Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
American Exceptionalism and Freedom
In 1983, when I was 16 years old, I lived in Germany (it was West Germany then) as an American foreign exchange student. It was a politically tense time, as Germans turned a critical and often suspicious eye toward America while Ronald Reagan negotiated nuclear arms reduction with the Soviets. The United States had deployed medium-range nuclear missiles to Germany in the Cold War and many Germans wanted them removed.
Reagan, however, wasn’t going to budge unless the Soviets agreed to reduce their armaments. It was a zero-zero arrangement, and the Soviets weren’t being very cooperative. Many of the German youth took to the streets to protest American nuclear policy—protests fueled by nuclear fallout propaganda films and a general distrust of Reagan, who was rightly seen as an “America first” president. This was the environment I stepped into as a teenager from a conservative military town in the American South.
It wasn’t long before I got my first taste of anti-Americanism. I had just arrived in Frankfurt and was walking through the train station to head north to a small village near the Elbe river. The corridors were lined with young people, wearing grunge clothes covered in graffiti, their hair spiked and painted black. I walked awkwardly through them in my American jeans, tennis shoes, and plaid shirt, my hair in a pony tail, dragging my American Tourister luggage behind me.
As I waited to purchase my ticket, a man sauntered up to me, sucking on a crumply rolled cigarette and smelling like a wet ashtray. I turned to him and smiled, saying “Hi” and trying to uphold the stereotype of the outgoing and friendly American.
He stopped directly in front of me and just stared. I remember how the piercing above his left eye was infected and how his black nail polish glistened as he pinched his cigarette between two fingers. It was the first time I’d ever seen someone hold a cigarette like that. Where I came from people held their cigarettes between two outstretched fingers like sophisticated housewives in the fifties.
“Kann ich Ihnen helfen?” I asked with a very heavy American accent.
He blew smoke out of the corner of his mouth and flicked his cigarette to the ground.
“Leave,” he said coldly. “We don’t want you Americans here.”
And then he walked away.
I glanced around uneasily, alone in a strange city and feeling uncomfortable. My ideals about traveling abroad and meeting friendly people were dashed a little. Thankfully, I was young and optimistic, so I tried not to think about it as I boarded the train and took the long ride north through the beautiful German countryside.
Things improved. The family I stayed with was nice and welcoming. Politically, though, they had more in common with the punk guy on the street than me. The mom was a member of the Social Democratic Party and the daughter, who was just a couple of years older than me, was active in the Greens.
Most of my time in Germany was spent having typical teenage fun, camping by the Elbe, going to school, shopping in the village, riding bikes through the countryside, drinking too much beer at Schützenfests, playing soccer in the fields, and hanging out at nude lakes where everyone stripped off their clothes but me. Seriously, I couldn’t bring myself to do it, and my friends teased me for my modesty, calling me the “little American Puritan.” They only stopped when I could drink many of them under the table (a natural gift that came from biology, not experienced drinking).
The girl I lived with was politically active and would insist that I go to demonstrations with her or visit local pubs to watch films about nuclear disasters. Most of the protests we went to were in Dannenberg, an idyllic German town with narrow cobblestone streets and outdoor markets.
People of all ages would come out and protest, demanding that Reagan remove America’s nuclear missiles from Germany no matter what the Soviets did. The anger and fear were palatable, and there were many occasions when I was thankful I had shed my obvious American clothes and had begun to look more German in homemade knitted sweaters, long skirts, and Birkenstocks.
As I watched the demonstration with the chant, “America Go Home,” ringing in my ears, I felt my cheeks redden with embarrassment. What was my country doing to these people? What right did we have to put them at risk for our own security?
I had come to Germany so proud of my nation, but I felt that slipping away. It wasn’t until later, during a conversation with a group of Germans at school about American Exceptionalism that I remembered why I had been proud of my country to begin with.
I was in a history class, and the professor was kind enough to have everyone speak in English for my benefit. It was the highest grade in the German education system, so everyone could speak English well. The professor, no doubt, saw this as an opportunity for them to practice, but he also wanted to make sure there were no language barriers as we discussed Reagan’s foreign policy.
It was daunting to say the least. We talked about lot of issues, but there was one interchange I remember particularly well because it solidified for me why I love my country, and why I wouldn’t allow myself to get caught up in the emotion of the protestors and lose sight of the beauty and wonder that is America.
