American Exceptionalism - True or False
Anthony M. Perry
amperrymd@gmail.com
In the spirit of Francis Bacon that some articles (paraphrasing) are meant to be chewed and digested, I reread the Ceaser article with renewed interest and understanding. Evidently in the academic community there is a strong streak of anti-Americanism utilizing as one basis a straw man sort of argument critical of the concept of American exceptionalism. The idea that America is "exceptional" is apparently rejected as an unsophisticated attitude based on patriotic jingoism or religious faith. I thought professor Ceaser offered a nicely reasoned rebuttal.
President Obama's response on the issue seems to put him squarely on the side of the anti-exceptionalists, a strange sort of attitude for an American president, one that, in my mind, makes him as singular in our history as does his racial background.
It appears then that our task in this course was to explore this controversy. Is America's meaning qualitatively different than England or Greece in some way that is of major importance or are President Obama and his supporters correct in considering the nation he leads to be just another equal member of the world community with no special significance. In discussing this question it is clear that those who dispute that America has a unique character are not referring to its obvious present day economic and military dominance but are denying the existence of a more profound philosophical or spiritual significance of America, what has been termed in the Ceaser article, its mission. Or at least they are arguing that any sense of a mission assumed for America is inappropriate and misguided.
America of course, like every other national group has a culture, and much of it has invaded other parts of the world - its jazz and blues, entertainment media, linguistic slang, fast foods, everyday commercial items, and so on. But at the same time America has borrowed much from other cultures, by far the most important contribution the people themselves. The continuous assimilation of individuals from all over the world throughout America's history has been truly astounding, and it continues today as any tour in a major metropolitan area will demonstrate. This situation makes America somewhat exceptional but having a large, varied immigrant population seems hardly to warrant the designation of a mission. And many aspects of American history and culture often seem pale in comparison with that of other nations, so that from this aspect English or Greek cultural pride is as valid as that of America. This seems to be the context in which the President's response was made, that of the urbane sophisticate who appreciates other cultures, eschewing the boorish superior attitude of the clumsy and uninformed American.
I believe that American exceptionalism is a very valid concept and that its fundamental defining quality is liberty. The original settlers came seeking religious freedom. They were ambitious risk-takers, energetic protestors by nature, occupying a territory which was immensely distant from supervision and with limitless room for expansion. In a short time the religious dissenters were far superseded in numbers by those who saw the same opportunity simply to be free to pursue their well-being as far as their energy and talent could take them. This is the spirit that I believe is in the American genetics to this day.
Liberty is the primary quality of the American spirit and equality and self-government are corollaries. If I am to be free then it follows that others must be free and equal. For the original American settlers this was a foregone conclusion. Some tried to transfer their aristocracy from England but could not enforce their claims in the face of overwhelming numbers and limitless territory for settlement. By the same token everyone was to live by the same rules, regardless of wealth or previous station in Europe. Accordingly any social regulation was to be decided by the community. Those who disagreed were free to go their own way and there was new territory aplenty in which to do so.
The task fell to the founding fathers in the late 18th century to expound this philosophy which had developed in the actual behavior of the inhabitants over the preceding 150 years. Then followed the difficult task of rallying the inhabitants to risk life and property in its defense. Finally there was the heady task of whether and how to apply and codify this philosophy in a general way for all the North American inhabitants. They had many models in the individual State constitutions and a philosophical framework in the writings of John Locke. The achievement required two tries and some of the greatest practical political philosophical thinking ever produced.
In my view the resulting U.S. Constitution and the mechanism by which it was produced are a masterpiece of human achievement equal in import to many other major historical landmarks such as the rule of Caesar Augustus, the works of the Renaissance artists and the achievements of Gutenberg and Martin Luther during the Reformation. Down through the centuries many philosophers had speculated about the organization of ideal societies but this was a real and practical solution starting with the concept that all individuals involved were free and equal and that the powers of any overriding authority were to be granted only with their approval. Freely selected representatives of smaller constituencies debated, came to an agreement and then subjected their proposal to a widely distributed general debate to achieve general consent. Nothing like it had ever happened in the world.
The resulting compact by necessity was balanced by regional interests, but also by individual competing components of government and by well defined mechanisms of selection of office-holders. Great pains were taken to define the status of government in respect to individual liberty. Importantly the structure was written rather than arbitrary and the powers of central government defined with all activities otherwise reserved to the discretion of individuals or local entities. Flexibility was maintained by specific methods for alteration which have since occurred primarily to accommodate social change. The structure has remained remarkably intact through more than 200 years of dramatic social and technological change. It revolutionized world political thinking such that since then even the most totalitarian and oppressive governments often pay lip service to democratic legitimization of their powers.
