American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
America's Founders and both early and recent Progressives agree that America is an exceptional nation. But they very much disagree about the meaning of American exceptionalism.
The Progressive view is that America is in the vanguard of the march of freedom in history. We have an obligation to bring civilization and liberty to those peoples that lag behind us. Early Progressives such as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson wished to declare war on barbarism or autocracy around the world. Wilson put it nicely when he said that the US should enter World War I not to secure American rights but to vindicate the rights of all mankind. "We are glad . . . to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples . . . . The world must be made safe for democracy." The principal means to accomplish the liberation of all peoples and "peace with an aspect of permanence" was to be "a partnership of democratic nations." Later Progressives such as George W. Bush and Barack Obama have basically restated the call for America's obligation to aid the spread of democracy around the world through international organizations and the utilization of military, diplomatic, and economic coercion.
The Founders, on the other hand, thought American exceptionalism could not cohere with a policy of forcing other nations to accept free government. They believed that all human beings are created equal and endowed with inalienable natural rights such as the rights to life, liberty, freedom of religion, and the ability to acquire and possess property. But they denied that it was America's task to go forth and force other nations to live up to these universal principles.
A frequent objection to the Founders' position is related to universal rights. If all human beings have the same right to be free of arbitrary or non-consensual political rule, how can we not intervene when tyrannies oppress their citizens? The Founders' answer is that all free government exists by compact. The social compact demands that a nation secure the rights only of its own citizens while respecting the rights of all human beings. We have no right to enslave or kill foreigners who have not harmed or intended to harm our rights. At the same time we have no obligation to secure their rights.
America has an obligation to secure the rights of Americans while respecting the rights of non-Americans. The Founders established the Constitution to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. . . ." America's obligation to secure the blessings of liberty is an American obligation to present and future Americans. The Founders did not think it just or prudent for America to be a base from which the blessings of liberty could be imposed on the rest of the world through a combination of military action and modern social science.
In my next post I will describe the Founders' case against intervention in the internal affairs of other nations and why social compact theory is not isolationist. If we are to restore constitutionalism at home, we must eschew intervention in the internal affairs of other nations. We must hope that a Presidential candidate will see the relationship between freedom at home and foreign policy in the way that Washington, John Quincy Adams, and Abraham Lincoln did if we are perpetuate the republicanism of the Founding.
- Comment (40)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
We need an alternative to the term "isolationism". It's an outdated political pejorative which does a profound disservice to people like the author of this post, who take a realistic view of America's proper, limited role in global affairs.
And, unfortunately, it's being employed by conservatives against conservatives.
As I said back in December, it's not isolationism, it's reality.
Jun '10
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
Squishy Blue RINO: Once again I recommend Paul Rahe on democracy and progressivism found on Volume 99 of the Mars Hill Audio Journal.
He begins:
" We're living in a period in which the dominant way of seeing the world is what I would call a Christian heresy. The heresy is progressivism... it substitutes for salvation history an account of secular progress. It borrows from Christianity the notion of history having a kind of direction, then it transfers it in to the secular world."
Wow, that is profound.
Aug '10
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
I am still wrapping my head around the idea of progressive as anything other than lib-dem Orwellian Newspeak employed to rebrand themselves after the demise of their preferred term liberal.
So for me, thinking of W as a progressive requires me to apply Dr. Rahe's careful use of the word.
I still love W for that bullhorn moment at Ground Zero. That moment together with the hostage release on Reagan's Inauguration mark turning points in my experience of American history. So like Peter, I find it jarring to see him and Obama rhetorically joined at the hip.
My gut tells me the fork in the road with respect to differing views of American Exceptionalism v.v. the war in Iraq lies not in the defense of American liberty, or even in avenging the death of our fellow citizens, but in the idea that spreading democracy is both possible and our responsibility.
Again I am just shooting from the hip based on a very preliminary understanding of Paul Rahe's definition of progressivism and one reading of John Grant's post.
Edited on June 24, 2011 at 6:23amRe: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
Kenneth: Peter, let me clarify. I agree that George W Bush had every right, given Saddam's flouting of the terms of armistice, to invade and depose him - whether or not we believed he had WMD's.
But my preference, once Saddam had been deposed, would have been to turn over control of the country to Iraq's military and let the Iraqis sort things out for themselves - not to engage in nation-building. Thousands of American lives were sacrificed on the altar of an Iraqi democracy which, I fear, will crumble into chaos once our 50,000 troops are withdrawn. · Jun 23 at 8:33pm
Gotcha, Kenneth. And as you may recall from my interview with him, no less a figure than Donald Rumsfeld now says he wishes we'd turned Iraq over to the Iraqis themselves much sooner.
Aug '10
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
Samwise Gamgee
Squishy Blue RINO: Once again I recommend Paul Rahe on democracy and progressivism found on Volume 99 of the Mars Hill Audio Journal.
He begins:
" We're living in a period in which the dominant way of seeing the world is what I would call a Christian heresy. The heresy is progressivism... it substitutes for salvation history an account of secular progress. It borrows from Christianity the notion of history having a kind of direction, then it transfers it in to the secular world."
