In an exclusive interview with NM’s Jeb Golinkin, Ayaan Hirsi Ali — the bestselling author of Infidel and Islamic reformer — gives us her quick take of the President’s address to the Muslim world. Here are excerpts:
ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS:
President Obama’s speech didn’t do much for Muslim women. He defended their rights in Western countries to wear the hijab. He didn’t touch on Muslim women being confined, being forced into marriages or being victims of honor killings: These traditions and principles in the Koran and in Islam are being practiced in the West. He didn’t address that.
I think he was just appeasing the Muslim world because they perceive–they have these notions that Muslim women in Western countries–are not allowed to wear the headscarf or cover themselves. I mean you can wear whatever you want in the United States.
In Egypt where he spoke, women who do not wear their veil in public are subjected to very obscene remarks on the street and even sexual assault. Nowadays, even if they are covered they become victims of the same things: That is, in public, in Egypt, as a woman, you run 80% of the time the risk of being assaulted simply because you are a woman walking down the street. They are forced into marriages; their testimony in countries where Sharia is law is just half of that of a man. They can be divorced with no rights. They need guardians, a married guardian or they cannot sign any legal papers. The President simply did not address Sharia or Islamic law in relation to women.
ON ISLAMIC EXTREMISM:
Who is a real reformer? Obama’s message is that all of this [violence] has nothing to do with Islam. He says that progress and human rights are perfectly reconcilable with Islam. “Islam is peace.” He sticks to the line that there is nothing to reform in there. According to the President, we are only fighting a very small number of extremists, but it’s not Islam, so if that’s the case then there really isn’t much to reform. The true reformers — the moderate Muslims — take away from the speech that they can’t depend on the Obama administration to criticize Islam. Between the lines it’s as if he is saying that he will prevent Islam from negative stereotyping or something like that, which is ridiculous because he can’t do that. But most Muslims as we know, believe that negative stereotyping is equal to criticizing Islam.
Obama said “let’s speak plainly to one another”; I would have liked him to have added, “and that means let us face some of your religious principles and how they are radically different from American principles.” That’s what we need to talk about. His plain speaking went as far as saying we have a right to be in Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda attacked and keeps trying to attack us… but what inspires Al-Qaeda? Why are people we call moderates not facing up to Al-Qaeda? What is it about Islamic values that causes this? His plain speaking ended exactly where George Bush’s and all the Presidents that came before him… and Tony Blair… ended: with the selective quoting from the Koran. It’s like Hillary Clinton putting on the headscarf as a “sign of respect.”
That said, some of the speech’s passages were tough. I liked it the way he told them that “we are in Afghanistan and we are not leaving,” and I liked what he said about Holocaust denial. But overall, the speech just didn’t go far enough.
ON OBAMA’S “NEW ERA”:
Obama has now clearly defined that he is different from the previous administration. So far, that clearly has been his goal: To show the Muslim world that they are different, and that this is the beginning of a new era, etc. I think once he has succeeded in creating the image that he is different, then I hope he will say look, I am different but — and this was a statement I really liked — I will always protect the security of Americans.
American security is going to repeatedly be attacked in the name of Islam. When that happens, he can always point back to this speech and to negotiations with Iran and say “I came with outstretched arms, I tried to include you… I told you some things about how fabulous you are.” And when all of that is rejected, then that’s when he can say “Now lets really discuss what is wrong with your religion, and where do our [American] values clash with Islamic values? Will he do that? That’s That’s the real question. But I don’t know if he will do it. George Bush never did it. He used the term “Islamofascism”; once but quickly took it back. So I don’t know. We will see.
43 responses so far
1 dendup // Jun 5, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Would it be in the interests of the United States for Obama to have delivered a speech of which this brave and admirable woman would whole heartedly approve?
2 joescannura // Jun 5, 2009 at 3:19 pm
probably not, it would be political suicide. people on the periphery will have to keep doing it. But he could give some criticisms of honor killings and things like that.He can say something. He can’t go as far as Mrs. Ali does, but he could have taken a tougher stance. She was right in the Obama basically said he’ll never do that. He’ll defend Islam from people liker her. That’s nonsensical.
3 ModerateGal // Jun 5, 2009 at 3:55 pm
So, is Obama supposed to be all things to all people all at once in this one speech? Holy smokes. Can we not try to do things in steps or do we have to go all the way the very first time?
4 sinz54 // Jun 5, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Folks,
The U.S. Government cannot take an official stand on the faults and contradictions of Islam or its values, even though that’s something that we as ordinary Americans should learn.
