During my time off, I took the opportunity to catch up on some podcast listening, in particular the televised Guernica that is the McLaughlin Group. John and crew get a bit shouty for me, but I appreciate how they take a pull no punches approach to the discussion and generally feel like all of the participants offer good faith arguments on the issues discussed.
In one particular episode, it sounded to me like Monica Crowley’s response to any and every issue had to do with American exceptionalism.
The current excursions in Iraq and Afghanistan? America is the world’s sole military superpower and if we don’t get in there and clean these cesspools up, no one will.
Economic policies that inherently favour the status quo? America is the world’s sole economic superpower and if we don’t hue to the principles that have made this nation strong then we risk not only our own demise, but the demise of the global economy writ large.
Abhorrence around the possibility of even just a public option in health care reform? Americans receive first rate, unsurpassed health care and any public option will takes us down the road of single-payer, socialized health care that backwards nations like Canada and the UK settle for.
No matter what ails ya, it seemed that Monica had the necessary tonic: American exceptionalism. Except that, it seems to me, the US obsession with being the Joneses hasn’t just been damaging to the country’s reputation globally, but is also starting to bankrupt the country in numerous ways.
It just isn’t feasible to go it alone and set direction on every single geo-political front and, indeed, insisting on doing so seems doomed to failure. If there is one thing that is true of all great historical powers, it is that a failure to understand and internalize their own inherent limits invariably leads to their untimely demise. One might suggest that the US’ recent spat of crises represent the near-miss bypass surgery that precedes a fatal heart attack.
And yet, one wouldn’t know it based on many people’s perceptions. As far as a disturbingly predominant proportion of American opinion makers are concerned, y’all remain that shining city atop a hill and the country’s ability to successfully, if not barely, continue to navigate the economic meltdown and twin quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan simply proves the point: America the Great always pulls through in the end.
But as Andrew Kohut and Bruce Stokes once noted for the Pew Research Center, it is American leaders more so than the average American who are having problems dropping the buffing towels. It is notable in the below table that the ideas expressed by Crowley have inhabited an extreme minority of popular opinion since 2001, but even more notable is the difference in opinion between the influentials (who Kohut and Stokes describe as “academics, journalists, business leaders and so forth”) and the general public on the nature of shared leadership role that the US ought to play on the world stage.
As Kohut and Stokes identify in their work, this disparity continues not to be a widely perceived state of American opinion amongst the rest of the world.
Further, as Fareed Zakaria so audaciously pointed out in his most recent offering, there is a mounting reality about how the rest of the world is increasingly operating that distinctly and definitively contradicts the notion sustained unipolarism. The effect of America’s unwillingness to let go of its princessism may well soon be a complete collapse in its available resources and a general unwillingness of the rest of the world to stop the inevitable.
I’ll grant you that “important world player” doesn’t have quite the same ring as “world’s sole superpower”, but then, it’s also better than “the next Rome or British Empire”. And frankly, throwing off the psychological and logistical restraints of unrealistic expectations that America’s particular brand of exceptionalism demands may be just what the country needs in order to be truly successful in a twenty-first century context.
Joneses be damned.
Karen Edmisten 
Pierre Corneille 
London conference venues 
Will Truman 
Patrick Cahalan 
Cornelius 
wardsmith 
Tod Kelly 
Borat: “I do a picture, only small, of the Tishnik Masacre. Where many Uzbeks…crushed!”
Kindly Gray Hippie: “How did you feel when you drew this?”
Borat: “Very proud!”.
KGH: “I’m just listening with sadness…a little sadness for your people…?”
Borat: “Yes…no, it is not sad. It is us who do the kill!”
When in doubt,
{ 20 comments }
I mean as cliche as it is to use this phrase I think the dominant theme/question of international relations in the next generation has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with the answer to “is America too big too fail?”
Currently, the answer is probably: yes. But I’m not convinced that answer will hold indefinitely, or even for very much longer.
I would offer that the exercise facing Americans is: how does one define success in an increasingly multipolar world and are we willing to jettison our outdated systemic beliefs in order to realize that success?
In short, I think Americans have everything to gain by dropping exceptionalsim and that framing the conversation in terms of realizing success, rather avoiding failure presents a better opportunity for the generation of momentum.
