POLITICS FEBRUARY 8, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
In October, Mitt Romney delivered a speech at the Citadel in which he laid out his foreign policy views. “As president of the United States, I will devote myself to an American Century. And I will never, ever apologize for America,” he pledged. “Some may ask, ‘Why America? Why should America be any different than scores of other countries around the globe?’ I believe we are an exceptional country with a unique destiny and role in the world.” The speech was hardly an unusual moment. Throughout this campaign, Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum have spoken in similarly strident tones about their belief in American exceptionalism.
Perhaps the first thing to say about this rhetoric is that there has been something deeply unappealing about it. For a presidential candidate to say “I will never, ever apologize for America” is flatly ridiculous. All humans and all countries err sometimes; how can Romney be so sure that the United States on his watch will never do anything worth apologizing for?
With such bombastic talk, it is hard to escape the suspicion that, for many contemporary Republicans, American exceptionalism is really a philosophy of not wanting to learn from the rest of the world, especially from European countries with bigger social safety nets. Of course, Republicans are free to argue the merits of health care or government regulation of the economy; but the mere fact that some of these ideas have been put into practice in Europe does not make them worthless. In fact, as Timothy Noah shows conclusively in this issue (see “The Mobility Myth”), Western Europe has lately been outperforming the United States in income mobility—even though the possibility for economic advancement has historically been one of the core values of American society.
Conservatives have also in recent years made a fuss about the use of foreign law by U.S. courts. They are horrified by the notion that American judges might look at decisions by their foreign counterparts in democratic countries to inform their interpretations of our own Constitution. But why should the idea of drawing on expertise from foreign judicial systems be so terrifying? We are not asking foreign judges to decide our cases. If there is some insight to be gleaned from looking elsewhere, what could be the harm in considering it?
In the end, the current Republican incarnation of American exceptionalism is actually rather isolationist in spirit. It is a bid to place Americans on a different plane from the rest of the world, a confidence that we have nothing to learn from others and that we can interact with them dismissively. It is ironic that Republicans, who have spent much of the past generation accusing Democrats of isolationism, have now arrived at a worldview that would, at some level, counsel Americans to shut themselves off from other countries.
And yet that does not mean there is nothing to be said on behalf of American exceptionalism. The core American ideals of freedom, opportunity, justice, and human rights were exceptional when America began putting them into practice. And, while they are—thankfully—no longer exceptional today, it is true that, because of our outsized power, we remain uniquely positioned to stand up for these ideals when they are under threat elsewhere in the world. For all the ugliness of Romney’s rhetoric on the subject, he does get one thing about American power right. “America,” he said in his Citadel speech, “must lead the world, or someone else will. Without American leadership, without clarity of American purpose and resolve, the world becomes a far more dangerous place, and liberty and prosperity would surely be among the first casualties.” To be sure, he seems not to appreciate that a pledge to “never, ever apologize” is not really compatible with good leadership; nevertheless, he is correct that American leadership is vastly preferable to leadership by China or Russia, both of which are implacably opposed to the cause of freedom.
On the question of American leadership in the world, President Obama’s record has been mixed. At the outset of his presidency, he badly overcorrected for the foreign policy arrogance of his predecessor. He appeared more concerned with conveying a sense of humility toward other governments than in standing up for human rights and democracy abroad. Lately, he has seemed more willing to assert American power, most notably in Libya. During the campaign to come, we hope he will counter Republican bluster about exceptionalism not with a diffident view of American global leadership, but with the argument that our exceptional power and our exceptional history obligate us to serve as advocates for certain ideals on the world stage.
This article appeared in the March 1, 2012 issue of the magazine.
12 comments
It is absurd to think that Russia could ever lead the world, and scarcely less so to think that China ever could. The world, in fact, is far too large for any nation to "lead" it. Do we tell Latin America what to do? Or Asia? We are currently limping out of Afghanistan, learning to our sorrow that we are not quite the colossus we thought ourselves to be. What does American leadership in Europe consist of? Hoping that the Europeans will fix things themselves, since obviously we can't. America is, in fact, politically paralyzed by the task of taking care of our aging population. It's sad that an essay that begins so intelligently succumbs in the end to the notion that the world must be led. It doesn't, and it can't be.
- AlanVann
February 9, 2012 at 12:02pm
China too will have an aging population to contend with. The more serious demographic time bomb Chinese planners fear waiting in the wings is a population that is aging so fast that it will fall below the replacement threshold, whereas the U.S. enjoys a constant trickle of immigrants, legal and illegal, to replenish our numbers of those paying into SS and entitlement programs. Oh, and by the way, CHina just initiated its first Social Security Law last year Sept. 1. So as an American professional in China, I am paying into a fund, as required by law, which I will NEVER be able to draw from, because as a foreigner, it is very difficult (not to mention undesirable but not unheard of) to get a permanent residency card. If China is investing in its retired and aging population; who is to say the U.S. should stop doing so? Why not just incrementally raise retirement age and reduce spending? France and Germany are aging their systems gracefully and sustainably.