For the Government to do that as official policy would violate the Establishment Clause of our Bill of Rights.
That’s been a major theoretical problem with the War on Terror all along: al-Qaeda claims to be acting in the name of Islam. But if any U.S. President deconstructs in detail what the Quran says vs. what Osama bin Laden says, he’s running the risk of violating separation of religion and state.
Unlike the Cold War (Das Kapital) or WW2 (Mein Kampf), our enemies in the War on Terror hide behind religion. In France, they don’t have an absolute prohibition against monkeying with religion. So they could pass laws actually banning the hijab in certain public places. (The Jewish yarmulke too.) That would be absolutely unconstitutional here in America though.
5 sinz54 // Jun 5, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Ms. Ali says: “and that means let us face some of your religious principles and how they are radically different from American principles.”
That would be absolutely unconstitutional for any American president to do. First Amendment, you know. (Of course, that doesn’t stop ordinary citizens, or journalists, or columnists, or reporters, from doing it.)
In our history, America did this once: We told the Mormons to stop polygamy. We can’t get away with something like that today, with the ACLU breathing down our necks all the time.
6 hurayrah // Jun 5, 2009 at 7:07 pm
I wish the angry estogen posse would go grind their axe on al-Islam elsewhere.
If you don’t believe in the First Amendment you should emigrate.
Please take Robert Spencer with you.
Bush already attempted to impose judeoxian democracy on MENA in Iraq (the moronic Bush Doctrine) and it was an EPIC FAIL.
7 BoolaBoola // Jun 5, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Excuse me, Ayaan, but President Obama specifically said that Muslim women should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to wear the veil.
I understand that the American far-right have taken you in when you needed to leave Holland, but you will lose most or all of your authority to speak against Islam if you allow yourself to be coopted by them. If American people associate you with the Neocons, ninety percent of them will write you off. Including those who are currently your fans. Like me.
8 BoolaBoola // Jun 5, 2009 at 11:00 pm
President Obama is trying to make moderate Muslims more powerful in the Muslim world and more visible in the West.
You can’t do this by pointing the finger and chanting “Terrorist! Terrorist!” That’s the McCain method–make everyone as mad as possible. And it’s exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted to accomplish.
9 chephren // Jun 6, 2009 at 2:43 am
It is not Obama’s duty to reform Islam. To attempt this would be presumptuous, foolhardy and counterproductive.
The president’s goals in this speech were more limited, but also more realistic and achievable: establish a respectful stance toward Islam, build trust with Arabs in the street, create a new, two-fold diplomatic agenda – engage with Iran, and establish a long-term Arab-Israeli peace process.
The speech was a good start.
Why is it acceptable for Conservatives to criticize Obama’s foreign policy initiatives when Liberals and Democrats were called disloyal and misguided for going after Bush when he went abroad?
10 balconesfault // Jun 6, 2009 at 3:25 am
Can someone tell me why this woman is Muslim?
Seriously – when her beef with Obama is that he didn’t say “let us face some of your religious principles and how they are radically different from American principles”, I’m wondering why she wants to be associated with Islamic principles in the first place.
If she’s really bothered by the Muslim religion, there are plenty of other religions out there for her to explore. I suggest she take a look at Unitarian Universalism.
11 sinz54 // Jun 6, 2009 at 6:29 am
boolaboola: Ayaan Hirsi Ali had no choice when she came to America. The Left wouldn’t touch what she was saying with a ten-foot pole.
Nearly all feminists in America are Leftists. And they have made common cause with multiculturalists, whose dictum is Thou Shalt Not Criticize Any Non-Western Cultures. As a result, the largest American feminist organization, N.O.W., is nearly silent on honor killings, genital mutilation, and other such delightful aspects of life for a woman in fundamentalist Muslim countries.
Another feminist organization, Feminist Majority, has spoken out about these abuses. But since it was started by Tammy Bruce, who says proudly she voted for Reagan, the rest of the trendy Left in America usually stays away.
12 balconesfault // Jun 6, 2009 at 7:37 am
Sinz: You are basically disappointed with NOW’s charter. NOW focusses on women’s issues within the United States, and honor killings, genital mutilation, et al are largely absent here. You can criticize them for not having a broader global focus, I guess, but they seem to believe that they still have a significant enough challenge dealing with equity issues within the US.
I don’t understand why you set up a conflict between Feminist Majority, which both works on the same issues as NOW but also addresses global issues, and use the glib phrase “the trendy Left”. From what I can tell, the two organizatons work together often on issues and candidate endorsements.