One of the German students asked me why Americans thought they were better than everyone else and why they thought they had the right to impose their will wherever they wished. I could sense not only the anger in his question, but the fear. And it was the fear I focused on in my answer. I told him that Americans are not better than anyone else. We are all the same—Germans and Americans. We’re all amazing human beings created in the image of God.
America is exceptional, not because it is composed of better people, but because it is founded on a superior idea that applies to all people—the idea that people who live freely can do anything, be anything, and become great if they live a moral, mindful life.
America is the beacon of liberty in this world—and no one should fear it. It is exceptional because it is unique to human history, a convergence of circumstance, philosophies, values, reason, and faith—all coming together to create a new society unlike any the world has ever seen. And anyone can have it—it’s not a point in time, a special “golden age,” or even a utopian ideal. It is liberty—the key to human flourishing, the pathway to happiness. Without it, you only have tyranny and oppression to one degree or another.
I recounted that conversation to one of the leaders of the foreign exchange program when all of the American students met in Bremen, Germany, at the end of our stay. Later that week, she asked me to speak to the Bremen state assembly on behalf of the American students.
Never one to speak in public—and tortured by social and performance anxiety—I didn’t know if I could do it. She wouldn’t let me say no, so on a Friday morning in August, I walked into the ornate hall of the Bremen assembly and spoke to them about the greatness of America and why it was good for Germany. I told them about going to the protests and how I understood the fears of the German people. They didn’t trust our president because Reagan was concerned first about America’s self-interest. I admitted that this was certainly true. But, I explained, just because Reagan is for America doesn’t mean he is against Germany. And just because America is strong doesn’t mean Germans need to be afraid.
I could see the skeptical looks on the politicians’ faces, but I pressed on, fully aware of why I could proudly and unapologetically speak for the greatness of my country.
“You don’t have to be afraid because America is about freedom for all,” I said. “It is a good in and of itself because it is founded on the timeless principle of liberty given, not by man, but by Nature’s God, and when America is strong, all freedom-loving people in this world are better off.”
What I said in 1983 is just as true today. America is special, not because we are ethnically a better people—in fact there isn’t really any such thing as an American ethnic group. We are Americans because we believe in the values of liberty, faith, and unity amid diversity. It is only when people are free to live their own lives, to keep their own property, to love their families, and to serve their communities as they see fit, that they can truly be the best they can be.
America is about everyone in this world having that opportunity because without it human beings can’t flourish. Of course, that path to greatness is not always easy. We fail. We mess up. We are not a perfect people. We never will be. Freedom is no utopian promise. But it is the best, the only path, to happiness.
Sadly, we live in a day when people on the left and the right mock American Exceptionalism as if it was a quaint moment in history that will never be realized again. We live in a day when the President of the United States apologizes for American greatness and American values. We live in a day when people would rather have “equality” and “security” or some other “public good” as they define it instead of liberty and freedom. We live in a day when people prefer the “community” over the individual, failing to realize that, as Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no such thing as society: There are individual men and women, and there are families, and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.”
We have to fight those who denigrate our dreams, our history, and our values. We need to believe in the idea of America again, the dream that liberty should go out to all the nations, that freedom is the wellspring of greatness, that liberty is the gift given to us by our Creator—free will, the ability to choose as an individual the path we want to walk to fulfill our dreams. And that ability is not autonomous—separated from the Creator’s hand—but it is freedom from the coercion and oppression of other human beings. We are each our own, our conscience bound by nothing other than reason and divine law written on our hearts, created to be in fellowship first between ourselves and God, then with family, and then with the broader community.
If we give up that dream, we give up everything. If we give up on freedom, America is gone, and no one—not the rich or the poor; the young or the old; the black or the white; the man or the woman—will find the kind of happiness that can only be had when liberty rings from sea to shining sea.
Published in General
First, conservatives support infrastructure building (Republicans supported TARP) and scientific research. A huge part of DOD funding that the Republicans are trying to save goes to medical research. I wonder if you even knew that DOD oversees medical research funded by Congress. Second, who said anything about people being ignorant?
Your assertions are not based in fact, and your conclusions are contrived.
