American Exceptionalism: The Bi-Partisan Progressive Consensus
The difference between what may be termed mainstream or progressive Republicans and Democrats is more apparent than real in the foreign policy arena. They both believe that America is exceptional and has a responsibility to promote progressive democracy abroad.
Democrats do send confusing signals about whether or not America is exceptional. President Obama's speeches provide useful examples of this confusion. When he was asked directly if he believed in American exceptionalism, Obama said "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” In other words, it seems that all nations, without exception, "believe" themselves to be exceptional. In this instance, President Obama embraced relativism to avoid the appearance of chauvinism.
But this is not the whole story. Obama has made it very clear that he is proud of the fact that the "United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. . . .We were founded upon the ideal that all men are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words--within our borders, and around the world . . . ." These words could have been spoken by any one of the militant early Progressive believers in American exceptionalism, such as Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, or Albert Beveridge.
It is true that President Obama has made comments like this: "America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election." But then his remarks have frequently included statements such as this one:
"I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights . . . ."
To put it simply, America has no right to tell you how to live, but you should live according to progressive American ideas, because they truly embody universal human rights!
Progressive-minded Republicans have also manifested this tension between relativism and Progressive exceptionalism. Their idea of exceptionalism is epitomized in George W. Bush's remark that "it is the policy of the United States to seek to support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." But in the same speech he says that "America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way." Allowing other nations to find their own way seems to be in conflict with our national calling to spread democracy American style to "every nation and culture."
I think the basic agreement between Progressive Republicans and Democrats is also evident in the fact that Obama has essentially continued Bush-era policies. The difference between the foreign policy views of mainstream Republicans and Democrats basically comes down to a more overtly patriotic attitude on the part of the Republicans. They both agree that America is exceptional and has a duty to spread that exceptionalism around the world. The Tea Party movement is pointing us away from the Progressive consensus that has dominated both parties for some time.
In a future post I intend to demonstrate that the current mainstream view of American exceptionalism is based on the rejection rather than the logical extension of the Founders' understanding of universal human rights and constitutionalism.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Bi-Partisan Progressive Consensus
America's exceptionalism lies within the liberty of her individuals.
We cannot transfer the liberty of American individuals to persons overseas, via diplomacy or military force.
We cannot enhance the liberty of America's individuals by chaining them to national (and disagreed upon) initiatives.
Mar '11
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Bi-Partisan Progressive Consensus
I do wonder if this is just a political play on their part intended to disassociate themselves from an unpopular Bush presidency. At least I hope so. In a post-nuclear world the policies and leadership of foreign nations are entirely relevant to our national defense. Sleazy tinpot dictators with the capacity to export WMD's do not bold well for us. I hope this flirtation with isolationism dies out quickly.
Edited on Jun 21, 2011 at 5:34pmAug '10
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Bi-Partisan Progressive Consensus
Would it be accurate to say Democrats prefer to push American values via "soft power" and cajoling, while progressive Republicans recognize the need for "hard power" at times? (Maybe more accurate before Libya, but hey, even law professors get itchy and jump on the big red button sometimes...)
In any case, both factions could use a good drubbing from an isolationist wing. We don't need bi-partisan agreement that good outcomes are nice to have. We need clear rules for when we engage, when we don't, and a solid political philosophy justifying those stances.
If the self-proclaimed centrists won't forge a solid foreign policy on the anvil of rigorous debate, what good is centrism? There is very real benefit to the polarization of political parties.
Sep '10
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Bi-Partisan Progressive Consensus
We are exceptional for a variety of reasons. I am continually amazed at our founding in the midst of the Enlightenment but before the French Revolution and what that has given us as a means of navigating between Rousseau, Hobbes and Kant. However, it is difficult for me to believe that Obama and his Ilk, Michael Moore and his "minute men" in Iraq, for instance, really believe in American exceptionalism in the same way that I do. Perhaps they rationalize all the apologizing and fear of giving offense to people who would have been called tyrants or savages or both in a different time as a way of evangelizing them or perhaps not.
Aug '10
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Bi-Partisan Progressive Consensus
Your take on Obama is very different from mine. I think all those things he did and said that reek of trans-nationalism or post-nationalism are the genuine Obama. He's largely kept the Bush policies intact because a) he's always been primarily interested in transforming America domestically, and feels comfortable imposing his will in that arena, and b) he's diffident and out of his depth on foreign policy, especially the wars, and would rather let the big boys have their way than risk blowing a war and being blamed for it.