13 dragonlady // Jun 6, 2009 at 9:57 am
balconesfault, obviously you haven’t read her autobiography. She is an athesist but was raised in a Muslim family. She left her faith precisely because of her personal experiences with Islam’s treatment of women.
14 dragonlady // Jun 6, 2009 at 10:24 am
balconesfault, NOW is founded upon a leftist ideology. While honor killings and such do not happen with great frequency here, it has happened. There were two young girls in TX killed by their father for speaking to boys at their H.S. Another lady was beheaded by her Muslim husband in Buffalo. While NOW pays lipspeak by generally condemning such acts, its energies are much more committed to pursuing abortion on demand and gay marriage equality. Which is why they stood silent when Ms California was personally attacked and vilified for having the audacity to say she believed in traditional marriage. Another prime example of their hypocrisy is NOW is supposed to fight domestic abuse. But if the perpetrator happens to be someone other than a white male, like OJ Simpson, they tend to shy away from it. This was confirmed by Tammy Bruce in her books when she was a member of NOW. She tried to organize protests against OJ Simpson during his murder trial to highlight what ultimately happens to women who live with domestic abuse like Nicole Brown. NOW people vehemently objected to her project, because they were so steeped in racial and gender politics. They went along with the charade that OJ was a victim of racist oppression.
15 dragonlady // Jun 6, 2009 at 11:10 am
sinz, it’s not unconstitutional for anyone to recognize there are fault lines between Islam and the west. There’s a difference in believing in religious freedom, and recognizing that religious intolerance can be used to subvert democracy and basic human rights principles. If religious freedom trumps all, then why not sharia law? Considering Obama’s audience, Im glad he did not paint it as a Christian vs Muslim conflict, but if he wants to aim for peaceful co-existence between the two civilizations, both must agree on some fundamental principles. Trying to convert someone to another faith by force negates any possibility of peace. He alluded to this in his speech by pointing to extremists, but let’s face it, it’s not like folks in these countries are going to turn inwards and examine whats wrong with their own culture since Arab honor is paramount. While I liked that he said we are not at war with Islam, and shamed Holocoust deniers, he reaffirmed their aggrieved victim mentality by playing up all the wests past sins. Why then, should the average Muslim reciprocate in any way when weve put ourselves in a morally defenseless position? I dont think Ayaan Hirsi Ali is asking much that the leader of the free world at least challenge Muslims to examine their own abominable treatment of women and religious minorities. Is it too much to ask a country like Afghanistan where weve split blood and treasure to allow little girls go to school without acid being thrown in their faces? Has our foreign policy become so cynical that even basic human rights principles are mere platitudes?
16 BoolaBoola // Jun 6, 2009 at 11:48 am
Sinz54, once again you show you don’t know what you’re talking about. You wrote: “Nearly all feminists in America are Leftists. And they have made common cause with multiculturalists, whose dictum is Thou Shalt Not Criticize Any Non-Western Cultures.”
The Feminist Majority was posting about the plight of women under the Taliban well before 9111, when we still liked them for opposing the Soviets.
What do we call people who post about stuff they don’t know anything about? Oh yeah, morons.
17 ireign // Jun 6, 2009 at 12:05 pm
There is a serious problem with the way that much of the Islamic religion is currently practiced in many parts of the world. But no US President is going to divert from the line that “Islam is a religion of peace” despite the evidence to the contrary. Bill Maher had it about right when in 2002 he mentioned that islam was in need of a reformation similar to what happened in Christianity. Christianity, thankfully, is not practiced as if we were still in the 1st century. Islam, basically is in many parts of the world. But you really blame Obama for not taking that on. It would cause many geopolitical problems for him to do so.
However, what you can blame the President for is for basically pandering to Arab Autocrats. How does giving Palestinians a homeland improve the life of the average Saudi or Egyptian? If Egyptians cared so much about Palestinians, why did Egyptians treat Palestinians like crap when they ruled Gaza? Why didn’t Egypt accept Gaza back as part of the Camp David Accords? Why does Lebanon not grant citizenship to Palestinians?
At what point is in his speech to Obama refer to Arafat’s response to the offers at Camp David and Taba? Why is the President comparing what Palestians endure to Blacks in the deep south?
In general, the President’s speech was not truthtelling but mainly pandering. If it pays dividends to US success in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will look like a wise move. I am skeptical. Hopefully, the President will prove me wrong.
18 balconesfault // Jun 6, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“Has our foreign policy become so cynical that even basic human rights principles are mere platitudes?”
LOL. That’s pretty funny, given what America did at Abu Ghraid and Guantanamo.
