# American Exceptionalism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2016, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853 "2016-07-01T05:56:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2016, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/201 "2016-07-04T03:55:36Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > What? She’s the one criticizing freedom of press. Uh, no, **wolfpup** was criticizing **insufficient** freedom of the press. As in, suppression, distortion and misrepresentation of the free speech of opponents of powerful interests. The ability to successfully spread lies without being effectively called out on it or rebutted does not rank as a triumph of free speech or a free press, and complaining about it does not equate to “criticizing freedom of press”. > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > […] the first time that we’ve ever had the Supreme Court strike down a gun law was in the 2000s. And the gun “problem” is far older than that, and we’ve had tons of gun laws written at the state and national level in the 20th century that were never declared unconstitutional. > > Many Americans just aren’t interested in banning guns […] I’m not claiming they are, but what you’re saying now is different from what you said before: > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > We don’t have a system like Britain or Australia where a brief surge in panic means the government can ban shit Yes, we do have the same sort of “system” where the government “can ban shit” based on shifts in public opinion. But guns are in many ways excluded from that system, for constitutional reasons. If all you meant to say is that Americans aren’t fundamentally interested in banning guns, fine. But that’s not the same as having a different “system” which prevents the government from “banning shit” in **general**. Our government **can** and does “ban shit” in response to public alarm. ---
**Author:** ![DerekMichaels00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f14d63/32.png) [@DerekMichaels00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DerekMichaels00)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2016, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/202 "2016-07-04T04:05:01Z")
happy July 4 to y’all! As one of the Presidential nominees said, > [@](#): > > And I believe with all my heart that America is an exceptional country – that we’re still, in Lincoln’s words, the last, best hope of earth. We are not a country that cowers behind walls. We lead with purpose, and we prevail. > And if America doesn’t lead, we leave a vacuum – and that will either cause chaos, or other countries will rush in to fill the void. Then they’ll be the ones making the decisions about your lives and jobs and safety – and trust me, the choices they make will not be to our benefit. and she’s right. Yea, it would be nice if there were a world without the need for superpowers but that’s not the case, and never will be the case. We can’t go back to the 1910s, as another poster here suggested, when “The Great Powers” shared. Not gonna happen, ever. Europe is a divided and weak joke, as a political entity. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2016, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/203 "2016-07-04T04:27:48Z")
Everyone else who ever predicted the world’s balance of power would go on unchanged forever turned out to be wrong, but hey, good luck. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2016, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/204 "2016-07-04T05:16:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Then they’ll be the ones making the decisions about your lives and jobs and safety – and trust me, the choices they make will not be to our benefit. “Much better \*we \*be making the decisions about \*their \*lives and jobs and safety to our benefit !”. At least she’s honest, none of that false altruism bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2016, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/205 "2016-07-04T05:54:27Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Everyone else who ever predicted the world’s balance of power would go on unchanged forever turned out to be wrong, but hey, good luck. Yep. Sweden dominated Europe for a while, and now are a quiet neutral backwater. I look forward to the day when the U.S. is a quiet neutral backwater… ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2016, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/206 "2016-07-04T05:58:31Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Those rankings are nonsense, the U.S. is one of the few countries where you can print largely whatever you want. Several of those listed above us have hate speech and libel laws that would never survive constitutional scrutiny here. That’s a politically motivated hack-list. > > The United Kingdom being ahead of us is absurd–their libel laws are ridiculous. Their laws against commenting on ongoing political elections, likewise absurd. > > Looking at their methodology, the only argument against us being #1 is we prosecute journalists who won’t reveal their sources in criminal investigations and we prosecute “whistleblowers” (who aren’t journalists at all.) So the Reporters Without Borders rankings are really just a list of countries that give journalists “supra-special privileges regular citizens are not entitled to”, not a list of actual press freedom. Of course—whenever something does not match the narrative of American excellence, it’s just ‘politically motivated’ and can be discounted. The thing is, the RSF index is not about what’s in the books, but rather, how things shake out in the world—and calculated from questionnaires sent to experts around the world. Are they just all politically opposed to the US? Or could it be that there may be actual deficits in how the First Amendment rights are implemented in practice? …Nah, of course not. USA! USA! After all, what do objective, independent metrics matter if you know the truth in your heart of hearts? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2016, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/207 "2016-07-04T05:58:45Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > [http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/america-children-gun-deaths-1.3654711[/INDENT]](http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/america-children-gun-deaths-1.3654711%5B/INDENT%5D) > Take a look at the picture of the little tiny girl who looks to be about seven years old, with the lunatic towering above her showing her how to fire a handgun. It should be labeled “American exceptionalism”! Good grief, melodrama much? That grandfatherly ‘lunatic’ is a firearms instructor. And he’s hardly ‘towering’ over her, he’s stooped down behind her so his arms can reach far enough to guide her hands as he guides her through the safe and proper way to load (and presumably fire) a handgun. You tell by her attentive smile that she’s terrified of his looming maniacal presence…oh, wait, no she’s not. She’s aware even at her tender age that adults are taller than seven-year-old children and that there’s nothing intrinsically frightening about this fact. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2016, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/208 "2016-07-04T06:13:39Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Yep. Sweden dominated Europe for a while, and now are a quiet neutral backwater. > > I look forward to the day when the U.S. is a quiet neutral backwater… Sweden almost certainly would not be a quiet neutral backwater without the U.S. protecting it. Neutrality is a luxury that certain countries enjoy only by dint of the fact that a larger and more powerful country somewhere is keeping the bad guys at bay. Had it not been for U.S. protectionism, Sweden would have been subsumed by Germany or the Soviet Union long ago. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2016, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/209 "2016-07-04T06:27:23Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Uh, no, **wolfpup** was criticizing **insufficient** freedom of the press. As in, suppression, distortion and misrepresentation of the free speech of opponents of powerful interests. > > The ability to successfully spread lies without being effectively called out on it or rebutted does not rank as a triumph of free speech or a free press, and complaining about it does not equate to “criticizing freedom of press”. Criticizing freedom of the press like the leftist critique of Citizens United is criticism of free press. There is no honest way of denying it. The issue is one of hypocrisy. Many only want freedom of speech and the press for their points of view or their special interests. I don’t hear or read any left wing critiques of union political spending. And where in the world did the idea come that freedom of the press means equal effectiveness of each individual’s or group’s message? If your point of view fails to resonate that’s on you. No one owes you a platform. Is it a failure of freedom of religion if Wiccans are smaller and less effective as a group than let’s say Jewish, Christians, or Buddhists? Is it a failure of assembly if your bridge club is smaller than an Elk Lodge. Freedom to act is not synonymous with equivalency in results. Ultimately it looks like liberty and equality of outcome are not strongly correlated. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2016, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/210 "2016-07-04T06:55:52Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Sweden almost certainly would not be a quiet neutral backwater without the U.S. protecting it. Neutrality is a luxury that certain countries enjoy only by dint of the fact that a larger and more powerful country somewhere is keeping the bad guys at bay. Had it not been for U.S. protectionism, Sweden would have been subsumed by Germany or the Soviet Union long ago. Well, I think that might be stretching the case a bit. I don’t recall the US ever doing much (or needing to do much) to protect Sweden from Germany. I’ll grant you, the formation of NATO may have helped to protect Sweden from the Soviet Union, though even that is a bit speculative. (Did the Soviet Union harbour ambitions to annexe Sweden?) But even if we accept it as true, what of it? The point is that Sweden, once a great power, at a later stage in history is eclipsed by other powers and may even become dependent on them for protection. History tells us that this is _always_ what happens to great powers. The list of countries other than the US which can plausibly claim at one time to have been the “greatest power” on the international scene is long, and includes at a minimum the UK, Germany and France. Very few retain “greatest power” status for more than a century; most for rather less. Currently the greatest power is undoubtedly the US, but both common sense and the lessons of history tell us that the time is coming when this will no longer be so. We can hazard a guess that the next “greatest power” will probably be China; the only issue is when it will become clear that China has eclipsed the US. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2016, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/211 "2016-07-04T07:08:51Z")
