Exceptionalism
If there’s one aspect to American politics that really bugs me it’s the concept of “American Exceptionalism”, and how nobody seems to know what it means. Just this morning I ran across a great illustration of what it really is, ironically by seeing a perfect description of what it is not.
Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, “pragmatic libertarian” law professor David Post explains why he’ll be voting for Obama. One of his reasons is that
The country, and the world, are in a precarious state at the moment, and the prospects for a very dark and gloomy future are very real; it took three years for the effects of the 1929 stock market crash to be felt throughout the global economy, and I can’t help but worry that something similar is on the horizon today. We have, as a nation, become demoralized and pessimistic and cynical about our ability to solve our problems. It’s not just that our “infrastructure” is crumbling, it’s that nobody seems to give a s___. Our belief that we are, in fact, the greatest nation on earth has always been one of our most precious assets — something of a self-fulfilling prophecy that has made us the engine for economic growth, and for freedom, for two centuries. It is becoming increasingly difficult for people to believe that, these days, and when people stop believing it, it will no longer be true. Countries can descend into the ranks of the second-rate in the blink of an eye (historically speaking): it happened to Spain, and to Portugal, and to Argentina, it is now happening to Italy, and it can happen to us.
The last phrase I’ve emphasized because this is the point. America is a wonderful country, but it is subject to the same influences and forces as every other nation. American Exceptionalism is the belief that we are intrinsically different — that we are above the rules that apply to everyone else. It’s the belief of a naïve teenager that “it can’t happen to me“.
To put “country first”, we must realistically recognize that this nation excels, but that it’s not an exception. It excels not from any preordination, but from the same continual expenditure of blood, toil, tears, and sweat that every other nation must endure. When it is dominated by the belief that the Pax Americana is a fait accompli, disaster not only can happen, but it will.
3 Comments »
Leave a comment
Recent Posts- Recent Comments
- Comment on Symmetric, Antisymmetric, and Hermitian Forms by John Armstrong
- Comment on Symmetric, Antisymmetric, and Hermitian Forms by Matt Daws
- Comment on Sunday Samples 129 by John Armstrong
- Comment on Sunday Samples 129 by Kate Nowak
- Comment on Symmetric, Antisymmetric, and Hermitian Forms by Akhil Mathew
- Comment on Sunday Samples 90 (one day late) by Glenn
- Comment on Symmetric, Antisymmetric, and Hermitian Forms by John Armstrong
- Comment on Symmetric, Antisymmetric, and Hermitian Forms by Akhil Mathew
- Comment on Self-Adjoint Transformations by Symmetric, Antisymmetric, and Hermitian Forms « The Unapologetic Mathematician
- Comment on Matrices and Bilinear Forms on Inner Product Spaces in Dirac Notation by Symmetric, Antisymmetric, and Hermitian Forms « The Unapologetic Mathematician
Thank you. This is why I posted on the ethics of voting for someone that is completely unqualified. I find it a morally indefensible position to use the argument “it is a free country and it is my right to be able to vote for Palin even if my only reason is that I like her.”
I’ve heard this claim made many times. It is just irresponsible. McCain took our right to vote for who we wanted away when he chose someone who could not competently fulfill the role of president for VP.
To vote with the idea in mind that America will make it through another incompetent presidency (so qualifications and intelligence don’t matter) is wrong. If we do it again, who knows what will happen.
(1) Statistically Improbable Phrases in the Debate
Category: Propaganda
Posted on: October 3, 2008 12:40 AM, by Joseph j7uy5
http://scienceblogs.com/corpuscallosum/2008/10/statistically_improbable_phras.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=sublink
[ed: you don't need to c/p the entire content of a post you already link to]
(2) Dr. Philip Vos Fellman to Jonathan Vos Post:
You know I object in principle to having these discussions, but there’s a terminology issue here which I feel I must address. In the professional political science literature, “American Exceptionalism” is a phrase from the organizational language of labor relations, preceding the development of neo-institutionalism and rational choice theory. The short version is that the phrase is generally used to refer to America’s failure to adopt modern institutions (pensions, health-care, union benefits) common to all the other European nations. It’s not generally something about which we should be proud.
(3) Jonathan to Prof. Fellman: True. And thank you. The term has devolved into a “God is on our side” geopolitical nationalism in popular usage, despite your correction. Eventually, dictionaries show the wrong but more popular
uses of everything.
Sarah Palin is perfect for them. I saw the debate as the pilot for a new Reality TV show: “Are You Smarter Than a Country Music Singer?”
Let’s not forget the de Toqueville quote recently paraphrased by Eric Schmidt:
“America will do well because of the optimism of its people, its abundance of land, and its absence of a king.”
Although our success is not preordained, having a positive mindset is (almost) always helpful.