Yes – at the moment, we need to be cynical and focus on a foreign policy that focuses on America’s security. We threw moral authority over the fence a long time ago per that goal, we have developed co-dependent economic relationships with two of the most repressive nations on earth, Saudi Arabia and Red China, we’re sold ourselves deeply in debt to those nations.
How about we fix our own damn house, and just run a foreign policy on the basis “do no harm” and “protect our security” for awhile?
19 ireign // Jun 6, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Balconesfault-That seems like a blame America first foreign policy. So if we try to change hostile regimes, you blame America for acting as an imperialist and if we try to deal with existing autocratic regimes than you can claim America has no moral authority? Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. With you, America can’t win.
Hate to break to you, but some soldiers acting out of line at Abu Grab isnt the equivalent of beheading people or Mercy Killing. At Gunatanamo, prisoners meet with lawyers, get fed, and even are provided prayer material. Even if you see a different solution to deal with terrorists, I fail to see any equivalence between America and ANY Middle Eastern government.
20 balconesfault // Jun 6, 2009 at 8:34 pm
It’s not a blame America first strategy – it’s an acknowledgement that we’re way in debt, and we’re in hock to countries whose interests are antithetical to ours.
If you think any acknowledgement of America’s failures is drawing a moral equivalency, we’re not going to get anywere. I’m looking for America to be the shining city on the hill … not the more brightly lit city on the mound.
21 BoolaBoola // Jun 7, 2009 at 1:14 am
Sinz54, I bet AHA could have cut a deal with the Libertarians. They’d love to have a religious-freedom type on board.
At least they would have in the old days. I don’t know what the Lib Party is any more, with a right-to-lifist candidate. When I was into the Libertarianism, many of them advocated for the right to kill anyone who tries to prevent you from getting an abortion if you want one.
22 Chekote // Jun 7, 2009 at 7:10 am
I met Hirshi Ali. She is impressive and very beautiful. One of the stories she told was that the reason women cover themselves is because men cannot control their sexual urges. She told how, when she moved to Holland, she was shocked that women were scantly dressed yet were not sexually assaulted. It was both funny and sad.
The wearing of hijab is not by choice. Tremendous pressure is put on women to cover themselves. Islam oppresses women. Sharia oppresses women. The silence on the part of the so-called feminists with respect of Islam’s treatment of women is appalling. It is a direct result of multiculturalism. This idea that all cultures are equal. Well, all cultures are NOT equal when it comes to women’s rights. All cultures are NOT equal when it comes to the treatment of children. Instead of going around the world apologing for the US, why doesn’t Obama praise the US for making so much progress in the area of civil and human rights? Most of the world is extremely racist. In Brazil, someone like of Obama would NEVER get elected to the highest office. It would be nice to have our president challenge other countries to break down their racial barriers. Challenge the Muslim world to match the US when it comes to women’s rights. Is asking a POTUS to be PROUD of America too much?!
23 midcon // Jun 7, 2009 at 7:38 am
Chekote,
How can the POTUS challenge other countries to do what we have done, when most African Americans would assert that we have such a long way to go. You can’t hold up the U.S. as a shinking example unless you believe it and you can’t be taken seriously when you say one thing in the States and another thing in different countries.
Or let me put it much more simply, imagine if you will the exact same speech you would like Obama to make overseas being delivered to the national convention of the NAACP. How’s that image working for you?
24 sinz54 // Jun 7, 2009 at 10:44 am
midcon: “How can the POTUS challenge other countries to do what we have done, when most African Americans would assert that we have such a long way to go.”
And there speaks the liberal view: America is not perfect, and some of its minorities are still not satisfied; therefore America has no right to condemn genocide, concentration camps, honor killings, stonings of heretics to death, and forced genital mutilation taking place in other countries.
Here are just a few of the things wrong with this:
1. Many African-Americans have spoken out about the genocide in Darfur.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEd583-fA8M
The fact that African-Americans still think white racism remains a big problem (falsely, in my view) didn’t stop them from demanding that the U.S. government take a stand on Darfur. They had also wanted Clinton to do something about Rwanda–but he didn’t.
2. In the 1940s, blacks and Jews had it worse in America than today. Yet FDR spoke up about Kristallnacht and the Hitler tyranny. Should he have kept his mouth shut?
3. How about Radio Free Europe during the Cold War: Should we have not had those broadcasts, because America has no right to advocate freedom in the world?
