American Exceptionalism by any other name...
I try to imagine a historically-minded Latin American reading Anne-Marie Slaughter’s claim that the essence of American patriotism is its commitment to “liberty, democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, humility, and faith,” without exploding in bitter laughter and I find that I cannot. Anne-Marie may be right (I am not at all sure) that values play a particularly important role in the American national psyche, but psycho-history is not history, just as self-love is not real love.
But leave what we have wrought in Latin America from James Monroe through Woodrow Wilson (self-determination, indeed!) to Henry Kissinger and Ronald Reagan to one side. There is, more generally, something strangely over-intellectualized as well as over-sentimentalized about Anne-Marie’s account of our own history. Take, for example, her argument that our debates about what our values mean constitute what she calls “the essence of our politics, the secret of our success, and the source of our strength as a vibrant, open society.” Frankly, while I might wish this were so, I don’t think there is really much historical basis for the claim.
Would an economic historian agree that political and moral debate was the secret of our economic success? Perhaps one who subscribes to the neo-liberal and neo-conservative view that democracy engenders successful, liberal capitalist societies would do so? But that, frankly, is utopianism disguised as economics and is, in any case, foundering as China and Russia demonstrate the economic viability of capitalism in an authoritarian political context. At the very least, surely, an equally strong case can be made that our historic success is based on our economic success and that, historically, that economic success had very little to do with values and much more to do with such dry, unromantic stuff as mineral and agricultural wealth, slavery, immigrant cheap labor, and capital accumulation.
I am, in any case, deeply suspicious of arguments like Anne-Marie’s that are, fundamentally, progress narratives. Not only do they seem to me, in terms of the history of ideas, penumbral transliterations of the ur-Biblical Progress narrative, and as such worth examining with the greatest skepticism since they are so deeply engrained in Christian cultures, but they seem to me highly dubious as any other kind of history than what is now rightly disparaged as Whig history. When, for example, Anne-Marie writes that “debates and struggles over the meaning of our values has driven our history forward,” by using the term forward in what is clearly the moral and political rather than the chronological sense, she in fact illustrates this Whig paradigm perfectly.
But is history really a progress, as Anne-Marie claims? Perhaps we are not going ‘forward’ at all, but backwards, or sideways. Frankly that seems far more likely to me and I can’t help wondering, were Anne-Marie herself not trying to ‘rehumanize and revitalize’ what I believe she would think of as the American project, whether she would really disagree? Again, when Anne-Marie speaks of the need to “get our foreign policy back on track,” or, in her justifiable consternation over the Bush administration’s suicidal foreign policy, refers to nations friendly to the United States that think that we Americans “no longer (italics mine) listen and learn,” I come back to my fantasy of a Latin American reading these words, and I invite Anne-Marie’s readers to ask themselves what any non-American would make of such a claim? I also cannot help wondering if the nations and peoples who did once believe this were any other than the Europeans grateful at America’s role in their liberation from the Nazis. But Europe is not the world, and I do not believe that Latin Americans or East Asians ever believed anything of the sort.
Frankly, I don’t see why anyone should believe anything that self-serving. Anne-Marie wants dialogue with other nations. She honorably calls for humility. And yet she remains married to a romantic, self-loving vision of the political and moral essence of the United States that seems to me based on confusing a sociological analysis---as she puts it, “part of what we think makes us distinctly American is that we hold to a set of values that apply around the world”---with an historical one. What a florid romance Americans make of America! Surely, if we are serious about gaining “both friends and humility, not necessarily in that order,” as Anne Marie rightly calls for, the first thing to do is to once and for all renounce this romance and see the United States for what it is---a great country that, like all great countries, has done many good things and many bad things throughout its history, but also whose national myth about itself is a self-serving fantasy, like all national myths. To say that we Americans think something does not make it so, and until we are prepared to confront that possibility seriously, we will remain lost in the dangerous forest of American exceptionalism of which Anne-Marie’s latest book is a humane revision whether she accepts the fact or not.
By whatever standard people want to measure "exceptionalism", I think its plain that we are on a decidedly downward trajectory with no bottom in sight. So if we ever were exceptional, (and I dont think theres any good arguement that we were) then we shortly will not be.
I wont miss the nationalism and jingoism. (not that we will give it up, even if we end up living in boxes and eating radioactive dirt).
June 19, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
David, you obviously hate America. Who let you in here?
kidding...
