Comments on: Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Obama Let Down Moderate Muslims

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:50:20 +0000

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.

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:49:20 +0000

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.

By:

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:49:54 +0000

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.

By:

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:42:47 +0000

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.

By: Chekote

Chekote — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:20:02 +0000

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?

By: Chekote

Chekote — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:15:15 +0000

"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.

By:

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:07:15 +0000

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.

By:

Sun, 07 Jun 2009 23:50:43 +0000

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.

By: balconesfault

balconesfault — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 22:28:50 +0000

dragonlady: “perhaps the One will solve it”

Are you trying to parody yourself?

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:37:07 +0000

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.