4. If you really believe that an imperfect nation has no right to criticize another nation’s society, then do me a big favor: The next time the French or the Canadians criticize America’s consumerism, or the next time Muslim nations call America’s society immoral and decadent, tell *them* that they have no right to criticize *us*. Because they’re not perfect either, and their minorities suffer too, often worse than in America.
25 sinz54 // Jun 7, 2009 at 10:56 am
Chekote: In fairness to Obama, he did say this:
“Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: ‘Out of many, one.’
“Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.
“Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it. “
You gotta admit, that’s not bad.
Believe me, on the American left-wing blogs I’ve rarely seen such appreciation for America. Go to Pharyngula or TPMCafe or Commondreams.org during Thanksgiving or the Fourth of July, and see what they say about that holiday–and their country.
We have about 10-15% of Americans (mostly far left, a few far right) who are genuinely ashamed of their country. Fortunately, Obama has never suggested he’s one of them.
26 midcon // Jun 7, 2009 at 11:17 am
sinz,
While there remains much we can do about injustice, think about how it comes off when exhort South American countries to save the rain forest when all they are trying to do is industrialize, grow, and achieve economic prosperity like the U.S. Sounds pretty hypocritical doesn’t it?
So let’s stand up and tell the world how they should live and what they should do, because we are Americans and we know better.
Like you, I believe the black complaints about white racism is largely unfounded, but what we do, has to align with what we say.
And what’s with cherry picking you tube of all places to provide references. Here’s one of my own:
http://naacp.org/advocacy/international/darfur/index.htm
Notice the “Open Letter to President Bush” ? Oh wait, bit out of date I guess.
My point was not in the far ranging areas of genocide, genital mutilation, preservation of the rain forest, etc. It was specific about flying to another country bragging about our progress and then denying that progress back home. That denial, while not necessarily emanating from the President, does come many (maybe the majority) of African Americans as mechanism to continue their victimhood.
Yes, POTUS can talk about genocide, genital mutilation. That was not my point.
27 dragonlady // Jun 7, 2009 at 11:20 am
balconesfault said: “If you think any acknowledgement of America’s failures is drawing a moral equivalency, we’re not going to get anywhere.” Actually, I don’t think anyone is saying we should never admit any mistakes. But if you think that continually self-flagellating ourselves publicly will cause cultures steeped in honor, which is characterized by never publicly admitting mistakes, to meet us half-way you may be disappointed. It may actually reinforce the extremists arguments about America. Which then in turn, may undercut our own diplomacy since weve helped them convince their domestic populations that seeAmerica is morally bankrupt. The notion that if we confess all by undergoing public self-examination, that all will be forgiven, is a western construct. Or I could be wrongperhaps the One will solve it since he alone seems to have the wisdom to heal us all by sprinkling around his high-minded rhetoric like fairy dust (chuckle).
28 Chekote // Jun 7, 2009 at 11:49 am
“when most African Americans would assert that we have such a long way to go.”
Most African Americans have not lived abroad and just don’t appreciate how far this country has come on the issue of race. Why do some many Africans emigrate to this country? In Brazil someone like Obam would NOT be elected President. What is motivating the Darfur genocide is discrimination against blacks. I just would like the President to say to the world that they too should overcome racial and ethnic prejudice like this country has. Instead, all we get is him going around apologizing for this and that. When are Africans going to apologize for their role in the slave trade? The genocide in Rwanda? When are Arabs going to apologize for oppressing women? For treating non-Arab immigrants are subhumans? When are the Chinese going to apologize for the killing of Tibetians? The Turks for killing Armenians? I am sick and tired of people acting like this was the ONLY country that ever engaged in discrimination, slavery. The reality that both are common place throughout human history. This country has taken great pains to amend for its past. Time for other countries to do the same.
29 Chekote // Jun 7, 2009 at 11:53 am
Sinz
A couple of passages doesn’t make up for the overwhelming “apologize for America” tone of Obama’s trips. Enough. I reality he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism but does he have to wear it on its sleeve?