Wow, that is profound. · Jun 23 at 8:53pm
No kidding, both in it's meaning and it's implications. I am reminded of the continental divide. There is a point from which snowmelt flowing downhill ends up either in the Pacific or the Gulf. What starts off small in the Rockies is serious business downriver.
Ordering the affairs of men, getting it right or wrong on this distinction, has much the same effect.
If I understand Dr. Rahe, this is the point that most matters, and the implications of continuing to govern from the wrong premise are reason this election matters so much.
Edited on June 24, 2011 at 6:45amJun '10
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
Squishy Blue RINO
No kidding, both in it's meaning and it's implications. I am reminded of the continental divide. There is a point from which snowmelt flowing downhill ends up either in the Pacific or the Gulf.
As Chesterton said, "When a man stops believing in God, he doesn't believe in nothing; he believes anything"
Jul '10
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
Peter Robinson
Kenneth: Peter, let me clarify. I agree that George W Bush had every right, given Saddam's flouting of the terms of armistice, to invade and depose him - whether or not we believed he had WMD's.
But my preference, once Saddam had been deposed, would have been to turn over control of the country to Iraq's military and let the Iraqis sort things out for themselves - not to engage in nation-building. Thousands of American lives were sacrificed on the altar of an Iraqi democracy which, I fear, will crumble into chaos once our 50,000 troops are withdrawn. · Jun 23 at 8:33pm
Gotcha, Kenneth. And as you may recall from my interview with him, no less a figure than Donald Rumsfeld now says he wishes we'd turned Iraq over to the Iraqis themselves much sooner. · Jun 23 at 9:22pm
Well, for once in my life, I'm in good company.
Nov '10
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
Kenneth: We need an alternative to the term "isolationism". It's an outdated political pejorative which does a profound disservice to people like the author of this post, who take a realistic view of America's proper, limited role in global affairs.
And, unfortunately, it's being employed by conservatives against conservatives.
As I said back in December, it's not isolationism, it's reality. · Jun 23 at 8:53pm
Trust me, I can make realist a pejorative.
Jul '10
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
John, I think you're conflating ends and means describing W as a prog.
Certainly, Bush pitched his freedom agenda, but it was (merits aside) couched in terms of securing the U.S. It's entirely reasonable to dispute the efficacy of his approach, but his sincerity seems self-evident.
He offered repeated appeals that democracies don't attack one another. In his view, Pres. Bush was securing "the rights of Americans."
To accomplish this, he was willing to be an aggressive interventionist. Perhaps he was wrong, but does that really make him a prog?
Bluntly, I'd say that W felt no "obligation to bring civilization and liberty to those peoples that lag behind us" except insofar as it was a means to secure the U.S.
Sep '10
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
Whether W is a progressive seems like an angels-on-the-head argument to me. Why on earth is it of import to anyone?
And the seeming support for W's arguments that we should go into Iraq?!? Finally, at this late date, conservatives should stop. If he thought that we were going to have 50K troops in Iraq eight years later, he should have had the grace to tell us. It's more likely that he and people like Wolfie were clueless.
After 9/11, we had to do something about Afghanistan. But again, the actions that have us there ten years later with 100K(?) troops seem just plain dumb.
I'm not voting for a Republican who rationalizes such stupidity.
Mar '11
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
Hi John, welcome aboard. Comments--
1. Paul Rahe is right on about the intellectual origins of Progressivism. In fact, one entire strain of modernism falls precisely into that category.
2. I agree that the Founders and Progressives have different visions for exactly what America stands for, but I also think that this tension is one that can be seen from the very beginning (consider, but for a moment, Thomas Paine's Rights of Man or the difference between Adams and Jefferson about the French Revolution in its earliest stages. This is not to say that Paine or Jefferson would be Progressives strictly, only that the roots of that philosophy are not only in something alien to the United States, but something in which certain ideas of the Founding are in tension with).
3. I don't think the "gospel of democracy spreading" on this particular post is a helpful framework in understanding America. Among other reasons because:
a) Foreign policy is a different animal than domestic policy
b) America in the 21st century is not America of the 18th century. After the Revolution, the proverbial task of "national building" among the states was vastly more important than any venture abroad.
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
Peter,
Thanks for your thoughtful post. I think the original military actions against Afghanistan and Iraq were right in terms of national security. I think the mistake was thinking that we should try to build democracy in either place. It is not working, and it is not good for us to spend vast amounts of blood and treasure trying.
I believe that President Bush was unclear in his own mind on our goals. He was interested in American national security (he is certainly a patriot), but when he tried to think through the problem of what is to be done he did what our politicians tend to do--he went to the Wilsonian model.
It is not clear to me that Congress and the American people demanded that we build democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I could be mistaken. Our obligation was to destroy the threats to our security and deter future aggression against our nation and our vital interests.
The war against the Barbary Pirates has come up in other comments--it is a good model. We responsed to aggression against our rights, and we didn't engage in nation-building.
