Walking Back From Bush’s ‘Vulgar Exceptionalism’
Walking Back From Bush’s ‘Vulgar Exceptionalism’
Demonstrating the peculiar conservative belief that a central component of American exceptionalism is the constant assertion of “American exceptionalism” by American politicians, Jamie Kirchick accuses President Obama of giving the wrong answer when asked about this at the NATO conference earlier this month:
Rather than endorse the proposition — as every president in recent memory has done one way or another — Obama offered a strange response: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
This is impossible. If all countries are “exceptional,” then none are, and to claim otherwise robs the word, and the idea of American exceptionalism, of any meaning. Besides, American exceptionalism is demonstrable — Cuban journalists, Chinese political dissidents, Eastern Europeans once again living in the shadow of a belligerent Russia and, yes, even some Brits and Greeks look toward the U.S. and nowhere else to defend freedom.
Yes, isn’t it amazing how, if you take one small section of a longer answer, you can generate an entire op-ed’s worth of outrage?
Leaving aside how silly it is to insist that the president go around insisting how much better his country is than every other country, looking at Obama’s answer in its entirety reveals Kirchick’s tendentiousness. After noting his pride, and the rightful pride of all Americans, of the fact that he stood on European ground that had been liberated by American troops and rebuilt with American money, Obama continued:
I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent — depends on our ability to create partnerships because we can’t solve these problems alone.
Watch it:
It was President Bush’s open belligerence and defiant unilateralism — what author Michael Signer has called “vulgar exceptionalism” — that represented the genuine departure from the traditions of American foreign policy. In seeking to re-establish the United States as the moral leader in an international system based upon the rule of law, President Obama is trying to reinvigorate those traditions.
I understand that this more nuanced and rigorous understanding of American exceptionalism is a bit complex for many conservatives. As evidenced by their continuing support for the policies of George W. Bush, they tend to be much more delighted by simple assertions of American power than by policies that actually strengthen it.
5 Responses to “Walking Back From Bush’s ‘Vulgar Exceptionalism’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
This nuanced understanding of American exceptionalism clearly does not a signal a significant difference in US foreign policy. We might rather say that we still think we are the greatest and best nation and have the right and duty to intervene anywhere in the world at any time when our interests are threatened, but we intend to be less arrogant about it for the next 4 years.
It is great that Obama realizes that arrogance and bullying is ineffective in foreign relations, but as long as he and the Democratic Party still believe that the United States – our sons and daughters in the military supported by our tax dollars – should be the world’s policeman then we haven’t made much progress. The goal should not be the strengthening of American power, but the strengthening of a legitimate international power so that we can drastically reduce military and spy spending and make America a better place for all.
April 28th, 2009 at 11:51 amNo President Left Behind, otherwise known as saving the Bush legacy of greed and violence.
American exceptionalism is blather. Our “politically enhanced free markets” imploded Wall Street and many people’s retirement assets.
Bush was an exceptionally bad leader. It will take lots of perfume to cover up his stench.
April 28th, 2009 at 11:56 amPeace and prosperity? Data shows a bit more greed and violence, than peace and prosperity.
President Obama wants to restart greed, with a tad less leverage. He clearly supported Israel’s pummeling of its neighbors. Who’s next in the sights of America and its 51st state?
April 28th, 2009 at 12:01 pmSeriously. I am married to an Iranian, and I travel in Iran. Almost every Iranian will talk about the greatness of his country, its history, its culture. That’s exceptionalism. I know Turks, Indians, and Arabs who speak as reverently of their own heritage. That’s still exceptionalism.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:43 pmThen they will ask if you can help them get a visa for America. That’s American exceptionalism. They can and do coexist. Somebody just couldn’t think of anything else to write since George Will had already covered the blue jeans issue.
As such, the President of The United States represents, fully, the entire body of laws and jurisprudence of our great country. What is the import of laws, per sey, and how do any peoples reconcile their priciples, with larger concepts, relating to justice? We have a fine higher educational system here, one which reflects a plethora of accolades-of-character! IMO, seven examples are: Harvard-intellectual emminence; Yale-intellectual esteem, Princeton-intellectual exceptionality; Columbia-intellectual bravery; Brown-intellectual breadth and scope; Cornell-intellectually creative ends; U. of P.-intellectual ‘humanism’!!
April 29th, 2009 at 9:21 am