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Bi-Partisan Progressive Consensus
Professor Grant ~
Your observation about the tension between politicians proclaiming the universality of American values and then denying any ambition to actualize those values in any but the softest forms is well-taken. Perhaps the political class isn't even aware of the bizarre hybrid of universalism and multiculturalism they're endorsing.
One request: Can you get to working on the provocatively teased follow-up to this post as quickly as possible? Your public awaits!
May '10
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Bi-Partisan Progressive Consensus
Thomas Sowell, in The Quest for Cosmic Justice quotes Lincoln in the chapter titled The Quiet Repeal of the American Revolution:
"The field of glory is harvested, and the crop is already appropriated. But new reapers will arise, and they, too, will seek a field. It is to deny, what the history of the world tells us is true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to spring up amongst us. And, when they do, they will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling passion, as others have so done before them. The question is, can that gratification be found in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others? Most certainly it cannot."
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Bi-Partisan Progressive Consensus
I am not seeing an outburst of isolationism on the part of the Tea Party. I see the beginnings of a movement to focus our efforts on securing our rights rather than transforming regions/nation building.
Abdiel
I do wonder if this is just a political play on their part intended to disassociate themselves from an unpopular Bush presidency. At least I hope so. In a post-nuclear world the policies and leadership of foreign nations are entirely relevant to our national defense. Sleazy tinpot dictators with the capacity to export WMD's do not bold well for us. I hope this flirtation with isolationism dies out quickly. · Jun 21 at 5:31pm
Edited on Jun 21 at 05:34 pm
May '11
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Bi-Partisan Progressive Consensus
Obama starts every speech with some glittering generalities summarizing what is popular in the other side’s position. This enables him to position himself as a centrist, presenting his position as the synthesis of opposing viewpoints. Thus, Obama always claims that he "rejects false choices,” such as the “choice” between American exceptionalism and isolationism. It is Obama’s best (only?) rhetorical trick. Don't believe a word of it.
America is exceptional because it was the first country to be founded on the basis of consensual government. America invented the ideal of free people living in a society where government protects their liberties, rather than ruling their lives. And America taught the rest of the world that liberty results in strength and prosperity. In addition to leading by example, Americans have spent their blood and treasure to make that same freedom a possibility for the rest of the world. Every single human being alive today who draws a free breath does so because of the greatness and generosity of the American people. Without America, the entire world would live under the tyranny of Kings and Kaisers, Nazis, Communists and Fascists.
Obama understands none of that.
May '10
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Bi-Partisan Progressive Consensus
John Grant, Guest Contributor: ....But then his remarks have frequently included statements such as this one:
I want to smash something every time a conservative talks as if Obama actually believes the things he says.
Paul DeRocco
I think all those things he did and said that reek of trans-nationalism or post-nationalism are the genuine Obama. He's largely kept the Bush policies intact because a) he's always been primarily interested in transforming America domestically, and feels comfortable imposing his will in that arena, and b) he's diffident and out of his depth on foreign policy, especially the wars, and would rather let the big boys have their way than risk blowing a war and being blamed for it.
Agreed. Obama wants another America, not this one.
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Bi-Partisan Progressive Consensus
I think it is right to say that Democrats prefer soft power. Dems also prefer the UN vs. NATO or coalitions of the willing, but they are willing to use NATO and hard power too.
Partisanship within the constitutional framework is not only good, it is necessary (cf. Madison in Federalist 10 on interests).
BlueAnt: Would it be accurate to say Democrats prefer to push American values via "soft power" and cajoling, while progressive Republicans recognize the need for "hard power" at times? (Maybe more accurate before Libya, but hey, even law professors get itchy and jump on the big red button sometimes...)
In any case, both factions could use a good drubbing from an isolationist wing. We don't need bi-partisan agreement that good outcomes are nice to have. We need clear rules for when we engage, when we don't, and a solid political philosophy justifying those stances.
If the self-proclaimed centrists won't forge a solid foreign policy on the anvil of rigorous debate, what good is centrism? There is very real benefit to the polarization of political parties. · Jun 21 at 5:39pm
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Bi-Partisan Progressive Consensus
Aaron,
I agree that Obama wants a very different America. But Progressive Republicans also want a substantially different America. Paul Rahe's post on Harry Reid has a lot of great examples of this phenomenon.
Also note that when Obama appears to be praising the "other" he is really saying that they are good because they agree with the ideals of modern liberalism (his Cairo Speech is chock full of this).