OBAMA AND EXCEPTIONALISM
Last night on Hannity, Dick Cheney charged the president with heresy.
Sean Hannity: You said about Barack Obama that he is projecting weakness to America’s enemies. Expand on that.
Dick Cheney: Well, I think most of us believe and most presidents believe and talk about the truly exceptional nature of America. Our history, where we come from, our belief in our Constitutional values and principles. Our advocacy for freedom and democracy and the fact that we’ve provided it for millions of people all over the globe and so unselfishly. There’s never been a nation like the United States of America in world history. And, yet when you have a president that goes around and bows to his host and proceeds to apologize profusely for the United States, I find that deeply disturbing. That says to me there’s a guy who doesn’t fully understand or share that view of American exceptionalism that I think most of us believe in.
American Exceptionalism is our civic religion. I take a little less expansive view than Cheney of what Exceptionalism represents; that it is, at bottom the simple recognition that our founding, our evolution, certain unique character traits, and the unimaginable expanse of the land itself sets us apart from other nations.
But does it set us above others? Does it make us a “superior” nation?
I believe that it does. There has never been a nation like America in the whole history of human civilization. This doesn’t make us perfect - not by a long shot. But if one were to balance the good against the bad in all that America has done both here and abroad, the scales would tip decidedly in favor of the good.
In fact, I have argued on this site that it is this dichotomy - the mix of good and evil, slavery and freedom, selfless sacrifice for others abroad combined with grubby commercialism and exploitation - all of this together is what makes America, “America” and is unique, special, and without peer anywhere else. People the world over still line up to get in, and failing that, will do just about anything to get here legal or not. I believe that all of this places America above any other nation in history. It makes us better. It makes us superior. It makes us special.
This singular fact is so self-evident that those who deny it have to twist themselves into knots of illogic trying to debunk it, or more often, leave out inconvenient facts in order to achieve their goal of trying to prove that relative to the rest of the world, we are just another ordinary place. There has never been anything “ordinary” about America whether it be our sins or virtues. Our mistakes have been huge as have our triumphs. Destroying fascism, militarism, and Communism all in breathtaking short order, while also destroying much of Southeast Asia, Iraq, and what was left of Afghanistan must be seen in the context of our capacity to do enormous good while causing enormous suffering.
“Ordinary?” Not hardly.
In agreeing with Cheney, Ed Driscoll calls the president a “transnationalist.”
Flashback to the the preface Obama gave in April when asked by a journalist his view on the topic:
“I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
Which is a perfectly Clintonian “I didn’t inhale” sort of response: I’m willing to pretend, for the purposes of the more ceremonial aspects of my current position, to believe in the charade of American exceptionalism. But as a dedicated transnationalist, I’m far, far beyond such a petty antediluvian concept, myself. After all, those modern day “Greeks” and “Brits” are living on history that’s increasingly in the rearview mirror. They and plenty of other exhausted former empires believed in their own exceptionalism, and didn’t they seem awfully foolish in retrospect when their period in the sun expired, leaving behind nations a shell of their former selves — a moment I’m doing my best to engineer, myself.
Is this a fair criticism of the president? Is it even a criticism at all?
It is by no means a monolithic view on the left that the president espouses, but I think it fair to say that Obama’s transnationalism informs the views of many liberals who are suspicious of Exceptionalism as being just another word for “nationalism.” In this, it may surprise you to find out that I share those same worries. Substituting a raw chauvinism and an almost fervid religiosity with regard to our uniqueness instead of a balanced and realistic view of the pluses and minuses in our past is a danger to our politics and policy. It is this attitude that brooks no criticism of America, or her history - a form of “America: love it or leave it.”
This is Exceptionalism transmogrified by ideology. Something similar can be seen among the Noam Chomskys of the left who constantly confuse “America” with the “American government” and blame much of the world’s ills on our very existence. That too, is an ideological construct, informed by a pathological loathing of much of what the rest of us see as our virtues. Chomskyites don’t hate America as much as their Weltanschauung prevents them admitting that our arrival on the world stage should be seen as a blessing, not a curse. They can more accurately be portrayed as “anti-Exceptionalists” - the reverse image of the civic religionists.
President Obama is no ideologue on the matter of Exceptionalism. But his radically skewed idea of our history - a fault I believe he shares with many liberals - where he cherry picks and takes out of context what he considers to be our faults, is an extension of his own Nicene creed about the world order.
Indeed, since day one, the president has sought to re-engage the world on America’s behalf by walking softly, carrying no stick at all, and when he feels it appropriate, pointing to our past sins, and acknowledging that we caused problems. Little noticed when he does this is his strong, unapologetic follow up, taking his listeners to task for their knee jerk anti-Americanism. It’s almost Socratic in its dialog although I wonder how effective it is.
Not exactly “apologizing,” but at the very least, inviting his foreign audiences to draw untoward conclusions about our past - or his interpretation of that past if you prefer - while mildly remonstrating against the unreasoning hatred of America felt by many overseas makes it appear Obama wants his transnationalist cake while eating an Exceptionalist one. As we are coming to expect from the president, his Solomonic decision making process where he tries to split the difference on most issues serves the purpose of giving something for everyone while satisfying no one.