- brp1056
March 13, 2012 at 3:15am
Isn't it time for the entire world to work on becoming “exceptional?” The Declaration of Independence was indeed exceptional, though it was also exceptionally hypocritical. We are still working on cleaning our act up. Neither Russia nor China were wonderful before their Revolutions; it is exceptional that both have morphed into something (barely) better than their revolutionary monstrosities. Sri Lanka – site of one of the worst wars of the century -- seems to be getting a little better. South Africa is hardly a utopia, but we all admire Mandela for good reason – think about how much worse SA could have been. No matter where we are, we are all humans, we are all in this together. We are all a mixture of monster and masterpiece, we are all struggling to be better. Even those of us posting our surly, belligerant comments on TNR.
- skahn
March 13, 2012 at 10:06am
Unfortnately, modern Republicans appear to want to lead the world based on the economically unjust, anti-democratic, militant values of the former slave states.
- esmense
March 13, 2012 at 11:41am
Not another bullshit editorial about American exceptionalism in the news media? You guys inside the Beltway Bubble are living in policy wonk heaven. It's really kind of pathetic in a way. Try doing a tour of duty in Afghanistan. Then come back and write an article about American exceptionalism.
- rewiredhogdog
March 13, 2012 at 12:04pm
"Unfortnately, modern Republicans appear to want to lead the world based on the economically unjust, anti-democratic, militant values of the former slave states. Well put, esmense.
- magboy47.
March 13, 2012 at 3:08pm
right on esmense.
- WandreyCer
March 13, 2012 at 3:17pm
This editorial gives the game away. There is nothing "liberal" about the contemporary American left. The war between the left and the right is about one big issue. "Liberals" believe that liberal democracy is a bad thing because the dumb yokels out there in America are hung up on reactionary ideas like family, freedom, honor, decency and community and refuse to submit to being governed by their betters in the media and in academia. Conservatives, who include many who in better days would have been called liberals, are, yes, American exceptionalists. We don't believe that America can do no wrong. The election of Barack Obama is proof that our system is flawed and that the electorate is ignorant of things they should have learned in high school. What we do believe is that the political ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are superior to the Dark Ages barbarism of Islamic world, to the neo-totalitarianism of Russia and China, and, yes, to the socialism that has brought Europe to the verge of collapse.
- bulbman1066
March 14, 2012 at 1:17am
That must explain, bulb, why, for the right, those ideals are only to be put into practice abroad, while decapitating foreign governments, and not here. The right does everything imaginable to subvert all of these values with the power of money, so that the Constitution and Declaration are but empty shells, propaganda tools.
- roidubouloi
March 14, 2012 at 8:02am
Bulbman: Europe is not on the verge of collapse although there are problems. The economic problem has been exacerbated by their adherence to the austerity method (cutting taxes, spending, government jobs) of dealing with the downturn. This European method is incidentally what Romney et al. would apply here with equally bad results. Second, the common currency of the EU makes it impossible for Greece to devalue its currency, which would be the traditional method of dealing with Greece's problems. This is unrelated to socialism. Note that "socialist" Germany is doing just fine. Where did you get the idea that liberals want to replace liberal democracy with rule by the media and academics? Are not Rush Limbaugh and Fox News part of the media? It is true that most scientists no longer consider themselves Republican, but this is easily explained by the GOP's refusal to accept evolution and global warming. You can hardly expect scientists to join groups that reject science.
- Vekert
March 14, 2012 at 2:04pm
Vekert, Given the social democratic political culture of Europe, and given the unpopularity of austerity measures, Paul Krugman’s claim that the cutbacks in government spending by governments in Western Europe are irrational is implausible in the extreme. They wouldn’t do it if they didn’t have to. Biological evolution and the theory that man made global warming presents a threat of global apocalypse are two different kettles of fish. The neo-Darwinian synthesis, apart from technical details, is as much settled science as the atomic theory of matter. By contrast if you read what scientists of various points of view have to say on the subject of man-made climate warming you will discover that the science is anything but settled. Richard Lindzen of MIT has won more awards and honors than any other climatologist. He is respected even by his peers who don’t agree with him. In forming one’s view on the subject one would be foolish to ignore his critique of the apocalyptic view popularized by the sensation loving mass media. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS-cLp1PEGQ
- bulbman1066
March 14, 2012 at 10:48pm
Roi, You have it exactly backwards. The left wants Constitutional rights for Islamic terrorists but not for law abiding citizens. The left is at war with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and the right to own property. The left favors racial preferences. The left seeks to facilitate voter fraud. Today the mainstream American right is liberal, the left is fascist. "Liberalism" and fascism are sisters under the skin.
- bulbman1066
March 14, 2012 at 11:03pm