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
Interesting point. But that is not what Bush described himself as doing. Also check out his rationale for massive aid to Africa. He explicitly claimed to be following in Wilson's footsteps.
If Americans have to worry about educational opportunities 12,000 miles away as a matter of national security, then everything is a matter of national security!
Palaeologus: John, I think you're conflating ends and means describing W as a prog.
Certainly, Bush pitched his freedom agenda, but it was (merits aside) couched in terms of securing the U.S. It's entirely reasonable to dispute the efficacy of his approach, but his sincerity seems self-evident.
He offered repeated appeals that democracies don't attack one another. In his view, Pres. Bush was securing "the rights of Americans."
To accomplish this, he was willing to be an aggressive interventionist. Perhaps he was wrong, but does that really make him a prog?
Bluntly, I'd say that W felt no "obligation to bring civilization and liberty to those peoples that lag behind us" except insofar as it was a means to secure the U.S. · Jun 23 at 11:41pm
Dec '10
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
John Grant, Guest Contributor: Our obligation was to destroy the threats to our security and deter future aggression against our nation and our vital interests.
· Jun 24 at 8:33am
I believe Bush, et al, honestly believe that planting democracy is the surest way to deter future aggession from such places. The efficacy of such plans, however, is very debatable.
Edited on June 24, 2011 at 5:45pmRe: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
Good question! It seems to me that it is important to see the fundamental principles that policymakers claim as their own so that we can understand the relationship between the principles and the policies.
To paraphrase St. Thomas Aquinas, the conclusions are contained in the principles.
Patrick in Albuquerque: Whether W is a progressive seems like an angels-on-the-head argument to me. Why on earth is it of import to anyone?
And the seeming support for W's arguments that we should go into Iraq?!? Finally, at this late date, conservatives should stop. If he thought that we were going to have 50K troops in Iraq eight years later, he should have had the grace to tell us. It's more likely that he and people like Wolfie were clueless.
After 9/11, we had to do something about Afghanistan. But again, the actions that have us there ten years later with 100K(?) troops seem just plain dumb.
I'm not voting for a Republican who rationalizes such stupidity. · Jun 24 at 6:54am
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
So every time we perceive (rightly or wrongly) evil being committed we should step in and stop it? Does the same logic apply when other nations think we are in the wrong?
Duane Oyen: I had the exact same reaction as Peter and came to say the same thing; fortunately he had done it better already.
I guess that I also have trouble with the certitude of the conclusions. Can anyone know today that the Founders, were they blessed with modern commuications and fighting capability, the same who stirringly talked about "secur(ing)e the blessings of liberty..." would stand by and watch genocide committed on live television, then intone that we rich Americans can't afford to help out the women abused by the Taliban?
That strikes me as being a lot like a 25 year old offensive tackle standing on the street watching a 12 year old girl be assaulted by a high school kid ten feet away, but it's not his business, nossir. That girl has to take care of herself, he can't intervene to save them all, he might get a shin bruise.
Nope. None of our business. · Jun 23 at 8:37pm
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
Great post! I'm writing a very similar piece now in regards to JQA and Libya.
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
It seems to many intelligent people that there is a world of difference between Presidents Bush and Obama. There is in many ways--I think Bush is a much better man for instance.
But I think they are both Progressives, in terms of foreign and domestic policy. The evidence from BHO is all around us, but there is plenty of evidence from GWB too. Just remember No Child Left Behind, the Medicare Prescription expansion, and Bush's endorsement of the "ownership society" (in other words, the coercion of lenders and the support of Fannie and Freddie to enable otherwise unqualified buyers to purchase homes).
May '10
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
John Grant, Guest Contributor: So every time we perceive (rightly or wrongly) evil being committed we should step in and stop it? Does the same logic apply when other nations think we are in the wrong?
Duane Oyen:
That strikes me as being a lot like a 25 year old offensive tackle standing on the street watching a 12 year old girl be assaulted by a high school kid ten feet away, but it's not his business, nossir. That girl has to take care of herself, he can't intervene to save them all, he might get a shin bruise.
Nope. None of our business.
The question answers itself- obviously not. Clearly, because resources, whether money or blood, are not unlimited and you cannot right all the wrongs in the world, you have to apply a cost-benefit calculation. My quarrel is with the constant opining by the paleos with rock-solid assurance that "the Founders would never have done xx". This kind of assertion of assured alternate history is no more valid for the passionate libertarians to make than for neocons (like me) to guarantee that Jefferson would have invaded Iraq. It is not an "every time" question.
May '10
Re: American Exceptionalism: The Founders' View
Kenneth: We need an alternative to the term "isolationism". It's an outdated political pejorative which does a profound disservice to people like the author of this post, who take a realistic view of America's proper, limited role in global affairs.
And, unfortunately, it's being employed by conservatives against conservatives.
As I said back in December, it's not isolationism, it's reality. · Jun 23 at 8:53pm
I agree with you here, Kenneth. And I am happy to take the pledge, just as soon as the scornfully dismissive comments about "neocons" and cartoonish mischaracterizations of internationalist ideas such as PNAC are put away forever.