some others have been arguing for the neoconservative position: That the United States should be spreading our liberal republican form of government around the world by force of arms.

Sound familiar? The Soviet Communists thought it was their duty to spread and/or support Marxist proletarian revolution throughout the world, even in countries like Ethiopia and Angola where the USSR had no obvious material or strategic interests. We all know how that worked out.

What really disturbs me about the neocon way of thinking is that it is bound up with the fundamentally misconceived tradition of “American exceptionalism,” the idea that the U.S. is not like other countries, that we are a “City on a Hill,” that we have some special messianic role to play in the world, in spreading the “American creed,” whether that creed or role is chiefly defined by republican government or free-market capitalism or Protestant Christianity.

No matter how we define it, it’s all bullshit, and we need to throw it over the side, once and for all. We need to accept that the United States has a lot more in common with France or Britain than with the USSR. We are an ordinary nation-state, not an idea-state defined by a political creed.

Since 1789, France has been through five distinct periods of monarchy and five different republics and a period when it was divided between Nazi occupation and a native fascist puppet regime. Yet through all that time, France has remained France – the same country, the same national culture. China has been through many imperial dynasties, periods of division, periods of foreign rule, republican rule, Communist rule – but it is still the same nation it was in the time of Confucius. The USSR, on the other hand, existed only as a revolutionary-ideological political system and does not exist, any more, in any sense.

An America ruled by a king or a fascist dictatorship or a communist dictatorship or an established church or any other system would still be America. And an America divided into 50 independent republics would still be a single nation, just as Classical Greece was a nation although it was never politically unified until the Romans conquered it. Nations are not immortal, but they do last much longer than, and have an identity apart from, their constitutions and regimes and political systems.

We stick with liberal republican government because it is, in fact, the best of all political systems humanity has yet tried, and it works for us; but that doesn’t mean it’s what defines us as a nation, nor that it can’t be improved upon. (In my view, a non-Marxist democratic-socialist America would be even better than a free-market capitalist America, and a unitary America would be even better than a federal America, and a small-d democratic America would be even better than a small-r republican America, and an America as a province of a global multinational republic would be even better than an independent America; but those are all different discussions.) And it certainly doesn’t mean we have some kind of obligation to spread liberal republican government to the whole world. We are, indeed, the greatest, richest, and most powerful country on earth – at the moment. But we ain’t so damned special!

Does anyone care to argue the contrary?

2

No need, this guy already did.

3

AS I said in that thread, Brainglutton you are wrong about this.

I think you start with a misinterpretation of the neo conservative position and expand on it to some other sort of idea. America has similarities with other nation states. It also has a uniqueness to all of the nation states which existed at the time it was formed. I’m not at all sure how you can argue this.

An America ruled by hereditary dictators might possibly be very similar to the America we currently know and love. But it would have to be a very odd dictatorship indeed. Can you point to any in history whcih have been as responsive to the will of the people, open to new ideas concerning its own role inside and outside its borders, and as permissive socially and economically as America has been historically? If not, and more to the point, if you cannot formulate how a ruling family would necessarily behave this way, then you statement that a dictatorship America would still be America is patently false except in the sense that it might still be called America.

4

Oh thank you for saying that. In the rather embarrassing “America shut yer hole” Pit thread, I’ve noticed surprisingly little dissent to the idea that the US is not particularly special. This reaction is somewhat at odds with my experience of living in the US, where I was bombarded with “America the greatest” comments, but that may be a reflection of the SDMB, rather than reality. The former attitude can be really quite irritating to non-USians.

Yes, the US, when it was conceived, was a vanguard experiment in democracy. Despite this, the US’s democratic history is no more nor less “special” than the paths to democracy taken by the rest of the west. It happened to be the first to draw a democratic constitution, but this surely doesn’t necessarily convey exceptionalism more than two centuries later. Yes, the US is currently the richest and most powerful country in existence. But it hasn’t always been so, and I really doubt it will remain so.

No disagreement with your premise, only to mention that the 18th and 19thC British imperialists also felt it their bounden moral duty to spread the British way of doing things around the world. In addition to the commercial benefits that Britain gained, many imperial adventurers felt they were doing the “savages” a favour. This was combined with a Christian missionary zeal, to make the motiviation extra potent. At the time, Britain was the richest and most powerful country on earth, and clearly, since this was an incontrovertible fact, it was obvious that the British way was the best way. The rest of the undeveloped world “deserved” to become British. It’s a common fallacy of successful regimes, IMO, and the neo-cons ideas’ as expressed on the PNAC website, appear to be labouring under this misapprehension.

It should be noted that the legacy of British imperial policy has been a nightmare. The British Empire was the largest parapolitical structure in the history of mankind, and many of the places Britain colonized and then departed have imploded politically, with results that are still causing untold misery around the world: Israel/Palestine, Kashmir, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Northern Ireland, etc. etc. Pay heed to history.

5

I do not say America is not unique, pervert. I say only that America is not different in kind from other nations – each of which is also unique. But you seem to think we are different in kind – in the other thread you said, “America is not America for the same reasons that France is France.” Care to expand on that?

It would still be the same people, pervert, with the same culture, language, history, traditions, family stories. Those are the things that make up a nation. If we had a dictator, what would that make us – Russians?

6

It was a last-minute edit. The apostrophe moved when I wasn’t looking. Honest.

Hangs head in shame

7

“American Exceptionalism” sounds suspiciously close to other imperialist slogans dressed up as moral rationalizations. Remember “Manifest Destiny?” That was a good one. How about “White Man’s Burden.”

