President Obama’s misunderstanding of American exceptionalism has found defenders among international-relations scholars and taken on an aura of legitimacy. Realist theorist Stephen Walt, in a recent article in Foreign Policy, exposes the “myths” of American exceptionalism. Walt echoes Obama’s view — namely that, since many nations have sincerely believed they were exceptional, no nation is truly exceptional. Yet America’s indispensable role in the world does not result from the sincerity of its leaders, but from the verity of its exceptional principles.
Despite dismissals of American exceptionalism and defeatist claims of America’s decline among some academics and left-wing pundits, the foundations of American statecraft are strong because they were well laid by the country’s founding fathers. Their commitment to the principles of liberty — as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and secured in the Constitution — had implications for foreign policy as well. Understanding the exceptional nature of America’s role in the world offers the best guide to confronting the international problems we face today. Dismissing them is not realism; it is surrealism.
Advertisement
While Walt correctly notes that Americans are sometimes “blind to their weak spots, and in ways that have real-world consequences,” he underestimates the historical role that the U.S. has played in advancing the cause of justice and liberty abroad. According to Walt, instead of “chest-thumping,” we need “a more realistic and critical assessment of America’s true character and contributions.” Upon such analysis, Walt finds nothing exceptional about America’s role in the world. Instead, he exposes five “myths” and concludes that the U.S. does not behave better than other nations. America’s success is largely from luck. America is not a force for good in the world. And finally, God is not on America’s side.
If America’s founding principles and its international influence since 1776 are not exceptional, then truly no nation is. American exceptionalism is meant to define the nature of America’s political order. This uniqueness is based on the fundamentals of America, since our principles are based on a dedication to universal principles rather than a restrictive understanding of nationhood based on language, ethnicity, territory, or religion. Ours is a nation open to all that adheres to its core principles, founded on reason and grounded in tradition. America was the first country on earth to commit to the ideas of liberty and equality at precisely the same moment it conceived of itself as an independent nation. America soon enshrined these principles in the oldest surviving written constitution in history.
If one is looking for exceptionalism in American foreign policy, how about the international leadership Americans showed in defeating the Barbary corsairs off North Africa in 1805? In the Tripolitan War, Americans led a coalition of England, Sweden, and Sicily to “punish” the Barbary states for raiding American ships, enslaving American citizens, and violating the law of nations. The Barbary Wars ended the centuries-old practice of pirating and white slavery in the Mediterranean, which the great powers of Europe had tolerated and even encouraged. American leadership in the Mediterranean was commended at the time by British admiral Lord Nelson and Pope Pius VII.
How about the American commitment to end European imperialism in North America, leading to the Monroe Doctrine? Secretary of State John Quincy Adams worked so that neither Spain nor France reclaimed their revolting colonies in Latin America. At the same time, America rebuffed British attempts to secure an imperial foothold in North America through an Anglo-American military alliance. Despite America’s military weakness, Adams — the principal author of the Monroe Doctrine — believed it would be “more candid, as well as more dignified, to avow our principles explicitly” and reject an alliance, rather than appear to “come in as a cockboat in the wake of the British man-of-war.” By championing the cause of the newly independent Latin American republics in Europe, and being the first established nation to recognize the new nations, a young U.S. advanced its principles abroad, promoting a new system of “justice” for one-third of the globe.
Actually the Barbary Pirates incident was something of an abberance, provoked by wealthy traders who did not want their lucrative shipping routes interferred with. Other than that, from 1783 to 1898 the United States essentially minded its own business and (quite wisely) did not take much of an interest in world affairs. This all changed in 1898 when, seduced by the idea of empire that was all the rage at the time, the United States used the excuse of a magazine explosion in the USS Maine to grab what was left of Spain's empire. Kicking Spain out of Cuba and even annexing Puerto Rico was all well and good (within the Monroe Doctrine), but taking Guam and the Philippines thrust the US into the affairs of the Old World for the first time since the Revolution, with disastrous effects (involvement in 2 World Wars with hundreds of thousands killed; trillions spent in the Cold War/"world policing" missions etc.) and an obvious path of imperial decline.
Unfortunately you can't just dismiss "the last 50 years of US Foreign Policy" - that's in the forefront of people's minds. And during that time, the US has shown a great leadership when working with OTHERS - it's when they go it alone, trying to be "exceptional", that things unravel (Iraq, Viet Nam). American exceptionalism should be based on it's technological genius from the space program to the internet to the iPhone. Not military misadventures and over-dabbling in Middle Eastern affairs.
How did American foreign policy "stand against" Nazi Germany? Isolationist Republicans hobbled FDR's pro-British stance. The US didn't get into the fight until Pearl Harbor was bombed, and even then it was only against Japan. Hitler then declared war against the US.