But I don't think America is, or ever will be, ready to give up our precious Myths.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
June 19, 2007 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are American values unique? The only other nation that talks about itself in this way is France (culture). Is there some inferiority complex here? Why do you need to make such a fuss over your values and at the same time export some of the worst excesses of Hollywood and not very good fast food.
Why do you need to do all this good in the world? Do you think people at the receiving of these values appreciate it? Those at the receiving end of American scholarships, foundation grants and other forms of assistance are grateful But they do not necessarily accept your values. Because, in addition to all the values set out by Anne Marie there is an awful lot of distasteful stuff: religious extremism, hypocrisy, greed, riding rough shod over the feelings of others, etc. Freedom Fries says more about America just now.
June 19, 2007 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has all been discussed in a highly readable book:
Myths America Lives By
"Myths America Lives By identifies five key myths that lie at the heart of the American experience--the myths of the Chosen Nation, of Nature's Nation, of the Christian Nation, of the Millennial Nation, and of the Innocent Nation."
Slaughter and Ikenberry spent several days explaining their romantic version of US history and our need to take on the white man's burden on TPMcafe a few month's ago. Very few of us bought into their thesis that time either.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
June 19, 2007 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just saw this as the feature in the TPMCafe Book Club and posted there but this seems a more likely place to see other thoughts on this. Here is part of what I posted:
________________
It's not that those ideals listed are not truly inspiring nor that using them as a basis upon which to engage other nations is a bad thing, it's that we don't truly even practice or embrace them here at home. We need to be honest about that fact because it is a critically important distinction. And while we may be too busy wondering what Paris is eating in prison and how much it will cost us to fill our tanks for our 4th of July road trips, the rest of the world sees us trying to paint it with a very broad brush only using the colors red, white & blue. And no amount of back slapping or misty-eyed idyllic theories of what America is supposed to be, that we put forward to justify doing as we please, is going to get the rest of the world to buy it. Not a single word of it.
The real "Idea that Is America" these days appears to me to be "do as we say, not as we do". And there's nothing inspiring or enlightened about that. In fact, I think you could argue that in doing so you actually turn those admirable values into American exceptionalism.
_____________
I also take "exception" to the presumptuous position that everyone in the world (or at least by our measure those that matter) universally subscribe to not only the same core ideals but also to the same definitions and implementations of those ideals. This strikes me as further evidence of American exceptionalism because it proves itself immediately false by ignoring the realities of different cultures, traditions, religions and histories. I think that perhaps that's an equally stark aspect of what makes this an exceptionalist position, it's exclusive and not inclusive.
June 19, 2007 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very impressive post in putting its finger on my qualms. As a scholar at Princeton, Professor Slaughter should be doing more than adding a hazy glow to created conflicts among nations. I'm not seeing signs of that.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 19, 2007 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
To say that we Americans think something does not make it so, and until we are prepared to confront that possibility seriously, we will remain lost in the dangerous forest of American exceptionalism of which Anne-Marie’s latest book is a humane revision whether she accepts the fact or not.
David Rieff (and I don't say this often), you rock!
At first, I didn't think of what to make of Slaughter's thesis. I'm all in favor of better relations with the rest of the world, and her argument seemed idealistic and hopeful. Beyond this, I didn't care too much about it. But you've managed to succinctly and cogently explain why Slaughter's seemingly innocuous argument is in fact dangerous and conceited. Suddenly I care a lot about this argument, and you've completely won me over to your point of view. Kudos to you.
June 19, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like Mcboo, I'm troubled by the assertion that American values define "universal values."
Slaughter writes: "Liberty, democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, humility, and faith bind Americans together, but these values do not stop at the shores of the Atlantic and Pacific, or the banks of the Rio Grande and Saint Lawrence. We have always insisted that our values are universal values. Indeed, part of what we think makes us distinctively American is that we hold to a set of values that apply around the world."
"Democracy" simply is not considered the highest for of government in all parts of the world. Think of Scandanavian countries where socialism still shapes healthcare and so many other social policies. As for "faith" I presume Slaughter means faith in a god or perhaps even faith in an afterlife. Y
Yet there are many moral people in this world who are secular humanists and/or atheists. They do not share her faith. I'd add that the "faith" of many Eastern religions is so very differet from what most in the West mean by the word that Slaughter's idea of faith can hardly be called universal.