30 dragonlady // Jun 7, 2009 at 12:20 pm
sinz, I thought Obama tried more to explain the American viewpoint to Muslims than really defend her. Which is fine if he didn’t want to come off as arrogantly saying America knows best (actually, he explicitly said we didn’t). But from this speech and past statements, I do not think he believes America is an exceptional country. He continually wants to remind others of America’s faults (Gitmo, torture, etc), and make them morally equivalent to other actions when its far from the case. Even if you don’t believe in waterboarding, there is no comparison between this and beheading civilian hostages. There is no comparison to how women are treated in the West as they are in cultures steeped in political Islam. He clearly states we cannot elevate one country over another in foreign policy. Nice soundbite, but it ignores America’s global leadership responsibilities. Like it or not, few will act on any controversial global issue without some American involvement. So does he intend to lead by example on the principles he espoused (democracy, freedom of religion, womens rights) by engaging diplomatically on these issues? I doubt it. While he gives democracy a few token phrases in his speeches, his own State Dept pressured the UN tribunal to release the suspects in the killing of al-Hairi. Obviously, he prizes a grand bargain with Syria over any real commitment to Lebanese democracy. He would rather bow to a Saudi king than show any interest in respecting our most loyal allies, the British, by sending back the bust of Winston Churchill or giving Gordon Brown a cheesy gift. Or snub Israel by denying Bibi a state dinner, and touring the Middle East without stopping in Israel. Or sit there while a petty dictator like Ortega goes on a 45-min rant against America while he astonishingly thanks the man for not blaming him for things that happened when he was three years old. While I do believe we need to respect other cultures’ differences and other nations’ sovereignty, America is not like Libya or Sudan. As I alluded to earlier, theres a fine line between a belief in pluralism for the sake of peaceful coexistence, with common values underpinning this agreement, and full blown multiculturalism which makes it harder to defend your own culture and values since hey, America is not any better than anyone else.
31 // Jun 7, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Dragonlady, Chekote, et al:
The problems most liberals, myself included, have with the concept of American exceptionalism is that it suggests that Americans themselves are inherently and irrevocably culturally superior.
America is only as great as its people make it. On balance, its people have made it a very great country, but the record is not without its flaws. Since there are many episodes in this country’s history that do not reflect greatness, it cannot be that its people are inherently and irrevocably culturally superior.
The very notion of inherent and irrevocable cultural superiority denies the fact that greatness requires vigilence, sacrifice and hard work. We have seen what happens when the country abandons those principles. To a great degree, the current financial crisis is proof.
Instead of finding satisfaction in the old ways, many liberals seek continual improvement. I don’t know if this makes liberals culturally superior to conservatives, but it probably explains why we have been on the right side of most of the big cultural issues in this country’s history and conservatives have been on the wrong side.
Being particularly aware of this mixed history, we are not inclined to think that greatness happens naturally and, therefore, tend to reject the concept of American Exceptionalism.
32 nealjking // Jun 7, 2009 at 3:21 pm
It’s important to remember that Obama’s primary audience for this talk were international Muslims, not American citizens.
When talking to people who may be opposed to you, you don’t get anywhere by denying all validity to their perceptions: They’ll just assume you’re blind, deaf or lying.
Instead, you have to validate some of their perceptions and then seek common ground. That’s not “apologizing”, that’s connecting.
Having connected, you are then in a position to influence the next steps.
That’s what I think Obama was doing.
33 sinz54 // Jun 7, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Spartacus:
I doubt that many American conservatives believe that American exceptionalism stems from any uniquely American “cultural superiority.” Indeed, Phyllis Schlafly, Robert Bork (”Slouching Toward Gomorrah”), Brent Bozell and other social conservatives are strong critics of modern American culture. And Mark Steyn believes that the general decadence and nihilism of modern American culture weakens us vis-a-vis radical Islam.
What these conservatives and I do say, however, is that America possesses an exceptional *combination* of historical pluses: The work ethic of the English-speaking world (heir to the British Empire); the philosophical heirs to the Age of Reason; the Declaration of Independence, which set forth a radical philosophy of man and government on which this nation was built; the oldest, most successful Constitution of any democracy on earth today; and (with a few exceptions, unfortunately) a general welcoming attitude toward legal immigrants of many ethnicities, who have poured into America to contribute their work and ideas.
Finally, this pluralism has enabled Americans to channel passions into positive and peaceful political channels. For the most part (Timothy McVeigh, the Civil War and the turbulence of the 1960s being rare exceptions), we haven’t settled our political differences in America with suicide bombs and AK-47s, or armies and civil wars.
You say, “Instead of finding satisfaction in the old ways, many liberals seek continual improvement.” If it weren’t for the heritage I described, “continual improvement” would be much more difficult–or impossible. We got the foundation right, and it’s a better foundation than most of the rest of the world has or can even aspire to.
Americans are not racially superior–as a multiethnic society from many cultures, how could they be? But they are the heirs to a revolutionary society based on some of the best political thinking on earth in the last 500 years. Jefferson’s and Lincoln’s ideas have stood the test of time. Marx’s and Hitler’s have not. And the jury is still very much out on the European Union. Care to compare the European Constitution to America’s?
