RSS Feed MenuFrequent FF contributor Jamie Kirchick has an important oped in today’s Los Angeles Times about President Obama’s global apology tour.
Obama apologized some more in Turkey. “I know that the trust that binds us has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. Let me say this as clearly as I can: The United States is not at war with Islam.”
Here, Obama seamlessly joined the Bush administration’s irritation at Ankara’s refusal to allow American troops’ passage to Iraq with the bogus claim that the United States has, until Obama’s presence in the White House, been “at war with Islam,” an assertion that essentially (and falsely) blames Bush for declaring such a war.
When not establishing false premises about the previous administration (the easier to glorify his own) or apologizing for his country, Obama has shown unusual deference to autocrats. At the Summit of the Americas, he calmly sat through a 50-minute anti-American tirade by the communist leader of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, and was disturbingly ebullient in glad-handing Venezuelan autocrat Hugo Chavez. There’s nothing wrong with the president participating in a multilateral summit where criticism, even egregiously unfair criticism, of the U.S. is expressed. But if he can sit and take verbal abuse from Latin American demagogues, then surely speaking a little truth in response to their lies is appropriate.
One possibly amusing footnote. Jamie opens his piece with this arresting anecdote:
At a stop on his grand global apology tour this spring, President Obama was asked by a reporter in France if he believed in “American exceptionalism.” This is the notion that our history as the world’s oldest democracy, our immigrant founding and our devotion to liberty endow the United States with a unique, providential role in world affairs.
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.”
President Obama’s intent here seems clear: He resists and rejects any attempt to claim credit for the United States, revealing his longstanding ambivalence about the country’s history and purposes. Indeed, President Obama has spoken clearly and frankly about this ambivalence, as I discuss here in an blogpost about liberal patriotism. Obama’s speeches have sought to
distinguish between the fearfully flawed United States as it is – and the reformed country into which the United States might evolve. It is the latter, hypothetical, country that deserves patriotic affection. But there is this one problem: that hypothetical country does not as yet exist. This is not patriotism – it is a wish fantasy.
Yet there is also a footnote to this story that may carry even more alarming meaning. The term “American exceptionalism” originated not as a compliment to the United States, but as a criticism! In the early 20th century, social scientists were much vexed by the question: Why was there no mass socialist party in the United States, as had appeared in every other advanced industrial society? The short answer was “American exceptionalism” – a unique series of historical factors that had somehow thwarted the supposedly natural development of socialism.
Could the well-read President Obama have failed to know this history? When he evaded that reporter’s question in France, was he sending an implicit message that the United States was not exceptional any more? Was he signaling to those familiar with Marxist code that the long postponed hour of socialism had at last arrived? Most important: Does Mark Levin know? This has to be worth at least a mention in his nightly tirade against the man he regards as America’s first Marxist president.
Update: Here is a link to a short restatement of this history by the late great sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset in his eponymous book, American Exceptionalism. The classic presentation of the case was published in 1906 by the German sociologist Werner Sombart in his “Why is there no socialism in the United States?” The essay should be in the public domain by now, but unfortunately I could find no text online.