Quite agree with Nordicus Major's comment. Well known is the american support for Hitler, early thirties (although they were not actually defining american foreign policy, captains of industry like Henry Ford admired the undemocratic national socialists; just like many germans, europeans and their politicians for that matter).
"Only" because of the Axis Germany-Italy-Japan the War Declaration against Japan was a three-fold.
Nevertheless thnx for upgrading my knowledge on the history of american foreign policy.
This is just one narrow avenue of how the US is different, better, and first in many areas (humanitarian advances in technology, economy, social/civil law, production, innovation, food, education). Early foreign policy reflected our founding principles consistently; that is, our commitment to liberty and intervention when needed to preserve the principles of freedom. Funny how it's considered arrogant 'chest-thumping' to say John Quincy adams was right, but reasonable for Obama to say he's got the answer to the internat'l crises.
America's exceptional power started around the time it developed nuclear weapons. Trying to enslave a nuclear-armed nation is an incredibly dangerous thing to do. It's not THAT surprising that it hasn't happen, and hasn't been seriously tried (the Soviets' five decade Cold War tango notwithstanding).
Okay, I misinterpreted your comment due to the less-than-perfect English. I now read you to mean it's remarkable that all the world isn't enslaved *by* us, not that it's surprising that the whole world didn't come together to enslave *us*.
Again, not surprising. First, the whole world is a lot to handle. Second, RUSSIA got nukes shortly after we did (largely by stealing information from us) and it's rather hard to conduct a campaign of world domination when doing the Cold War tango with another superpower. Even after the USSR fell, Russia still had nukes, as do the French, the Chinese, and the British (not to mention the Indians, the Pakistanis, and the Israelis). World domination is a very dangerous and complicated game in the nuclear age.
That's not to say that there's no principle involved, though many Americans are perfectly open to using military force for the purposes of empire (see all the cooing on this very site, some of which continues today, about brining the American ideal of democracy to the backwards Muslim barbarians).
I still think you aren't understanding the above comment. It's tongue-in-cheek. What it means is that America is truly exceptional, including its views of freedom and liberty. Were it not so exceptional, it would have enslaved the world. Your comments regarding Soviet nukes notwithstanding.
The European powers tolerated the continuation of Barbary slaving and piracy beyond the era when the Turks dominated the Mediterranean because they had bigger conflicts among themselves and even better colonial aims to pursue than in North Africa, and were willing to tolerate strategically meaningless pinpricks. When they had, for the first time in a century, in 1815 settled the major wars among European powers, they acted to deal with fringe nonsense like Algeria. The British bombardment of Algiers in 1816 was a more significant event in ending barbary violence, as was the French invasion of Algeria a good way to put a cap on it.
Similarly, the British contribution to Greek freedom was far more significant in terms of money, materiel, and the strategic deployment of naval power [Navarino 1827, also involving France and Russia].
The Royal navy was also the chief instrument by which the Monroe Doctrine was actually implemented, since Britain sought influence in Latin America via money and investment and also benefited from keeping Spain out and the rest of Europe from a new foothold. Not to mention that the alleged aim of the Monroe doctrine described as preserving the freedom of new Latin republics is an idealistic presentation of a policy that also served American commercial and strategic interests even at that early stage.
The Royal Navy was also out putting an end to slavery on a far grander scale than anything America contributed to that cause, to say the least.
Not to mention, at least after disposing of the mortal threat of France, the Royal Navy was also the guardian of the freedom of the seas for over 100 years.
America often balanced its interests with deep moral causes, guided by a sense of mission both nationalistic and religious. So did Britain, and so for that matter did France.
Americans might find monarchism and colonialism distasteful, but they as much mixed idealism and mission with military and commercial interest as anything America did in the 19th century.
In the 20th century, America saved the world. It does not eliminate that truth to also be aware that America saved a world for itself, or that to a degree it had to be prodded and pushed and Britain had to hold the line while doing that.
I'm not really sure how this even matters. If you want to be proud of your nation and/or its accomplishments, that is all well and good. If you truly believe yourself 'exceptional' (whether individually or nationally) and you come to assume that what you do is--by definition--exceptional just because you are the one doing it, then you become a danger to yourself and to others.
Indeed, it's not unlike the divine right monarchs who assumed whatever they did was good and righteous because, well, they were divine right monarchs.
The foreign policy decisions we make as a nation (or our government makes without our consent) should be based on how well we hold ourselves up to our own standards (is it Constitutional, is it truly just, is it truly in our best interest). To rely on 'American exceptionalism' to justify actions is intellectually lazy and immoral. Pride cometh before the fall.