Same shit, different assholes.

8

While that is true, jjimm, I would defend the Brits to this limited extent: On the average, former British colonies seem to be much better off than the former colonies of other European nations (we’ve got a GD thread going on that right now). Much, much better to live in South Africa, or even Zimbabwe, than in Mozambique or Angola or the Congo. Much better to live in India than Vietnam or Cambodia. Much better to live in Canada or the United States than anywhere in Latin America. So maybe the British way of doing things was “better,” at least by comparison with Britain’s peers and rivals.

9

Here’s an even better one: “Song of the White Men,” by Rudyard Kipling, 1899 (long since out of copyright, mods!):

NOW, this is the cup the White Men drink
When they go to right a wrong,
And that is the cup of the old world’s hate—
Cruel and strained and strong.
We have drunk that cup—and a bitter, bitter cup—
And tossed the dregs away.
But well for the world when the White Men drink
To the dawn of the White Man’s day!

Now, this is the road that the White Men tread
When they go to clean a land—
Iron underfoot and levin overhead
And the deep on either hand.
We have trod that road—and a wet and windy road—
Our chosen star for guide.
Oh, well for the world when the White Men tread
Their highway side by side!

Now, this is the faith that the White Men hold
When they build their homes afar—
“Freedom for ourselves and freedom for our sons
And, failing freedom, War.”
We have proved our faith—bear witness to our faith,
Dear souls of freemen slain!
Oh, well for the world when the White Men join
To prove their faith again!

This poem kept running through my mind when U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq. “Now this is the road that the White Men tread / When they go to clean a land . . .” Yeah, it’s really clean now, isn’t it? :mad:

10

Out of curiosity, is that term meant to be a Didion reference?

11

What, the term “American exceptionalism”? No, I didn’t get that from Didion, it’s a very common term in American historical and political discourse.

12

Here’s the thread: “Why were the British colonies so successful relative to other colonies?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=268704

13

Except, in a lot of ways, we do have more in common with the USSR than say, France. France and Germany, for example, are to a large extent ethnic states. Even before there was a unified France or Germany, there was an idea of Frenchness, or of Germanness. There wasn’t an independent Ireland until 1922, but the Irish existed before that.

So, in some sense, we are different than that. Americans don’t share a common culture. We’re not a seperate “race” or ethnicity. In fact, we’re proud of that. People say they’re “Irish American” or “German American” or “African American”.To become an American citizen is equally easy or equally difficult for everyone. We’re not like Israel, where it’s easier for Jews to become citizens than others We’re not Germany, where if you’re a Russian whose ancestors moved there from Germany in the 1700s, you get citizenship. Everyone from anywhere can become a citizen by living here, and swearing to uphold the Constitution and the laws.

We are different than a lot of other countries out there, and it’s not bullshit to say so. Of course, whether we “have some kind of obligation to spread liberal republican government to the whole world” is a different discussion.

14

No, but depending on how far you go back and change American you would also change its imigration history. Doing this far enough back would most certainly not leave us with the same people. That is, no, BrainGlutton it would not be the same people.

I’m not sure you can say the same thing about France*. If you alter their history over the last 200 years, make them become democratic, say in 1698, they might just about have the same sorts of demographics. Much of the population increases in America have come from immigration througout our history. I’m not sure this is true for other countries.

Let me be clear about something. The idea the America is different in some way from other countries is not the same as “Manifest Destiny” or “The White Man’s Burden”. These were notions that were popular in their time, but were discarded as fundementally un American. I think you could make your point more persuasively if you would drop the hyperbolic. Suggesting that America should not “rule the world” or whatever you are trying to say is a valid point. Saying that America is not better in any fundemental way than many other countries is also a good point. Saying that no different than other countries does, try to deny our uniqueness.

BTW, the implied racism of your poem is right out. :wink:

15

Oops. I forgot to include my foot note. I meant to say that I am most certainly not picking on France in any way whatsoever. I am not saying that America is superior to France in any fundemental way. I only used it as a counterpoint.

16

But, Captain, the American people, as a cultural nation distinct from the British, existed at least a century before we became politically independent of Britain. I think all historians would agree on that point.

No, we are not exactly a “nation of immigrants.” In his new book, Who Are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity (Simon & Schuster, 2004), Samuel Huntington draws an important distinction between settlers and immigrants. The settlers were the English, Scottish and Scotch-Irish who settled the 13 colonies between Raleigh’s time and 1776 – and they created a national culture to which later waves of immigrants assimilated.

17

Saying that America is simply “different” is not very meaningful. All countries are different than other countries. So what?

18

I wasn’t talking about changing the past. (Though I do enjoy alternate-history SF.) I meant that, if we came under some other political system at some time in the future, we would still be the same nation.

The U.S. and Britain of today are not racist societies the way they were in 1899 – but the same way of thinking still seems to predominate; just substitute “Westerners” for “White Men.”

19

Urk. Let me try that again:

But, Captain, the American people, as a cultural nation distinct from the British, existed at least a century before we became politically independent of Britain. I think all historians would agree on that point.

No, we are not exactly a “nation of immigrants.” In his new book, Who Are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity (Simon & Schuster, 2004), Samuel Huntington draws an important distinction between settlers and immigrants. The settlers were the English, Scottish and Scotch-Irish who settled the 13 colonies between Raleigh’s time and 1776 – and they created a national culture to which later waves of immigrants assimilated.

20

I see I needn’t have bothered to fix that myself – thanx, MEBuckner!