34 dragonlady // Jun 7, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Spartacus, no one is suggesting an American is automatically superior to an Arab Muslim. Of course America has made mistakes–we are not afraid to go through painful self-examination. But what conservatives have a problem with those not seeing American greatness, is that this perspective glosses over the blood and treasure America has spent over trying to ensure a more just and civilized world. You are exactly right that we did not come to this easily, and many sacrifices were made. This country has fiercely struggled with the moral question of slavery, civil rights, and equality. We’ve sent our sons over to Europe twice, to fight totalitarianism. You may recall as we celebrate this anniversary of D-Day that we’ve lost thousands of men to secure a beach head to fight fascism. Then after that war, we rebuilt those societies. Then we waged an ideological struggle with another totalitarian regime, the Soviet Union, for 50 years. Now people in eastern Europe can finally live freely. We intervened in Bosnia to stop ethnic cleansing. We ejected a dictator who invaded another country in the Middle East. In Afghanistan and Iraq, we try to distinguish between civilians and insurgents, even though our enemy has no compunction to do the same for us. Every time some natural disaster has fallen upon another nation, we have rushed aid and expertise to help its victims. These were not liberal vs conservative policiesPresidents from both parties pursued what they felt was just with the support of the majority of American people. So I think Americans have earned the right to be proud of their heritage and propose a few ground rules for what it means to participate in a civilized world. If you do not think our culture is better than any other, what gives you the moral authority whatsoever to even propose peaceful co-existence? Why is tolerance superior to intolerance? Why should the Arab world not succumb to the ideology that forcefully converting one to Islam is superior to say, religious freedom and respect? Realizing that weve made mistakes, and trying to progress in culture is fine. But if youre not even going to defend your own culture, others more sure of themselves will certainly be knocking at our doors, ready to impose their own.
35 balconesfault // Jun 7, 2009 at 6:28 pm
dragonlady: “perhaps the One will solve it”
Are you trying to parody yourself?
36 // Jun 7, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Sinz:
When I wrote of “cultural superiority” I was not speaking of popular culture, which was the object of Bork’s and Schafly’s criticism.
I’m speaking of some of the same cultural components that you described – work ethic, entreprenueralism, strong constitution, immigrant-friendly, etc. My point is that those features of our culture are not self-generating; they require vigilence and hard work to maintain and adapt to an evolving society.
Consequently, when people suggest that we are a country of freedom that’s based on a strong constitution – well for much of our history most people (women and minorities) were denied the right to vote. It’s only b/c of all the hard work, mostly by people on the Left facing strong oppostion from the Right, that many of our constitutional freedoms have been extended to everyone.
So these cultural components that I’m talking about produce greatness only when they’re combined with hard work and a determination to be great. Some times the people have been determined to be great and they put in the hard work; other times it’s been different. By no means is greatness or exceptionalism inherent or irrevocable.
37 // Jun 7, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Dragonlady,
I’m not sure I’ve interpreted your last post correctly, but you seem to be suggeting that if we acknowledge some of our shortcomings or if we do not subscribe to the notion of American Exceptionalism, then we are not defending America.
I don’t believe defending America means we must deny our shortcomings, nor do I believe it is an attack on America to identify some of those shortcomings. A failure to do either will impede progress at home and undermine our credibilty abroad.
On so many issues, it seems conservatives spend a lot of time denying the shortcomings, while accusing those who identify them as being unpatriotic or even hateful of America.
38 Chekote // Jun 8, 2009 at 6:15 am
“tend to reject the concept of American Exceptionalism.”
Exceptionalism does not mean perfection. Please name another country that was responsible for liberating millions around the world? Please name another country that has donated as much food and aid around the world? About 50% of the food distributed by the UN is donated from America. Thanks to American leadership the slaughter in Kosovo was stopped. Look what is happening in Darfur. That’s what happens when America does not take a leadership role. This country is great. Nobody has ever claimed it was perfect.
39 Chekote // Jun 8, 2009 at 6:20 am
As far as cultural superiority, yes I do believe that some cultures are superior to others. I regard a culture that believes in equal rights for all regardless of gender, race or ethnicity superior to one that oppresses based on gender, race or ethnicity. If all cultures are equally “good”, the why strive for progress. Why wasn’t the antebellum plantation culture allowed to persist?
40 // Jun 8, 2009 at 8:42 am
Chekote:
Unless you’ve watered down the term “Exceptionalism” to mean nothing more than a country that has performed great deeds in its past, I’m not sure your post addresses the points I made. Of course, America has done many great deeds. No one is arguing that.