The same could be said of "equality." Here in American, we tend to insist that "equality" means equality of opportunity. In other cultures, which are more interested in stability and promoting a collective sensbility, equality means equal results in terms of standards of living. We value the exceptional individual who "stands out" because of his success--in other cultures "standing out" would be cause for shame.
"Today," Slaughter continues, "other countries, by and large, do not believe us. When we say, 'We want to promote universal values,' they increasingly hear, 'We want to impose American values.'"
Of course they do--and for good reason. What are we are we doing whenever we try to suggest that other countires should aspire to become "democracies."
Finally, Slaughter urges us to "to learn much more about the idea that is Japan, France, South Korea, India, . . . Botswana, Ghana, Brazil, Turkey, . . Chile, Mexico, Costa Rica, Canada, Italy, Australia and a great many other liberal democracies."
How about learning more about countries that are not "liberal democracies?" Perhaps we could learn more about China? (Since it is about to displace us, this could be useful knowledge). If we are interested in tolerance We might want to learn more about Sweden or Denmark (I'm assuming Denmark didn't make her long list of liberal
democracies because it's too socialist.)
How about learning more about Middle Eastern cultures (so that we can at least tell the difference between Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran)?
June 19, 2007 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about all the rest, but self love is in fact the root of all love. To love another honestly, one must first love the self.
Which is way different from narcissism - which term might better fit your analogy, David.
Jake
June 19, 2007 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know that we move in fits and starts, but on the long haul (i.e., discounting the last 6 years especially), I still believe we're on an upward trajectory. Over the last 200 years we've gotten rid of slavery, given women the vote, eliminated poll taxes, and probably one or two other good things as well. Over the next 100 years, I suspect that the majority will accept the "homosexual lifestyle" and that homosexuals will be given the right to marry and adopt/have children. I know it's hard to see while sitting in a trough, but I still believe that we're continuing to improve (on average).
That's not to say that we don't still have a long way to go, or that we're "the best" or anything, but I believe that discounting our progress is selling us short.
June 19, 2007 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
He he, Americans and French are by no means unique in seeing themselves as unique.
I would conjecture that the same is the case with Russians, Indians, British, German and Chinese. And, of course, the Jews.
It was interesting to me that the Russians have a single world (podnebesnaya) that correspond to a Chinese world that means "all under Heaven" -- but in usage, it means the only country that really matters (which is different for Russians and for Chinese).
June 19, 2007 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the mistake here is trying to say these values are the values of all 300 million Americans. Clearly Bush, Cheney and Rove have vastly different values - unitary Presidency, oil, torture etc. The question is whether a significant debate can occur and I think that at least 40% of the US holds closely to these values that Slaughter talks about, with these values as foundation. I think the debate has to be between those who hold these univerals values which are rather guides for action amongst 'the believers' rather than a basis for dialogue among all. The goal then is to create a world based on these universal values rather than to start a conversation amongst all who can talk.
June 19, 2007 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
American exceptionalism is primarily for internal consumption. Very few people outside the US take it seriously, but it's what helps Americans convince themselves that they are purely a force for the good in the world and not just another nation with narrow self-serving interests like everyone else.
June 19, 2007 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: "Democracy" simply is not considered the highest for of government in all parts of the world. Think of Scandanavian countries where socialism still shapes healthcare and so many other social policies.
Democracy and socialism are not opposites, or even exclusionary of each other. The Scandinavian countries would be considered democracies by just about everyone, even though three of them are, fornmally, constitutional monarchies.
Re: In other cultures, which are more interested in stability and promoting a collective sensbility, equality means equal results in terms of standards of living.
Oh, good grief, is there any country on Earth where this has been achieved or is even a true ideal? Even countries where almsot everyone is equially wretched have a tiny and rather fabulously wealthy upper class. And yes, there are rich people in Scandinavian too.
Re: We value the exceptional individual who "stands out" because of his success--in other cultures "standing out" would be cause for shame.
Every culture defines and admires excellence in some way or another. Maybe wealth alone is not the be-all and end-all, though there no where on earth will you find a place where wealth is sneered at, where an ordinary person would reject a fat inheritance or tear up a winning lottery ticket. If some peopel have too idealistic a view of America, you seem to have a very unrealistic view of the rest of humankind.
Re: Perhaps we could learn more about China? (Since it is about to displace us, this could be useful knowledge).
How so? China's GDP is going to larger than ours soon, but it also has four times as many people.