My point was that the U.S. could only afford to be neutral if some other, larger and more powerful country was protecting it and allowing it to be so. I don’t believe anyone in this thread is trying to claim that the U.S. will be the world’s big dog forever. At least I haven’t seen it if they have. But I’m perfectly happy for it to remain so for as long as possible. No one should be looking forward to the day when either China or Russia become the world’s predominant economic and military power. I have zero reason to suspect that they’ll be anywhere near as magnanimous as the U.S. in their dealings with the rest of the world. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2016, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/212 "2016-07-04T07:25:58Z")
> [@DerekMichaels00](#): > > happy July 4 to y’all! As one of the Presidential nominees said, > > and she’s right. Yea, it would be nice if there were a world without the need for superpowers but that’s not the case, and never will be the case. We can’t go back to the 1910s, as another poster here suggested, when “The Great Powers” shared. Not gonna happen, ever. Europe is a divided and weak joke, as a political entity. Sometimes Hillary sounds more like a neo-con than the neo-cons. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2016, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/213 "2016-07-04T09:46:28Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Sweden almost certainly would not be a quiet neutral backwater without the U.S. protecting it. Neutrality is a luxury that certain countries enjoy only by dint of the fact that a larger and more powerful country somewhere is keeping the bad guys at bay. Had it not been for U.S. protectionism, Sweden would have been subsumed by Germany or the Soviet Union long ago. Total nonsense. The Soviet Union had no designs of occupying Sweden, nor any other country except those serving as bufferstates to it’s own border. The U.S. protecting sweden from Germany is even more ridiculous. You are projecting your own agressiveness and power hunger. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2016, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/214 "2016-07-04T11:14:08Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Sweden almost certainly would not be a quiet neutral backwater without the U.S. protecting it. Neutrality is a luxury that certain countries enjoy only by dint of the fact that a larger and more powerful country somewhere is keeping the bad guys at bay. Had it not been for U.S. protectionism, Sweden would have been subsumed by Germany or the Soviet Union long ago. The Soviets had no design on Sweden. They had some on Finland, but then they ran headlong into the Finns. And you [don’t fuck with the Finns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War). ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/215 "2016-07-05T16:47:55Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > N > > American spent around ~8% of GDP on defense for the early phase of the Cold War, decreasing down to 5% under Jimmy Carter, then going up to 6-7% under Reagan. It’s fallen down to around 3.5% now. > > Canada, as a point of example (and in refusal to live up to its NATO commitments) spends 1% of GDP, largely because Canada knows it could disband its military entirely and America would still protect it for geopolitical concerns. Canada is a parasitic leach, and so is the European Union, when it comes to defense. > > If you don’t think spending 3.5x as much on defense, accounting for 53% of our discretionary spending, has taken money away from other things like domestic social programs, you’re gravely mistaken. There’s an old allegory about guns and butter, that largely holds true. > > According to [this](http://taxfoundation.org/article/comparison-tax-burden-labor-oecd-0), we actually have the same tax burden as Canada and a slightly higher tax burden than the United Kingdom. So the idea that we could just jack taxes up isn’t as realistic as it might at first seem (most people forget Americans pay significant state and local taxes, many countries like Britain have very low taxes other than national ones, the council tax which is akin to a property tax in Britain is immensely lower than American property taxes, as one example.) Ok, lets just say global warming heats up. The north pole becomes ice free year around making it an imprtant shipping route and resources of the area like oil become easier to get to. So much so that Russia decides to move in. Just how well could Canada protect its borders? Is the [Canadian navy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_of_the_Royal_Canadian_Navy) up to it? Or would they be calling upon the US for help? Looking at the above wiki the biggest Canadian ship is a single destroyer and you have just 4 submarines all of whom are at least 26 years old. As for China, look how nervous all the southeast Asian countries are with China’s move into the Pacific taking over many small islands or creating new ones. Those countries barely have a coast guard let alone a real navy. Can any country besides the US stand up to China in the south Pacific? And go back to the war in Afghanistan. Right after 9/11 the US put troops into it and soon brought down the Taliban government. Could Sweden, Denmark, Canada, or any European countries have done this? (Granted many of those countries do have troops serving there now.) ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/216 "2016-07-05T16:58:05Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > The Soviets had no design on Sweden. They had some on Finland, but then they ran headlong into the Finns. And you [don’t fuck with the Finns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War). I disagree. In WW2 the Soviets could have taken Helsinki and Finland would have become just another Lituania like Soviet provience if they had wanted to but the thing was that the bSoviets had their hands full just fighting the Germans and once they pushed them back they went head on against the Finns and the Finns were could not hold them so much that they were forced into a peace treaty which they had to give up some of the best territory. Luckily it could have gone much worse but the Soviets wanted to concentrate on Germany. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/217 "2016-07-05T17:54:51Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Sweden almost certainly would not be a quiet neutral backwater without the U.S. protecting it. When has Sweden been protected by the United States? > [@](#): > > Neutrality is a luxury that certain countries enjoy only by dint of the fact that a larger and more powerful country somewhere is keeping the bad guys at bay. Had it not been for U.S. protectionism, Sweden would have been subsumed by Germany or the Soviet Union long ago. Holy Christ, man. First of all, that’s not what “protectionism” means. Secondly, Sweden was neutral during World War II and was not in any way protected by the United States, and was not “subsumed” by Germany. Claiming that Sweden was protected by the USA from the Nazis is about as historically literate as saying that Belgium was protected by the Roman Empire from the Martians. Then during the Cold War Sweden remained neutral, was not protected by the United States, and was - surprise! - not “subsumed” by the Soviet Union. I mean, read up on this stuff next time. The evidence of American “protectionism” of Sweden is rather lacking. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/218 "2016-07-05T20:37:25Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > . . . Just how well could Canada protect its borders? Is the [Canadian navy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_of_the_Royal_Canadian_Navy) up to it? Or would they be calling upon the US for help? . . . The Canadian Navy would serve as a tripwire; any attack on them is an attack on the U.S., per NATO alliance. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/219 "2016-07-05T20:57:11Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Secondly, Sweden was neutral during World War II and was not in any way protected by the United States, and was not “subsumed” by Germany. Claiming that Sweden was protected by the USA from the Nazis is about as historically literate as saying that Belgium was protected by the Roman Empire from the Martians. Must have been effective because I don’t hear Belgians speaking Martian. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2016, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853/220 "2016-07-05T22:09:27Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > When has Sweden been protected by the United States? > Holy Christ, man. > > First of all, that’s not what “protectionism” means. > > Secondly, Sweden was neutral during World War II and was not in any way protected by the United States, and was not “subsumed” by Germany. Claiming that Sweden was protected by the USA from the Nazis is about as historically literate as saying that Belgium was protected by the Roman Empire from the Martians. Then during the Cold War Sweden remained neutral, was not protected by the United States, and was - surprise! - not “subsumed” by the Soviet Union. I mean, read up on this stuff next time. > > The evidence of American “protectionism” of Sweden is rather lacking. So yet again I have to reiterate that I was talking about a scenario in which the U.S. either didn’t exist or made clear that it wouldn’t take any steps to interfere in whatever was going on in Europe. It’s specious to make claims based upon things as they actually happened in the war and its aftermath because without U.S. participation everything about the war and its subsequent events would have turned out entirely differently. Re protectionism, what is it everyone says these days, where proper English and grammar increasingly appear ‘classist’ and anachronistic? Oh yeah, “it’s a living language.” The fact you knew what I meant means the word got across the message I intended, and I doubt anyone not trying to score points in a completely different argument would care in the slightest. And it’s been my experience that Holy Christ rarely makes an appearance around here, so I suppose thanks are in order for at least bringing him to mind. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-exceptionalism/758853.md?page=12)