Double Update: I should add as a precaution that the last paragraph of the main post above was meant as a joke …
barker13 // Apr 28, 2009 at 6:00 am
David Frum wrote…”…the term “American exceptionalism” originated not as a compliment to the United States, but as a criticism! In the early 20th century…”Interesting! I’ll take your word for it. That said, I view the common usage of the term “American Exceptionalism” as exactly what most folks “believe” it to be – a high compliment and acknowledgement of America’s past uniqueness and greatness.Only time will tell how long this great experiment will survive. Sorry to say… I’m pessimistic. I believe America’s greatest days are behind us. I take no joy in this.BILL
Brutus1776 // Apr 28, 2009 at 6:04 am
Mr. Frum, an interesting tid-bit on the term “American Exceptionalism.” Charles Murray’s speech at AEI after accepting his Irving Kristol Award touched on the use of the term today quite eloquently!”American exceptionalism is not just something that Americans claim for themselves. Historically, Americans have been different as a people, even peculiar, and everyone around the world has recognized it. I’m thinking of qualities such as American optimism even when there doesn’t seem to be any good reason for it. That’s quite uncommon among the peoples of the world. There is the striking lack of class envy in America–by and large, Americans celebrate others’ success instead of resenting it. That’s just about unique, certainly compared to European countries, and something that drives European intellectuals crazy. And then there is perhaps the most important symptom of all, the signature of American exceptionalism–the assumption by most Americans that they are in control of their own destinies. It is hard to think of a more inspiriting quality for a population to possess, and the American population still possesses it to an astonishing degree. No other country comes close. “- Charles Murray
Rel // Apr 28, 2009 at 7:20 am
David,I think you are being uncharitable. Below is Obama’s full response. Contrary to what you write, he seems to embrace our country’s history and purposes as having exceptional value, not reject them. He further does not shirk from seeing the United States as having an exceptional leadership role into the future.It is true that he grounds his belief at least as much in the promise of American values as in our past deeds. But isn’t it going a little far to say that this means he is patriotic only to a “hypothetical country”?I will grant you that his tone is that of a man speaking to people who do not believe in American exceptionalism or who are uncomfortable with it, and that he probably has known many such people on the left. However, perhaps we should concede that since he was speaking to the European press he was, in fact, speaking to just such an audience? I will even grant you that his words reflect the thinking of a man who has himself struggled with the notion of American exceptionalism. But it seems pretty strained to argue that he was speaking in Marxist code!The response in full:”I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I’m enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don’t think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we’ve got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we’re not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.And so 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 create partnerships because we can’t solve these problems alone.
sinz54 // Apr 28, 2009 at 7:40 am
An article of faith among the Western Left is that the Western nations are no better, and are perhaps worse, than the Eastern and African nations. That the British Empire *civilized* many of those nations–fighting against the Indian caste system and destroying the Thuggee cult there and so on–is a part of history that their left-wing teachers have simply flushed down the memory hole.So is the fact that many of the slave traders in Africa prior to our Civil War were Arab Muslims.As for the U.S. track record, our record of destroying MUSLIM piracy in the 19th century, kicking the Spanish Empire out of the Western Hemisphere in the late 19th century, defeating an aggressive Germany in two world wars, and standing up to the Soviet Empire and pushing it to the point of collapse, are all dismissed as being entirely aside from America’s true nature, controlled by an evil cabal of capitalists of whom the blissfully ignorant sheeple Americans know nothing. This is what Noam Chomsky has been teaching his young followers for years. Some of Chomsky’s other more intemporate comments, like when he actually said the U.S. should have sued for peace after Pearl Harbor (which would have left Western Europe in Nazi hands), have been downplayed.
barker13 // Apr 28, 2009 at 8:47 am
