American Exceptionalism Debate Goes On

The concept of American exceptionalism has been kicked around for many years, including on the pages of this blog. The most recent manifestation of the debate among conservatives is the renewal of the argument over whether Barack Obama believes in American exceptionalism, and if so, in what form.

The two sides line up with one side saying that Obama is from the Howard Zinn gang which thinks American exceptionalism is either a creature of fiction or a substitute way of saying oppression of the "people." The other side says Obama believes in it, but gets it all wrong. Much of the debate comes from Obama's statement: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

Some of our conservative friends say that this conclusively proves that Obama thinks that American exceptionalism is unexceptional since it is nothing more than a statement of narrow "we're number one" thinking. Yet if one goes farther into the speech, the issue becomes less clear. Obama refers to his enormous pride in America, and its role in world history. And then, left out of most criticisms of his thinking, he said: "I think we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional." Quite frankly, that latter statement is almost exactly how I described American exceptionalism in an earlier post: Can A Liberal Be Right About American Exceptionalism.

Liberals have largely argued that Obama (and his fellow progressives) believe that America is great, but not great enough. Said Peter Beinart at Time: "It isn't about honoring and replicating the past; it's about surpassing it." If he had said "it isn't just about honoring and replicating the past," I might have been able to agree with him, at least in part. Understanding that American exceptionalism must not rely solely on the past is a true conservative idea. Relying on the past as the only guideline is simple fundamentalism which doesn't recognize that the world changes constantly. It's like saying the First Amendment doesn't apply to television, since television didn't exist when the Constitution was written. It's not conservative, it's reactionary.

Back to the conservative debate. Let's say that the concept of American exceptionalism is: Our history, our Constitution, and our national character set us apart from other nations." I do that for the sole purpose of defining how the two conservative camps view Obama. There are multiple definitions available and all have their points. But for purposes of this discussion, that's the one I'm going to go with.

On one side we have those who argue that Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism in any recognizable form. National Review, for instance has made an editorial comment that: "The survival of American exceptionalism as we have known it is at the heart of the debate over Obama's programs. It is why that debate is so charged. In his first year, Obama tried to avoid the cultural hot buttons that tripped up Bill Clinton, and created the 'gays guns, and God' backlash of 1994. But he has stoked a different type of cultural reaction. The level of spending, the bailouts, and the extent of the intervention in the economy contemplated in health-care and cap-and-trade legislation have created the fear that something elemental is changing in the country. At stake isn't just a grab bag of fiscal issues, but the meaning of America and the character of its people: the ultimate cultural issue."

That statement implies that what the president proposes and has done since he announced he would bring about "a fundamental change in America" is in fact a complete disavowal of the basic principles that are American exceptionalism. By his acts shall ye know him. They have concluded that Obama has simply denied American exceptionalism, despite his occasional verbal nod to it.

But what about Obama's ongoing praise of what appears to be American exceptionalism? "America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity." And here is where the other conservative argument begins. They say: "The question the NRO (National Review Online) writers should have asked is: Does Obama believe in the traditional definition of American exceptionalism? I think we can safely say that he does not. Instead, he has substituted a new paradigm embraced by the left that holds America to be a work in progress; it holds that the ideal of America is exceptional, but the reality is not. (Rick Moran writing at PajamasMedia.com)."

This is not a bad summation of Obama's beliefs. At best, he believes in American exceptionalism in the way Satan believes in God. He thinks there is such a thing, but he doesn't like it much, and it's his duty to re-define it. Says Moran: "What informs President Obama's love of America is the promise of what America can be, not what she is today. Similarly, his idea of exceptionalism is animated by the belief that we can be so much more than what we are, and that in order to achieve that lofty goal, radical surgery is necessary to excise the ghosts of racism, sexism, homophobia, aggressive militarism, evil capitalism--and tens of millions who don't have health insurance. To Obama, there is no difference between the evils of slavery and the fact that so many have no insurance. Each is a hindrance to achieving the American ideal of an 'exceptional' society as envisioned by the president."

America is exceptional in Obama's mind, but in order to achieve that ultimate goal, we must abandon our cultural heritage, get rid of that pesky old Constitution, and establish a new rule of law that will be controlled by those who know what's best for the future of America. When conservatives say "we want our country back," Obama believes that is a summary of everything that misunderstands what makes America exceptional. It's the "goal" that counts, and since we have been imperfect in the past, our exceptionalism lies in getting it right by throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Thus, as Obama said in his inaugural address: "The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness." Note where the emphasis is. Spirit, idea, promise. Apparently nothing we have done so far has really meant much, because we haven't achieved the goal of perfection. American exceptionalism is only a concept we must strive for, having failed thus far in the reality.

So the second argument is that Obama hasn't rejected the concept of American exceptionalism, he has simply eliminated all the elements of traditional American exceptionalism. By his mode of thinking, the Brits and the Greeks are right in feeling exceptional. Because in Obama's mind, American exceptionalism of the "old brand" is much the same as theirs. He adopts much of their thinking, and attempts to make it an "American brand" of exceptionalism. Like the difference between smoking Marlboros or smoking Gauloises. He's wrong, and it's how why is working so hard to destroy America in order to save her.

Left out of Obama's formula is the fundamental concept that America derives its rights from nature and nature's God. The government cannot give what does not belong to it. The Constitution that Obama thinks is old-fashioned and an impediment to modern governance is built on the concept of natural rights that government cannot take away, not on rights the government creates and grants to its citizens. Take away that fundamental understanding of where rights come from, and American exceptionalism ceases to exist in any meaningful form.

I'm not sure that both sides of the debate don't ultimately reach the same conclusion. Obama's lack of belief in American exceptionalism, or his skewed version of what that exceptionalism is, leads to the same end. Either his beliefs prevail, and America continues its current descent into statism and international insignificance, or his beliefs, whichever of the two they are, are rejected by the American people, his party goes down to devastating defeat, and America begins to return to its roots, its culture, its rule of law, and its ever-evolving status as leader of the free world.