Again, though, you point to material goods as the primary measure of “happiness.” So far you’ve named infrastructure and medical research as necessary to human happiness.
Let me ask you something, Viruscop, have you ever read Shakespeare? Dante? Steinbeck? Orwell?
You seem out of touch with the human spirit.
Hamilton was a Federalist.
So when the government builds a bridge, this leads to communism?
Also, I don’t think a hunter can protect this country from an army of tanks, satellites, warships, cyberattacks, and modern infantry.
Your assertions are not based in fact, and your conclusions are contrived.
Again, though, you point to material goods as the primary measure of “happiness.” So far you’ve named infrastructure and medical research as necessary to human happiness.
Let me ask you something, Viruscop, have you ever read Shakespeare? Dante? Steinbeck? Orwell?
You seem out of touch with the human spirit. ·25 minutes ago
Edited 24 minutes ago
Tarp is not infrastructure building and Republicans want to cut funding to the NIH.
Of those four authors, I have read three and I’m not sure what three of those four authors have to do with this topic, but I can say the Grapes of Wrath seems to prove my point ( and it’s one of my favorite books).
Tarp sent money to infrastructure and while there are many cuts proposed to many programs, Republicans support medical research. I’m sorry you missed my point about literature. That’s telling. You’ve also missed the point of liberty in general. Obviously, you think our founders were in error. You can think that. It’s a free country. :)
Viruscop —I didn’t say he wasn’t. My point was Hamilton supported an aristocracy as the best form of government. As for tarp stimulus it did go to infrastructure. Well, it was supposed to. I don’t know how many Repubs supported it. They do support infrastructure in their districts and get a lot of money to go there.
I looked at what I wrote, and it was really unclear. Apologies. The decentralized views of Jefferson and the Federalists all had an impact. It wasn’t just the centralized (more aristocratic philosophies) of Hamilton that won the day. Again, sorry for not being clear. Sometimes I don’t have a lot time to flesh everything out.
Anyway, as for the point about infrastructure, I really don’t see why we’re talking about it in this post.
Tarp bought assets from commercials banks. It didn’t lead to any infrastructure construction.
The article from the NYT seems to suggest that Republicans support medical research in the abstract but are unwilling to actually pay for it and accelerate it.
As to the Founders (which I’m not sure has much to do with this), I would say that some of them like Hamilton had a vision for America that was better than the vision of Jefferson or the vision of any Founder who sided with the Anti-Federalists.
Instead of rehashingWhat Would the Founders Do? (Rick Brookhiser does it pretty well in his book), let’s come back to the core issue; America is an idea, not an ethnic group, not a race. An idea that, however imperfectly lived out, has preserved and spread the idea of ordered liberty, a vibrant, free civic society and more proper relationship between the church and the state for over 200 years. Ms. McAllister, I wish I had half the guts at 47 that you showed at 16. Well done, and well said.
I think part of the resentment that you saw was 2-fold. First, Germany at that time recoiled from anyone positing a notion that their ideas and/or nation were superior. They were less than 40 years removed from an unbelievably ugly ideology based on blood and race. Second, and paradoxically, they thought because they would not oppose tyranny with force (imposed by Moscow this time), they felt morally superior. Dr. Steven Hayward said he felt that Reagan had risked our survival in order to ensure it. The German left of the day didn’t understand that. It’s a lesson each generation has to learn for itself.
Until 1965, The United States was very much an ethnostate. Nations have always been, essentially, codified ethnic groups; if America is based only on an idea, it will not last. How much of the concepts of liberty celebrated in this piece are peculiarly “Anglosphere” values that are not shared at all in other parts of the world, and certainly not by the large Third World country with which we share a porous border?
Republicans believe only in ‘responsible’ spending on ‘infrastructure’ – and realize that such spending means taking money out of private pockets to underwrite those investments. ‘Progressives’ of your stripe never seem to appreciate the opportunity costs of redirecting that wealth away from private use, only at what it buys. They never worry about the Chicago style corruption it breeds. They never reckon with the inefficiency in government provided goods, in general (we spend more per capita on education than any other country, yet get mediocre results, for example. We’ve been fighting the ‘War on Poverty for over forty years, yet see the nuclear family – the most important ingredient in eliminating poverty – torn apart, is another.)