Re: Rel; 7:20 AM –Quoting Obama: “”I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”If that’s not a clear denial of American Exceptionalism (in the common positive sense) than I don’t know how much clearer the President could have made his point.Well… I suppose he could have said… “My fellow Men and Women of Earth… America is nothing special…”(*CHUCKLE*)”I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.”BETTER… (*SMILE*)… but why is it that I read between the lines and get the strong feeling that Obama believes the word “exceptional” to really mean “exceptional in the sense that all nations are exceptional in their own way?”As to “equality,” from what I think I know about Obama’s worldview, his definition of equality is linked to outcome much more than my definition – which is linked to opportunity.”Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we’ve got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries…”(*GRIN*) As I pointed out up above… we’re ALL “unique.” Certainly Obama is not claiming “American values” (however one defines them as opposed to “other” values) are superior. (*SHRUG*)Anyway… thanks for posting Obama’s remarks.BILL
barker13 // Apr 28, 2009 at 8:49 am
Re: Sinz54; 7:40 AM –(*THUMBS UP*)Excellent points and observations, Sinz.BILL
mlindroo // Apr 28, 2009 at 9:02 am
“American exceptionalism” seems to be some subjective non-measurable quantity that US conservatives fervently believe in but nonetheless does not consistently show up in country-vs-country comparisons. For example, what country has the world’s lowest taxes? Most social mobility? The most political freedom? The most business friendly laws and most competitive economy? Highest % of self-identified “optimistic”, “happy” or deeply religious people [the correct answer, IIRC: the Philippines....]? In all cases, you will find a number of other countries (most of them industrialized capitalist nations) doing about equally well as the U.S.. Is a place like Switzerland really an anti-capitalist noncompetitive statist decadent hellhole?? —-As Frum correctly notes, the origin of “American exceptionalism” relates to the absence of a major openly “socialist” party. Even that may be overblown: I have not checked the stats but I am willing to bet that the public sector in 21st century America, income redistribution, tax levels etc. are far higher now than they were in Old Europe back in 1906 when Werner Sombart asked “Why is there no socialism in the United States?”. MARCU$
Rel // Apr 28, 2009 at 12:11 pm
barker13 – Are you saying that an American cannot acknowledge exceptional contributions of some other nations to the development of Western civilization, and honor the pride that citizens of those nations feel about these contributions, without it being a negation of American exceptionalism? Note that he didn’t speak of “all nations”, nor use as examples Madagascar or Borneo. Nor even Belgium or France. He took the opportunity to honor two European nations to which we owe much of our ethical and legal heritage. Nations whose people are (I hope) justifiably proud of this heritage. Perhaps the problem here is that you (and David) are reading “British” and “Greek” as equal to “generic other country”. That strikes me as odd. When I learned about the history of Western civilization, I learned that these two nations, in particular, were pretty exceptional. I don’t think Obama picked them randomly out of a hat.The attempt to attack Obama over this point continues to seem rather strange to me.
barker13 // Apr 28, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Re: Rel; 12:11 PM –”Are you saying that an American cannot acknowledge exceptional contributions of some other nations…”Nope. I’m saying… er… what I originally said.”Perhaps the problem here is that you (and David) are reading “British” and “Greek” as equal to “generic other country”. That strikes me as odd. When I learned about the history of Western civilization, I learned that these two nations, in particular, were pretty exceptional. I don’t think Obama picked them randomly out of a hat.”Ahh… but neither the ancient Greek city states nor Britain were “melting pots,” nations built upon a diversity of the best and brightest from other lands and cultures.There’s only one America and thus one “American Exceptionalism.” There’s simply no such thing as “British Exceptionalism” or even “Ancient Greek Exceptionalism” to compare “American Exceptionalism” to. BTW… In noting this I’m denigrating neither Athens nor England/Great Britain! Nor am I denigrating any of the other societies/nations ancient or modern that as you correctly point Obama didn’t mention.As you note in spirit without actually saying specifically, ancient Egypt was “exceptional.” Ancient Rome… ancient Persia… ancient China… and so on and so forth throughout history throughout the globe. My point is that these other “exceptionalism” aren’t “Exceptionalism” in the sense of “American Exceptionalism.”"The attempt to attack Obama…”Was I “attacking” Obama…??? I suppose you have the right to call it anything you want, but quite honestly, all I was trying to do was react to what Obama actually said as you provided the transcript.(*SHRUG*)BILL
mlindroo // Apr 28, 2009 at 10:54 pm
> …built upon a diversity of the best and brightest from other > lands and cultures.> There’s only one America and thus one “American > Exceptionalism.” Um, Barker13, best and brightest? Do you really think that most of those who migrated to the US duing the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries somehow were the most successful..? In fact, the have-nots are the ones who left for the most part ?). White-collar immigration of entrepreneurial types from Western Europe, Asia or Latin America looking for top class opportunities is a relatively new phenomenon.MARCU$
A.B. // Apr 29, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Oh, finally! Someone else who remembers that, thanks, DF. Very droll, BTW.