Re: I'm assuming Denmark didn't make her long list of liberal democracies because it's too socialist
Where is this coming from? Ms Slaughter certainly made no such suggestion. As I said above no one would seriously exclude any Scandianvian country (in fact no European country save Russia, Belarus and the Vatican, and maybe Serbia still) from the list of democracies. You have a chip on your shoulder about something, but Ms Slaughter is not your target.
June 19, 2007 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a clue boys and girls. People who brag about their humility, don't have any.
June 19, 2007 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trouble is all this preening in the mirror admiring themselves for just being so darned special ,has knock on effects in the Us's relations with the world.
After all a constant diet of how wonderful and special america is leads both to a complete inability to understand how any other country could possibly disagree with american policies ('its just pure anti-americanism' 'they hate us for our freedoms' etc etc ) and a belief that even if the governments of other countries are opposed then surely the people of those countries must actually support america.After all is not america loved and admired by people around the world and don't they really deep down want to be americans?
And that road leads to 'we will be welcomed as liberators' and other such sentiment ('irans population is really pro-american so if we can just overthrow the goverment.....').
It also leads americans to believe that as they are such a noble country then anything they do abroad must be noble and for the best interests of the foreigners even if the foreigners can't see it. (see interventions in latin america, support for dictators etc).
June 19, 2007 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and for the record, what made America the great powerhouse that it is today, was relentlessly killing off and making war on the weaker peoples who had original claim to the place.
America's power comes not from virtue, but from controlling three and a half million square miles of prime temperate zone real estate, plus a goodly portion of the world's key resources of oil, gas, iron and other essentials, conveniently located, and the security of two vast oceans and no threats on the continent.
No other state in human history has ever had such a spectacular run of luck.
Russia and Canada were bigger, but a lot of their territory is basically tundra. Australia is almost as big, but its mostly desert. Europe and India were comparable, but divided into squabbling fractious mini-states with territories of a few thousand or few tens of thousands of square miles. Even China, in other respects comparable, was surrounded by competing empires - Khmer, Vietnam, the Mogul, Japan, Korea, and repeatedly invaded by barbarians, the Monguls, the Manchu, the Han.
Nope. America, born on third base, and convinced it hit a triple.
June 19, 2007 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
It's time to let the mighty Eagle Soar once more
I too am caught between laughter and tears choking on each.
June 19, 2007 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron, yours is the best but here are some more:
The person who describes him/herself as a "giver" is extracting a huge price for whatever they may be "giving" away.
When someone says, "I'll be honest with you..." LOOK OUT! You are about to hear a big lie.
When you hear, "This is in your own best interest..." Opt out.
And finally, when our president or veep say absolutely anything, but especially if they mention 911, God, or The Rule O' Law (why can't George pronounce the letter, "f?" Hide your children, your pocketbooks, and get ready for the next scandal which they will blow off, right up everyone's a**es!
Jan
June 19, 2007 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No other state in human history has ever had such a spectacular run of luck.
Not luck. It's manifest fucking destiny pal! Just be glad Jesus didn't manifestly destine us to get busy on Canada's ass. I sure don't know why he didn't, cuz you terr'ist-luvin pinkos could sure use a dose of Faith, Tolerance and Liberty - adminstered straight to the nuts, Abu Ghraib style!
June 19, 2007 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. America, born on third base, and convinced it hit a triple.
And don't make fun of baseball!
June 19, 2007 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
With an entitlement to be safe at home.
June 19, 2007 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
But...well...how to say this? I don't think most Americans who think about it at all believe in American exceptionalism. If pressed, they'll say they believe in equality. Look at the divergence of opinion on the topic itself!
Besides, "exceptionalism" is by no means uniquely American. The jingoism, mindless militarism, fear-mongering, and exceptionalism that Bush has brought into play recently are just local versions of the old fascist tools used by Mussolini, Hitler, Tojo, and more recent minor league fascists like Milosovic in Serbia and Papadopoulos in Greece (one of the fascist Greek colonels' mottoes in the 1970s was "Make Greece #1 Again"--absurdly hearkening back to the Age of Pericles!).
These are the siren calls of fascists everywhere, and there aren't many populations that are immune to it. But, I don't think Americans are unusually susceptible, either. Bush's bullshit about a generations-long war, the superiority of our society, the urgency of the threat to our survival--these horseshit spewings aren't appealing uniquely to Americans. They've worked almost everywhere, at different times, for thousands of years.