‘Progressives’ believe that ‘good intentions’ are paramount, whereas Conservatives know better, know specifically that the Law of Unintended Consequences” is decisive in the end.
The leftover Tarp funds were proposed to be used for infrastructure, and the Republicans in the House were against the proposal. I don’t know if the House Democrats proposal ever became law, but the Republicans did not want any of the Tarp money used for infrastructure development. ·2 hours ago
The changes you suggest are necessary, to be sure, but progress on this front can’t be protected and perpetuated without more safeguards for State sovereignty. The simple, easy changes you suggest would be just as simple and easy to roll-back by any subsequent administration, assuming you got the changes made in the first place.
So when the government builds a bridge, this leads to communism?
Also, I don’t think a hunter can protect this country from an army of tanks, satellites, warships, cyberattacks, and modern infantry. ·2 hours ago
viruscop, you’re like one non sequitur after another. It’s like you’re arguing with your own mirror image, unaware of the discussion going on around you.
“Leave,” he said coldly. “We don’t want you Americans here.”
I can’t help it, I immediately thought of:
“Mitt Romney: not one of us.”
And then:
“Conservatives have no place in the state of New York.”
It seems the anti-anti-communist rage of the 1970s and 1980s is still with us. Thank you for the historical perspective — and the definitive counter-argument.
Wow. Let me be the first to enthuse rapturously about your writing skills. This just tops about anything else you have written. Don’t know when you are destined to max out rhetorically, but the view here on the escalator ride to the summit is mighty exhilarating.
PS. Good job on that presentation. Not sure even at my advanced age I could better your effort.
Alas, this beautiful portrayal fades from reality even as we speak. The institutions set in place by our Founders to protect our freedoms have failed us. We need rejuvenation, a new approach, a Constitutional Convention called by the various States to assert their State’s Rights and sovereignties.
If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking… is freedom. – Dwight Eisenhower
No matter what Statists want to believe, total Utopian equality is impossible because humans are unique. Someone will always be more beautiful, or smarter, or funnier, or more athletic, etc… Freedom allows us to make the most of those God-given talents and reach our potential.
I could see the skeptical looks on the politicians’ faces, but I pressed on, fully aware of why I could proudly and unapologetically speak for the greatness of my country.
You did well, but in the end, do you believe that you changed their opinions?
I think that we need to reckon with one other influence – that actually fostered this “superior idea” – as decisive in shaping the unique, Yes, the special American character, and that is the ‘Frontier’. Maybe we should consider its influence in another thread.
As chauvinistic as this may sound, I do believe Americans were blessed with unusual brilliance and character; the Founders were, after all, the architects of the superior idea.
A respected historian recently noted that Washington was a truly unique leader in that he succeeded in executing a ‘people’s revolution’ but unlike others in his position (see: Mao and Castro), he resisted becoming a despot or tyrant. In fact, he was positively reluctant to take on a third term as president.
I think we’re not special because we are Americans, but are Americans because we are special.
Thank you for your thought-provoking post. (I’m getting tired of repeating myself.) :))
As chauvinistic as this may sound, I do believe Americans were blessed with unusual brilliance and character; the Founders were, after all, the architects of the superior idea.
A respected historian recently noted that Washington was a truly unique leader in that he succeeded in executing a ‘people’s revolution’ but unlike others in his position (see: Mao and Castro), he resisted becoming a despot or tyrant. In fact, he was positively reluctant to take on a third term as president.
I think we’re not special because we are Americans, but are Americans because we are special.
I’ve been thinking about doing a post on this for a while. Have you read Paul Johnson’s History of the American People? One of the things that is fascinating is how the physical frontier, the bigness of our country, shaped our mind-set and worldview concerning self-reliance and individuality. Truly unique in human history.
I’ve been thinking about doing a post on this for a while. Have you read Paul Johnson’s History of the American People? One of the things that is fascinating is how the physical frontier, the bigness of our country, shaped our mind-set and worldview concerning self-reliance and individuality. Truly unique in human history.
Of course! I’d heartily recommend Andrew Roberts’ A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900 as well. (He discusses the second wave of the Western frontier.)
I do think that in analyzing the original frontier movement, one needs to start with the innate desire to own property despite physical extremities, danger, and severe deprivation.