I think the best exercise for keeping one’s sanity on this question is to ask: “What is the probability I would think America is exceptional/indispensible/the best in the world if I weren’t born in it?” I currently assess that probability as “very low”.
You know here’s where I disagree. If I were the same age I am now in say Vietnam or Sri Lanka or random country – I might not think the most of America’s position in the international world. However, if I had been a teenager who ate because of the Berlin Airlift, or a free pole today, I’d have a very different view America’s role in the world. By comparison our involvement in Africa doesn’t come with the same baggage as European involvement – so again – it could be quite positive.
Moreover, if I were Dutch or Danish, I’d probably think the world of my health care, decently run government, and Queen, but could at the same time recognize that a big reason why Europe hasn’t seen a full scale war in 65 years is in part because of a peace purchased with American lives and dollars.
I don’t think there isn’t a country in the world that wouldn’t rather be more powerful rather than less, but, views on America, America’s role, and America’s power are more complex than binary.
I’m fully aware that there are detractors and many mistakes America’s made but I’m also not blind to the amount of good that’s been done and any shift in policy that’s doesn’t recognize the latter is more likely to undo some of that good.
So you would think America has done good things for the world. But I don’t think that’s the same as this idea that America is somehow the one indispensible nation in the history of the world. Using World War II specifically (because we always seem to), I think it’s worth pointing out that it was Britain who stood fast against the Nazis when the rest of Europe couldn’t. It was Russia that broke Hitler’s eastward charge through the snow with the bodies of her own children. America’s role in that war was noble and right and Pat Buchanan is a gigantic idiot, but there are a lot of stories to be told about the nobility of the human spirit, and they aren’t all American stories.
I think that’s all I’m saying.
Maybe but nobody is saying America is the “one indispensable nation in the history of the world.”
I’m saying that America is indispensable to the security framework of the free world and has been over 60 years. Something the Poles, South Koreans, and Japanese (among others) are rather acutely aware of.
When I’m talking about the history of Euro-American relations, I think the Cold War is much more illustrative of the crucial role of the United States than WWII itself. And why I bring it up is to point out that it would be folly and ahistoricic to presume that foreign birth carries with it a dour view of America’s place in the world. Some people are downright grateful and to ignore that would be – in my opinion – an error.
I’m not saying you’re not right…only pointing to a rather large chunk of the story that you ignore when you presume that all foreigners resent our power, place, and involvement in the world. It’s an unhelpful stereotype.
Oh, I’m not saying that foreign birth carries a negative opinion of America, only that I think a lot of what drives us to think of America as the “indispensible” or “exceptional” nation is the way we construct myths around ourself. I certainly think America is, on balance, a *good* place, for sure. But I think Britain and France and even Canada are, in a moral sense, just as good.
“But I think Britain and France and even Canada are, in a moral sense, just as good.”
Heh, thanks for that. We might even contend that we’re just as good in more senses than just moral ones. Perhaps even better in some instances.
I would contend that as well, but it’s baby steps when trying to convince libertarians that Canada isn’t some kind of dangerous wasteland.
Let my own personal affection for our Neighbor to the North be noted for the record. :)
Duly noted. I’ll pass it along to the PM.
Kyle, might we not also acknowledge, though, that the kind of indispensability with which America has been endowed is beginning to run its course and consequently starting to hamstring much of the good you rightly identify?
I think there is an argument to be made that the best move both for America and for other portions of the world is to start exploring how such indispensability can be responsibly phased out so that, on balance, the stability and effectivesness of things like, say, the security frame work of the free world rests on more than just one pair of shoulders.
Seems like such things are simultaneously a lot to rest on one pair of shoulders and an increasingly dangerous proposition vis-a-vis sensible and well reasoned decisions.
You know, I’m hesitant to say I agree fully with that proposition but I’m certainly leaning that way.
I don’t think our late Cold War, current GWOT/reactionary stance is sustainable. I also think – looking at the future – we have to ask what’s going to take the place of what we have now and I’m not entirely comfortable with the prospects for global human rights in such a world. For no small reason than that I question whether our allies in Europe and Asia have the stomach for more active involvement in international affairs and what the military effects of the rise of medium powers will be on regional security.