A great observer once said that "All of life is a struggle against barbarism." You can recognize barbarians by their fruits--war, hatred, death, religious fanaticism, and an urgent desire to control learning and scientific development. That's what we're getting from Bushism now, but it was always true of nations run by barbarians.
June 19, 2007 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with Mr. Rieff, but I must say he takes it a bit far.
Without the ideals that Ms. Slaughter refers to and without an ongoing effort to make them real, no progress can be made in this country. Why? Because without them, without our myth of upholding certain ideas and values we will be, as the late Hunter S. Thompson pointed out in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972, just "a nation of used car salesmen." Or, put another way, there would be nothing left of what many of us consider the only unique and worthy parts of our nation. We would then have only commercialism, profit as the highest and greatest of all values no matter what, materialism and me first-ism. One of my college professors said that "the motto of America is Hurrah for me, and Fuck YOU!" In many respects that is right. But while all the ugliness that characterizes much of our nation's true nature is there, we also have a side that does strive for the ideals Ms. Slaughter writes about. It is a side that is in conflict with the commercialism and crassness, the idiotic jingoism and bully-boy antics around the globe. What we are as a nation is a big, messy, difficult to describe and certainly difficult to comprehend beast. I think we all understand that. But we are still a beast with great potential and many of us, perhaps not all, believe that at our greatest moments and when our nation has been at it's best it has always been because of the ideals and values the nation has always claimed it was about. We may not be making progress right now, but we have seen progress in the past and will continue to do so over time. We may be in a phase of regression as a nation and getting worse in some respects, but I think that is coming to an end and we have the potential to achieve things greater in the years to come than anything we have ever achieved before. If we do, it will be because of the triumph of the kind of values and ideals Slaughter writes about. It may be only a temporary triumph but that is the nature of the beast. The struggle is ongoing and our generation has an obligation in my view to make sure that our best ideas, ideals and values do triumph.
June 19, 2007 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a schizophrenic discussion this is!
I will not even try to express a position either pro or con Ms Slaughter's book. Instead, perhaps a little dip into philosophy will help (me at leat) get clear as to what we are actually talking about in the first place.
Marie Slaughter's post and her defenders talk a lot about the "meaning" of our values--sometimes the meaning of the actual words (liberty, democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, humility, and faith).
Bertrand Russel distinguished between semantic meanings and existential meanings. Obviously Ms Slaughter is not engaged in an exercise in linguistics, so we must assume she means something more akin to "existential meaning".
Wittgenstein did not make such distinctions and (in his later works) gave us the famous formulation "In a large number of cases the meaning of a word or expression is to be found in its use" (PI. §43). He talked about language games and he talked about “ways of life.”
So what concrete uses do we have for these words in our "way of life"?
I must say that rarely do these words/concepts play any role in our daily life other than to evoke a certain set of "feelings". In practical terms they are of little if no effect at all.
I dare say that a woman can spend her whole life living in this wonderful country never using these words in any language game at all (e.g. never even using the words themselves) and have quite a successful and wonderful life.
They are evocative words that play a role in language games whose purpose is to make the participants feel a certain way (depending on the circumstances).
Do these language games have a more diffuse effect on the culture in which they are played on a regular basis such as ours? Let’s take a peek.
George Bush uses language games using the locution "they hate our freedom" and "we need to spend money on faith-based initiatives" and it seems to motivate people to invade other countries (not a very salutary act in my opinion) or to make people intolerant of those who are not religiously inclined or of a non-Christian persuasion. So off-hand, it seems that these words can be and are often used for purposes that have nothing to do with any presumed abstract meaning we try to impugn on them.
It is not so much the words that a nation uses to describe it's ideals, although those that Slaughter chooses are as good as any, it is to what effect they are used.
Looking at the way many Americans use these words, I have to agree with the critics of Ms Slaughter that they are used in an exceptionalist way. They are used to distinguish ourselves as superior to "the others". That's the way I see these words used in my everyday encounter with people.
So I would say yes let us aspire to high ideals ( higher ways of life?) but let us not confuse that with mere self-serving lofty talk.
June 19, 2007 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron @ 7:04PM, Jun 19.
America's power comes from .... the security of two vast oceans and no threats on the continent.
I'm sorry, Valdron, but your security analysis for America is grossly out of date. Those two vast oceans are very likely contributing facts to a growing assessment among the largest powers out there, who are competing for the same resources that America (and Canada) overconsumes. Who knows for sure, but certainly, as Bangladesh starts fleeing to India to escape the consequences of our overconsumption, and as the world price of crude oil goes ever higher in Bush's program to please Russia (and get those missiles into Europe), it is becoming fashionable to think that North America is, ultimately, expendable.