But, “Exceptionalism” must mean more than the past performance of great deeds, otherwise we would also hear the phrases “Canadian Exceptionalism” and “British Exceptionalism” and “French Exceptionalism” because those countries have also performed great deeds.
We don’t hear those phrases b/c “Exceptionalism” means more than that. As I said initially, it usually suggests an inherent, irrevocable and inevitable cultural superiority. Well, the great deeds that this country has performed were not inevitable occurrences due to our inherent nature. If that were the case, we would have already intervened in Darfur. The fact that we haven’t done anything to stop the genocide in Darfu only proves my point that our leadership and good deeds are not sure to happen without a struggle, which, with respect to Darfur, is currently being won lost.
Nothing great about America or any other country is assured.
41 // Jun 8, 2009 at 8:49 am
Chekote:
With respect to your comment about our culture being superior to some other cultures, again it seems you have watered down the phrase “American Exceptionalism.”
Of course, our culture is objectively superior to some other cultures. But the term “American Exceptionalism” implies that our culture is superior to ALL other cultures. I am not aware of any compelling evidence that our culture is superior to ALL other cultures.
You’re right in stating that equal rights for all citizens is a measuring stick for a society, and by that measure the U.S. lagged many other Western countries for a very, very long time. And even today, we do not provide equal rights to those seeking a same-sex marriage. One day, we will protect same-sex marriage, but other socieities are going to provide equality in that area sooner than the U.S.
42 dragonlady // Jun 9, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Spartacus, you are missing my point. I stated upfront we painfully examine our own mistakes. Its the nature of an open democracy and politically pluralist society. What Im saying is the belief in American exceptionalism is related directly to the belief in political pluralism on the international stage which means we aim to settle disputes peacefully since we agree upon common values. And by American exceptionalism, I define this as this country having a unique place in history since were the first modern democracy, and that the values we hold dear (freedom, self-determination, rule of law, etc) have endured through the test of time. And as I pointed out in my last post, weve shed blood to protect those values not only for ourselves, but others as well. It does not mean we think we hold the absolute truths to everything. But pluralism is different than multi-culturalism (the belief no one culture is better than anyone else since all cultures have problems. Therefore, all values must be held up as equal). For pluralism to take root, you must lay down a few ground rules to make co-existence possible because civilized nations at least agree that co-existence and tolerance is preferable over war and conquest. Yes, there will be disagreements, but its understood other nations will generally pursue their interests peacefully by negotiating in good faith. You wont avoid all violent clashes, but you strive to reduce the intensity and number of them. In multi-culturalisms case, you ultimately undercut peaceful co-existence because you cannot defend that tolerance (i.e., religious freedom) is better than intolerance (i.e., converting people to religion forcefully) since you’ve already given up the moral high ground by stating all cultural values are equal. This is happening in Europe now–their embrace of multi-culturalism has warped the very nature of democracy (i.e., sharia law in Great Britain). If you do not believe in American exceptionalism, you then do not think we should promote religious freedom or democracy thru even peaceful means.
43 dragonlady // Jun 9, 2009 at 6:50 pm
2nd part of my post: A multi-culturalist (i.e., moral relativist) would say because women have not always been free in America, we have no place to tell other nations how to treat their women. While women in this country have fought for equal opportunity and equal pay, this is NOT the same as fighting against honor killings or female genital mutilation. To try and compare these two situations and say it is the same condition is absolutely absurd. One is clearly morally preferable to the other in my view. I view multi-culturalism/moral relativism as anti-reason, and ultimately nihilistic. Also, proponents of American exceptionalism do not advocate that we force our system of governance on other countries unless vital national interests are at stake, which usually occurs when others grossly violate the ground rules (i.e., AQ) which then at that time, the gloves come off. And conservatives do not have a problem with admitting this country’s mistakes, or showing some humility abroad, provided one doesnt weaken our own position in the process. But we do have a problem with the POTUS having to say something negative about America every time he opens his mouth overseas precisely because it weakens our negotiating hand. What other nations’ leaders say these sorts of things about their own country over and over? Like by apologizing to Iran and saying they should have nuclear energy? Who in their right mind thinks Iran follows the ground rules like say, Brazil? Obamas multi-culturalist view will ultimately undercut his own goals. But not before perhaps, he succeeds in convincing us were not exceptional. And in this case, you are right. American exceptionalism is by no means assuredwe will be reduced to excusing values of the lowest common denominator. I think he envisions himself as the One who will expiate our past sins by scolding us in front of everyone else, and leading us to redemption if we enact his vision which is to literally give this country no unique or special status.
You must log in to post a comment.