barker13 // Apr 29, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Re: Mlindroo; 10:54 PM –”Um, Barker13, best and brightest? Do you really think that most of those who migrated to the US duing the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries somehow were the most successful…?Hiya, Marcus. (*GRIN*)No. They were the ones who were most hungry (sometimes literally) desperate and who brought to America their determination to succeed, and as they succeeded their success brought America success.Now you can say the same for immigrants today – the unskilled particularly – but the problem is that in the age of the welfare state with political correctness (not to mention communications technology and cheap, easy travel) conflicting with the goal of assimilation into the American creed, illegal immigration is a net drag on American society.A growing, industrializing America (growing physically, growing in economic and political strength, growing as a world power) required and benefited from mass immigration of the unskilled by willing, modern America simply doesn’t. “In fact, the have-nots are the ones who left for the most part.”Again… back then the “have nots” were expected to sink or swim. They were also expected to assimilate within one generation. Without the social safety net provided by citizen taxpayers the stresses on the system caused by immigration were far less deleterious than exist today.Anyway… what exactly was your point…??? What’s your bottom line? Not being snarky… it’s just that I’m trying to relate your response to my previous comments to the original posting and thread development.BILL
mlindroo // Apr 30, 2009 at 12:34 am
: Anyway… what exactly was your point…??? What’s your : bottom line? Well, with all due respect, my point is that the frequent claims about “American Exceptionalism” made by conservatives are more than a little overblown. You cite several things, and they might just as well apply to other immigrant nations such as Australia.—There is a very simple reason why the US is a superpower: it is a large country having access to vast natural resources united by a powerful federal government! Democracy and capitalism are of course other key factors (witness the failure of the USSR), but they are not fundamentally unique to America. I bet other western capitalist nations such as Australia and Canada would also be superpowers, if they were situated in a similarly favorable location on the planet. BTW, I don’t buy the line you cannot have a successful society unless the defense budget is at least x%, the federal government accounts for at most y% of the GNP, tax rates for the wealthy are less than y% etc.. And all the percentages are supposedly set in stone: if some Democrat adjusts the top tax rate we’re supposed to believe chaos and madness will automatically follow… MARCU$
barker13 // Apr 30, 2009 at 8:32 am
Re: Mlindroo; 12:34 AM –”Well, with all due respect…”On a serious note… same here.”…frequent claims about “American Exceptionalism” made by conservatives are more than a little overblown.”Fair enough. No doubt you could provide plenty of examples where I’d be the first to agree with you.”…they might just as well apply to other immigrant nations such as Australia.”Well… no. Perhaps one day. Not now though and certainly not in the past.Again… tied into the concept (my concept) of “American Exceptionalism” is the impact it (and We) have had on the world.”There is a very simple reason why the US is a superpower…”(*AMUSED SNORT*) Why the 13 Colonies? Why not “America” as out of the physical and psychological profile of Spain… Portugal… France… Holland…?You brought up Australia. I’ll bring up Argentina. Working from memory, pre-WW-2 (and during) Argentina was ranked right up there with Australia (perhaps above) and even Canada (again… perhaps above) as a modern, successful “first world” nation. While Buenos Aires is still one hell of an impressive city and I highly recommend it as a tourist destination, Argentina is hardly in the same international league with Canada and Australia today. (*SHRUG*)(BTW, as you may know, Argentina has a very interesting demographic…)In any case, no, there’s simply – undeniably – something “extraordinary” and “exceptionally exceptional” (*GRIN*) about America and our history.It’s not simply a racial thing… an ethnic thing… a matter of whether more individuals go to “Church” rather than “Temple” or “Who, what, where, when” most Americans worship (past or present). No. The American creed is inclusive of this history, but not bound by any one facet, but rather by the whole package who “We” are today coming out of who “We” were yesterday… yesteryear… yesterdecades… yestercenturies.There’s really nothing comparable to the historical American experience and it seems to me ridiculous to believe – even if only to one extent or another – that “We” as a country became who we are by accident… by luck of the draw.No. There was a specific “recipe.” It came together partly spontaneously, but still… it was a particular recipe even if not “planned.”"I bet other western capitalist nations such as Australia and Canada would also be superpowers, if they were situated in a similarly favorable location on the planet.”You’re kidding… right? I mean… Canada *is* situated in a… er… pretty damned “similar” (*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*) location on the planet.(Hmm… any reason you leave out Mexico…???)(*CHUCKLING*)”I don’t buy the line you cannot have a successful society unless the defense budget is at least x%, the federal government accounts for at most y% of the GNP, tax rates for the wealthy are less than y% etc..”On that we agree!(*HANDSHAKE*)BILL