It might be to India's benefit, say, to crash the world price of oil and end global warming by simply burning out the US and Canada. If you want to save Bangladesh from moving into India en masse, by stopping global warming, then a shutdown of North America might work for you. If India or some other beneficiary were to engage a rogue player, an untraceable detonation could be arranged over America or even just near enough to the continent to do the job.
And that would be the burn-out of every electrical component in all things electrical from coast-to-coast-to-coast.
How?
Most people think of 'nukes' as either dirty bombs or city destroyers, but a powerful nuclear bomb can actually shut down the United States and Canada in half an hour, without ever touching the ground. If such a nuclear bomb is detonated in the stratosphere, it causes an EMP, which will set afire almost all electrical infrastructure from Florida to Prince Rupert, from Quebec to Los Angeles. The death rate from this would be astronomical.
The higher this detonation takes place, the greater the area of destruction. Therefore, if a rogue player in possession of a nuclear bomb did not have access to missile delivery, the rogue player would need to detonate four or five nuclear bombs in the same number of high-altitude aircraft such as cargo jets, for example, over North America or even close by.
So, our natural isolation, may I suggest, is a neutral fact, and certainly not something that works in our favor on all occasions.
Add to this that sordid fact that the absence of "American values" in our foreign policy has been accruing major rage over the years. Therefore, such a major blowback op is not an impossibility. I hate to sound like Vice President Elmer Fudd (oops), I mean, Cheney, but ... be verwy afwaid. Be verwy, verwy afwaid.
And you're Canadian, are you? Then your goose will get cooked along with our turkeys, and we got a lot of them. Oh, and who started off India's nuclear program? Canaduh. That's who. Their Candu staff got locked out of the nuclear facility they built for India, back in late 1964. It's been 'progress' ever since. But that's okay, Canada, 'cause we helped train Dr. AQ Khan, the ultimate privatizer and marketeer of nuclear secrets, technology and matériel. So, don't think Canadians are dumber than Americans. 'Cause you ain't.
June 19, 2007 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who has lived and traveled in East Asia for nearly 20 years, I take exception to comments here about the rest of world not sharing our "myths" or seeing the US merely as a materialist and imperialist power. For Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Filipinos and many others in this part of the world, there has been and continues to be admiration for the US mingled with confusion and sometimes contempt - especially in recent years. Yet families send their kids to school in the US, transplant at least one child there should things go awry at home, go there to work and send back their paychecks, seek asylum and sanctury from repression, etc. So whatever second thoughts we are having about our self-professed "values" and whatever disrepute we find ourselves in now, the virtures that Slaughter would like to revive and that many here disparage are a experiential reality to many people. Of course US is also seen as materialistic, imperialistic, and decadent. Our hyprocrisy is often too transparent, especially when our leaders boast about supporting democracy in every corner o the globe, etc. as GWB has often done. But it's not pointless or a mere psychological exercise to consider how to bring our words and actions into closer alignment and to measure more carefully how we use our considerable influence.
June 19, 2007 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"To say that we Americans think something does not make it so, and until we are prepared to confront that possibility seriously, we will remain lost in the dangerous forest of American exceptionalism of which Anne-Marie’s latest book is a humane revision whether she accepts the fact or not."
Which makes me wonder what is the purpose and motivation of this project. Prof. Slaughter probably is an intelligent and well meaning individual. The first makes me wonder if she believes all the tripe about American values that they compiled. Is it possible that this project is conceived as a propaganda manual: how to convince American imbued in the notion of their exceptionalism to abandon positions that are based on that exceptionalism?
Political scientist may legitimately figure out that explaining the populations at large that they are morons (OK, beholden to unwise beliefs) is a "bad frame", and that a good frame is to agree with the premise of exceptionalism, but draw "correct conclusions". Perhaps a naive and polyannish frame is a wise thing to adopt. Perhaps not. But I feel that Rieff misses the point here: "Frankly, I don’t see why anyone should believe anything that self-serving." I would state the opposite -- most of the time people believe what they believe is self-serving. If the book is adressed to political philosophers or jaded denizens of meta-blogistan, sure. But if it is meant as a manual for politicians and activists...