I remember you as a enthusiastic sixteen year old young woman heading to Germany for your first trip to Europe. I also remember when you returned after three months in Germany that your Mom and Dad did not recognize you when you stepped off the plane because you had gained so much weight from drinking all that “beer” and bread. Your story here of your love for this country is so moving. We are so proud of you and thank you for standing up for your beliefs.
·40 minutes ago
Thanks, Mom. :) I did pack on the pounds with all that German food and beer didn’t I?!! Thankfully I lost it during cross country season!
And thank you for training me well, so I didn’t get sucked in to becoming a liberal while I was in Germany. :)
Mom, thanks for bringing an amazing lady in to the world. She is a bright spot here for an ever expanding group of intellectual patriots.
DocJay– thank you. It is always a comfort to know you’re on the barricades with me. :)
As chauvinistic as this may sound, I do believe Americans were blessed with unusual brilliance and character; the Founders were, after all, the architects of the superior idea.
A respected historian recently noted that Washington was a truly unique leader in that he succeeded in executing a ‘people’s revolution’ but unlike others in his position (see: Mao and Castro), he resisted becoming a despot or tyrant. In fact, he was positively reluctant to take on a third term as president.
I think we’re not special because we are Americans, but are Americans because we are special.
Thank you for your thought-provoking post. (I’m getting tired of repeating myself.) :))
The frontier spirit had a few unique things going for it that have gone away. Almost anyone, educated or illiterate, could set out on their own and make something of themselves without much interference from government authorities. Nowadays, forgetaboutit. We have the Internet, and we may view it as an ever-expanding, almost limitless new frontier, but it presents barriers to entry to anyone who wants to make something of themselves, to earn an independent living. It requires intelligence or education or both. Also, the Internet encompasses the world, not just the American frontier, so competition comes from everywhere. Last, the epic struggle of our time, moving forward for the rest of our lives, the contest between the tyranny of our public officials, or powerful people, against the ubiquitous desire for freedom, for citizen sovereignty. The frontier folks didn’t face this battle. They had the wind at their backs. We have a fight on our hands.
The existence of the “safety valve”, the “escape hatch”, the “sanctuary” effect that the Frontier provided created a brake on, and an ingrained intolerance for, governmental excess. When we lost it, over time we lost the values it inculcated that are indispensable to healthy democracies.
Yes…Yes… being able to make income remotely, via all the modern telecommunications and internet medium may provide something akin to the Frontier of old. And as many or more might partake of this, in terms of proportion of the populace, than that in centuries past who left for the Frontier of old. This new Frontier of which you speak may allow folks to live in their state of choice, while working where the jobs, but regrettably also government overreach, are found (say in populous, generally Democratic_cities_and_states.) It creates a form of independence from local_or_state tyranny at least.
I suggest Republicans consciously seize this opportunity, plan for using it to create more degrees of freedom for choice, rather than endlessly (and IMO, impotently) parroting paeans to the primacy of Liberty. We should explicitly adopt the concept of reviving and maintaining a vibrant Frontier as being integral to Republicanism.
I couldn’t agree more. I would add that in a way the Internet has made the world smaller. I know that seems counter-intuitive, and probably a better word is “closer.” But when everyone lives in “close quarters” they are more likely to become more socialistic and desirous of centralized authority to rule everyone and “equalize” everyone. When you have space, you have more of an individualistic mindset.
So, a_paradox: A technology (the internet and collateral communications) simultaneously:
1) Frees folks from having to live where they “work”, (at least this may be true in prospect – we are not quite there yet) meaning allows greater freedom of choice in where they live [pro-freedom],
but also:
2) connects folks to some degree (And socializing them – maybe)?
Television started doing this decades ago, whereby global news seemed to invest folks in what is going on far away, making everyone “closer” to some degree. Does the internet further this trend? To the degree it allows folks to effortlessly satisfy their curiosity about people in other lands, yes, that would seem to be the case. But other than that, I am not sure.
Ms. McAllister – you need to defend your viewpoint more!
..I would add that in a way the Internet has made the world smaller. I know that seems counter-intuitive, and probably a better word is “closer.” But when everyone lives in “close quarters” they are more likely to become more socialistic and desirous of centralized authority to rule everyone and “equalize” everyone. When you have space, you have more of an individualistic mindset.