American exceptionalism is nothing more than simple hyppocrisy... Other nations have at least the decency to admit that they act in their own self-interest, American exceptionalism is nothing more than putting a principle-label on a self-interest act. In all the examples the author mentioned the US moved on self-interest.
And the conclusion is of course false too. The greatest single loss of US prestige, and the largest deviations from its principles occurred during the Bush times, who very much believed in American exceptionalism. Look where it got us! Half the world no longer believes us to be a benign power, and they are quite right. (At that time Obama was an unknown senator from Illinois, I think it is quite astonishing trying to pin this on him and his crew...)
Obama was hardly unknown, at least in the second Bush term when he was the Senator from Illinois. He got a ton of press due to various factors (being a potential first black president, which proved true, the luridness of his first opponent, Jack Ryan's personal problems--which involved Ryan trying to get his wife, Seven of Nine of Star Trek fame, to get jiggy with him in public--and the eccentricity of Alan Keyes). He also had a high-profile speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004. Otherwise I agree.
American exceptionalism is nothing more than simple hyppocrisy... Other nations have at least the decency to admit that they act in their own self-interest, American exceptionalism is nothing more than putting a principle-label on a self-interest act. In all the examples the author mentioned the US moved on self-interest.
And the conclusion is of course false too. The greatest single loss of US prestige, and the largest deviations from its principles occurred during the Bush times, who very much believed in American exceptionalism. Look where it got us! Half the world no longer believes us to be a benign power, and they are quite right. (At that time Obama was an unknown senator from Illinois, I think it is quite astonishing trying to pin this on him and his crew...)
Martyn you can define exceptionalism out of existence if you want but that does not mean that it does not exist. For instance some can sacrifice large amounts of time and money to helping the poor who have no relation to him. I can than point out that he is doing all of that so that he will feel a certain joy in his work and that his God will be pleased with him and then say see all his work is "selfish". If American exceptionalism means that America had to do many good acts without a hint of benefit for themselves then of course they have done nothing exceptional.
Let's look at your evidence of our lack of exceptionalism you claim that because we displaced the native Americans we are unexceptional. Interesting when it came time to remove the "five civilized" tribes from Georgia and South Carolina the Supreme Court ruled against Andrew Jackson and the House of Representatives only backed Jackson by two votes because of strong Christian opposition to the move. What other country would have had that kind of fight over something that was so obviously in our selfish interest?
You also claim that half the world no longer thinks we are a benevolent power because of George Bush you need to realize that since World War II no country that did not NEED us to protect them or were in desperate need of our help have thought we are a benevolent power. Many people in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union think we are a benevolent power because they know they need us. Countries that want to run oppressive dictatorships, countries that desire to embark on military adventures in their near aboard and nations that feel they are safe from all physical threats have never liked us. Its not a new phenomena and Obama has only had our standing decrease since he as been in office.
Only the US would have thought to create the UN from a position of unquestioned military dominance that it enjoyed post World War II. Only the US would have saved the people of South Korea from the horrors of the Kim's dictatorship or shielded Taiwan for so long against China. Only America would have defended Western Europe from the Soviets for so long for so little in return.
Who else invades countries like Japan and Germany at the end of World War II and leaves them better off than they were before? Even in Iraq we did not rape the country for free oil, we could have but did not, but tired to leave them a government that would not turn into a dictatorship and in some way reflect the will of the people. Other nations did no such things as these.
Exceptionalism is not about being better people then everyone else or even being more righteous than others it is about having a different basis for our nationhood and liberty than other countries and seeing that different kind of foundation manifest itself in the world.
Stopping hating us for being America and appreciate what makes us different. It will do you good.
Oh, and let us not forget that our nation was founded on the extermination and/or disenfranchisement of the native population, whom we chased away from their lands and forced to live in worthless ghettos in the middle of deserts. In the name of "exceptional" American values of course...
The author is thoroughly wrong. The biggest threat to this county is our continued incapacity to once and for all abandon this hypocritical myth of exceptionalism.
Oh, and let us not forget that our nation was founded on the extermination and/or disenfranchisement of the native population, whom we chased away from their lands and forced to live in worthless ghettos in the middle of deserts.
Actually most of the indian tribes wanted to assimilate with the superior culture that came here. example: the 5 civilized tribes. Without the white man the glorious noble savage riding a horse on the plains chasing buffalo would have never existed.
Martyn (and other America cynics here and elsewhere),
Imagine you are an Austrian woman in 1945. Over the hill you see a platoon of soldiers coming toward you. Would you wish them to be Russian, German, Italian, Yugoslavian, or American?
Imagine you are an Iraqi woman in the same situation in 2006. Would you hope they are Al Qaeda, Sadr Brigade, Iraqi, or American?
It's put best here: External Link
Follow