June 20, 2007 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ya think? ;-)
June 20, 2007 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: be glad Jesus didn't manifestly destine us to get busy on Canada's ass.
We tried that, back in 1812, although in those days no one dragged Jesus on stage as justification for American wars. We also got out butts kicked.
June 20, 2007 3:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: but a powerful nuclear bomb can actually shut down the United States and Canada in half an hour, without ever touching the ground.
Yes, but very few countries have the wherewithal to do this. You need a thermonuclear bomb and the means to loft it into the outer atmosphere. Russia, China, France and Britain could od that. Maybe Israel (do they have H-bombs and what range are their missiles?). For sure no Middle Eastern country (except maybe Israel) and no terrorist organization could do that.
Re: If such a nuclear bomb is detonated in the stratosphere, it causes an EMP, which will set afire almost all electrical infrastructure from Florida to Prince Rupert, from Quebec to Los Angeles. The death rate from this would be astronomical.
I'm not sure one bomb could cover that much territory-- curvature of the Earth you know. Also, the higher the bomb the weaker the effect (radiation strength falls with the square of the distance). As for your airplane scenario, no cargo jet flies high enough to create a widespread EMP effect. No, missiles capable of reaching the upper atmosphere are necessary for this. As for the death toll, the US and Canada had a vast blackout in the Northeast, from NYC to Toronto to the edges of Chicago in 2003. What was the death toll from that? And for that matter natural EMPs (from solar flares) occasionally strike the Earth and cause circuit failure (not "fires" as you floridly put it) and the results have not been especially gruesome. whiele we do know that bombs can cause nasty EMPs the scneario you outline is highly speculative and unproven.
June 20, 2007 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron is right, convenient geographical location is where US's power comes from - historically. Nuclear bombs became a factor only after the US already became a very powerful country (not to mention the first owner of nukes).
The United States of America was historically very lucky. It was created at the onset of the industrial revolution in a land whose original inhabitants were militarily no match for white colonists. There was plenty of land for European settlers who came in big waves in the second half of the 19th century. Until mid-20th century, the US had no enemies to speak of, and it had plenty of time to grow and consolidate.
Compare with, say, Britain. The Isles were already fairly densely populated, certainly no room for major expansion. The French or Germans weren't going to step aside without a serious fight. Britain was a major colonial power but the locals weren't all that fond of Brits and quit as soon as they could. Same thing with France or Spain - nowhere to expand on the continent and unfriendly inhabitants of colonies. Germany didn't even exist as a state till Bismarck, and by then there wasn't even room for Germans to grab any major colonies.
The one country that was probably in a position closest to America's was Russia. It had a huge contiguous landmass, although a lot of it was just too cold. Russia also suffered major invasions in 1812 and especially in 1941. Something that hasn't happened to the US since 1812 (coincidence ?). Like the US, Russia had plenty of natural resources. It is not a coincidence that Russia was US's adversary in the Cold War.
June 20, 2007 4:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
All this reminds me of high school and how it always seemed to be about "school spirit." It was a distractor, a motivator a bonding agent. But when you got to the big world of the university, wearing a high school jacket seemed really tacky.
June 20, 2007 4:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Geez Pooter.
Yes, no significant threats on the continent and two mighty oceans made a difference. It gave America a 185 year head start.
During that 185 year period, every other major power or region faced or fought invasions on its home territories. India, France, Germany, Austria, India, China, Russia all fought and endured the devastation of major wars repeatedly fought in their own territory.
Hell, look at WWII where the Russians lost 25 million people and were half overrun. The same war saw France and Germany reduced to bombed out hulks. WWII was preceded by WWI, the Franco-Prussian War, the Crimean War, the Napoleanic Wars, the 18th century 'French and Indian Wars', etc. etc.
Facing forward, I'd note that even during the cold war, when America was targetted with ICBM's, its missiles were a lot closer to the USSR than the USSR's were to the continental United States, and American strategic thinking called for the conventional war to be fought in Germany.
During the vast period of continental security, America's wars were mostly uncontested wars of conquest against Indians or Mexicans. The only serious conflict on American soil was the Civil War.
You know what that's called? A head start.
Freedom from the risk of territorial invasion, and freedom from the destruction of wars fought on native soil was a major economic advantage, allowing resources and population to develop to best use.
In WWI, France literally lost an entire generation of its young men, and lost the economic drive and opportunities these young men represented. America didn't.
June 20, 2007 5:19 AM | Reply | Permalink