I mean even though our European allies have contributed to the missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and lately on anti-piracy measures, I think they’re much more comfortable being an international peanut gallery than taking on more of a role in global leadership.
The Japanese would probably enjoy a larger footprint but all things considered it’s a risky proposition considering how strained relations are in East Asia.
That leaves BRIC and the Gulf States. All of which perceive and pursue their national interests much more narrowly than we do. Most of which have terrible environmental records, weak human rights records, and no shame about that. They make neighboring governments worry every time they grow stronger or more pushy. I don’t know much about Brazil but the RIC countries all prize national sovereignty and are reluctant to put any weight behind human rights goals, genocide prevention, or even landmark international agreements etc…
So, I’m hesitant because I worry. Can the world transition from unipolarity to multi-polarity without chaos or full-scale war? Without condemning billions to a life without hope of greater freedom because America & Europe talk and talk and then have restrictive immigration policies? (Of course, Canada doesn’t so it’s not all bad)
I think there are a lot of open questions and indicators from likely successors to the crown (so to speak) aren’t terribly encouraging. w
You know, I’m hesitant to say I agree fully with that proposition but I’m certainly leaning that way.
I don’t think our late Cold War, current GWOT/reactionary stance is sustainable. I also think – looking at the future – we have to ask what’s going to take the place of what we have now and I’m not entirely comfortable with the prospects for global human rights in such a world. For no small reason than that I question whether our allies in Europe and Asia have the stomach for more active involvement in international affairs and what the military effects of the rise of medium powers will be on regional security.
I mean even though our European allies have contributed to the missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and lately on anti-piracy measures, I think they’re much more comfortable being an international peanut gallery than taking on more of a role in global leadership.
The Japanese would probably enjoy a larger footprint but all things considered it’s a risky proposition considering how strained relations are in East Asia.
That leaves BRIC and the Gulf States. All of which perceive and pursue their national interests much more narrowly than we do. Most of which have terrible environmental records, weak human rights records, and no shame about that. They make neighboring governments worry every time they grow stronger or more pushy. I don’t know much about Brazil but the RIC countries all prize national sovereignty and are reluctant to put any weight behind human rights goals, genocide prevention, or even landmark international agreements etc…
So, I’m hesitant because I worry. Can the world transition from unipolarity to multi-polarity without chaos or full-scale war? Without condemning billions to a life without hope of greater freedom because America & Europe talk and talk and then have restrictive immigration policies? (Of course, Canada doesn’t so it’s not all bad)
I think there are a lot of open questions and indicators from likely successors to the crown (so to speak) aren’t terribly encouraging.
“I mean even though our European allies have contributed to the missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and lately on anti-piracy measures, I think they’re much more comfortable being an international peanut gallery than taking on more of a role in global leadership.”
I think this is mostly true, but it’s worth remembering that France still has a penchant for lording over its former colonies in a way that is far from just being part of the international peanut gallery.
Crap, didn’t mean to post that twice. I don’t think this came across clearly but I think your analysis and discussion of American limits is pretty solid.
I just find, as a policy preference, the idea that America’s proper role is to act like just another country to be misguided and potentially very unwise.
What is the immigration rate to the US from other countries… and what is the emmigration rate to other countries?
I’d say that the countries that have more people from the US going to it than coming to the US from it probably could make a case for “better than the US”.
I wouldn’t know how else to objectively measure.
“I’d say that the countries ….”
Canada – clearly the flow of migration, both permannent and also for work, both legal and illegal – is southward. In fact it’s a little comical to watch Canadians imperiously splutter at being treated like ….Mexicans! when they are caught or on inspection at the border. Apparently being white isn’t quite the free pass they would publicly deny it should be.
Britain – well, using the past four centuries as a data set, the answer to this one is pretty obvious. The same probably still applies for the rest of Europe.
Asia – no question there, for any country.
I know this thread has been dead for a while, but here’s some interesting evidence: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/09/where-the-foreigners-are.php
Canada wins again!
Try accurately defining what is meant by “American exceptionalism” before you criticize the notion.
In 150-200 years, when the U.S of A is no longer a superpower, this idea about exceptionalism is going to look pretty archaic. History is full of giants who thought they could never trip and fall.
Comments on this entry are closed.