The traditional American brand of liberty that emerged from its history is libertarian, that is it is absolute, impeded only by the need to refrain from imposing on the similar liberty of others. And the actions to be limited because of imposition on others must have concrete consequences, physical or economic. Social or minor psychological offenses are not prohibited. In addition it is extremely important to realize that such liberty includes economic as well as political elements .The remarkable expansion of population in America in the 18th and 19th centuries, both home grown and immigrant, was spurred on by almost free land and free enterprise. This new world with its lack of social and governmental restriction was the opportunity for landless Europeans and craftsmen to "pursue their happiness" as far as their abilities could take them. Tocqueville describes the Americans of the 1830's as being preoccupied with improving their circumstances to the exclusion of social manners, the arts and philosophy. Community problems were addressed by voluntarism and government was primarily local. Thus the enlightenment principles of private property and free enterprise are embedded deep in the American psyche. The so-called American dream, the opportunity to rise from rags to riches by dint of one's own efforts, remains an ideal, and is touted in speeches even by those who espouse strong central government.
In the 20th century a new more Hobbesian view of American democracy has emerged which is more focused on strong government organizing society for the common good. This was epitomized by FDR's claim of a basic human "Freedom from Want". There followed in the next few decades a new list of rights and a new view of equality which has led to a fundamental philosophical and social divide in America, in turn sparking the debate about whether there is such a thing as American exceptionalism. In the new view individuals have economic rights to a good job which pays a living wage, adequate housing, full medical care and much else. The new equality implies more equal economic outcomes and social status, even for those who expend less effort or with more deviant behavior. Although couched in standard American political terminology (freedom, rights, equality) this new philosophy stands in direct contrast to the traditional American ethic as previously outlined. It requires an expansive central government and a mutable "living" constitution which can adjust to the mood of the day as well as subordination of unrestricted rights of speech, religion and property to a selected view of the common good. It is not possible to grant the new rights without infringing on the old rights or without government intervention.
This new view has not been without opposition which has been growing through the decades since the 1950's but which more recently has taken the form of hearkening back to America's revolutionary ideals and principles as famously espoused by television economic commentator Rick Santelli who in 2009 on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade called for a new Tea Party. Those seeking to put a halt to the transformation of basic American values see themselves as restoring the principles which made America exceptional. The idea here is that American freedom and individualism is not simply selfishness but that a society in which everyone is as free as possible to strive to be the best that he can be, such as was observed by Tocqueville in the 1830's, produces a dynamism that results in unimaginable progress and maximum happiness. To my mind this idea represents America's mission and is the basis for the claim that America is exceptional. It is a transforming idea that since its inception has attracted innumerable immigrants but has also spread throughout the world, not just in previous centuries but also in modern times such as in Eastern Europe during the 1970's, and even today as in the recent Arab Spring and Hong Kong uprisings.
It appears to me that the great majority of present day Americans, even those who espouse more communalism and reject the exceptionalism concept, are in fact deeply imbued with the American spirit of liberty. Americans in general demand freedom and equal treatment and at the same time believe in fair play. They respect personal achievement and try to maximize their own. They generally are suspicious of government and have low expectations regarding its efficiency and reliability. Socially they tolerate a great deal of deviance and at the same time wish to carry on in their own manner. These qualities become apparent when put to the test. There is a reason, for example, that America does not have national health care. Americans do not like to be told what they can and can't have, even for the purported good of society. For this reason the HMO managed care concept, put forth during the Nixon administration, was a failure and alternatively the present attempt under the Obama administration sparked an electoral "shellacking" and remains unpopular.
President Obama is an interesting point of reference in this philosophical clash. He is on the Hobbesian side, favoring a society run by a strong central authority with freedoms ceded by individuals for the common good rather than the traditional Jeffersonian view. He reassured skeptical Americans that he would transform government promising to end partisan divide, both political and racial, to make government more transparent and democratic, to end the influence of special interests. His persona was convincing and won the day but at this point the outcome is disappointing relative to the purported blessings of strong central government. It appears to many that the intuition of the founders remains correct - that men are not angels, that central government must exist under powers strictly limited by written laws, that there must be separation of competing powers, a federal structure, a strong representative congress frequently elected, and especially a specific list of enumerated items protecting the liberty and property of individuals from encroachment by government or the tyranny of the majority.
That America has played an exceptional role in world history seems beyond debate to any fair-minded observer. At this juncture the larger question is contained in the famous response of Benjamin Franklin to the question of what form of government was produced by the constitutional convention , "A republic, if you can keep it."