President Obama is not just an internationalist in the traditional American sense. He is seeking to re-order the world by deliberately subsuming American interests to make us “first among equals.” He is cooling the relationships with traditional allies like Great Britain and NATO, while making an ostentatious display of submitting to the will of the international community represented by the United Nations. For the moment, this has garnered him praise and support from around the world. I sincerely doubt that will last.
There will come a time in crisis where all heads will turn toward America for succor and Obama will stare blankly back, not quite believing that all of this talk about the new international order was mostly for show; that the governments of the world really do look to America to solve their problems for them come crunch time. It is here that a pragmatic belief in American Exceptionalism gives a president the confidence to proceed despite the usual clatter that will be raised against us.
Without that belief, would Obama risk his international standing to intervene to prevent catastrophe? Faith in international institutions is fine as far as it goes. But what happens in a few months when Israel is faced with the question of war or peace regarding Iran? What happens if the worst case scenario occurs in Pakistan and fundamentalists seize control of the government and dozens of nuclear weapons fall into the hands of those allied with terrorists? Does anyone expect the UN to be able to do anything to address these kinds of crises?
I am not advocating war. But the world will expect the US to get out front on these crises and I wonder if the president’s worldview would allow him to deal with these problems effectively? He may very well prove able to do so. I pray that is true.
But I think it logical to think that a strong belief in your own country’s superiority might make his job a little easier.
You’d think the man hadn’t just committed 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan after already sending 15,000 earlier this year.
Dick Cheney can go Cheney himself. It was him and his boss who created this goat screw, president Obama is trying to fix it.
Everybody in Christendom except you recognizes that the president’s Afghan decision was political and had nothing to do with any grand ideas about Exceptionalism.
ed.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 12/9/2009 @ 11:35 am
This is a silly post based on assumption and vapor.
What evidence do you have that Obama carries “no stick?” That’s absurd. You think there’s a government on earth that doesn’t know we have thousands of nukes, the world’s only real force-projection army, the bulk of the world’s military expenditure, and that we are fighting two wars simultaneously? It’s like claiming that Mike Tyson is being mistaken for Urkel. You think Obama should regularly remind people, “You know, we could totally kick your ass?”
For a guy who loves to call Obama naive you’re awfully naive.
And how exactly does it subsume American interests to make us “first among equals?” Give us an example of how that happens, that whole subsuming thing.
Obama has doubled forces in Afghanistan. He has increased Predator strikes into Pakistan and put the Pakistan government on notice that we are no longer going to be their butt boys. He’s following the wishes of the Iraqi government and the policy of the previous administration in Iraq. He is not slashing military expenditures, he is not withdrawing forces or rejecting commitments.
So, put up or shut up: show us where exactly Obama has subsumed an American interest because of his “transnationalism.”
Comment by michael reynolds — 12/9/2009 @ 11:44 am
I would probably be more conducive to the notion of American exceptionalism and superiority, if it were not constantly being invoked as a mantra for jingoistic warmaking and heedless adventurism.If it were not constantly used as a justification for the betrayal of all the values that made America execptional in the first place.
Today I read glenn Greenwald’s deconstruction of the lies told in order to promote the Iraq War, and it made me sick to remember how I supported the war, based on those baldfaced lies.
Lies told by none other than Dick Cheney, that strutting draft dodger who constantly puffs himself up as the exemplar of strength and certitude.
If my words seem a bit bitter, they are. When you have been lied to and made a fool of, there really isn’t any other rational response.
The Cheneyite neocons have used the good name and hard earned trust and faith in America that previous generations built, to turn America into just another global Empire consumed with its own power and expansion.
They talk about American values, but have no understanding of them whatsoever. Cheney and his supporters should be hooted at and driven from the public discourse in shame.
Comment by Liberty60 — 12/9/2009 @ 1:20 pm
Everybody in Christendom except you recognizes that the president’s Afghan decision was political and had nothing to do with any grand ideas about Exceptionalism.
It had to do with making the best of a mess. The alternative was walking away. He’s doing what little can be done to preserve and protect American interests.
And thanks to Obama’s “subsuming” he got NATO to agree to add some troops. Nine years into this war you think Bush would have gotten NATO to step up? You think Bush could have convinced the American people to go along?
I mean, Jesus, Rick, at least a little perspective: Obama just screwed his own base because he felt he had to for the national interests and you come along whining about it.
It’s unfair, it’s factually unsupported, and it’s nothing but blind partisanship.
Show us where and how Obama has hurt the national interests of the United States.
Comment by michael reynolds — 12/9/2009 @ 1:50 pm
“to turn America into just another global Empire consumed with its own power and expansion”
What kind of crap is that?!? I would grant your comment some level of respect except for one thig - show me a single EMPIRE in the history of the world that would walk away from every one of it’s conquests?
At the end of World War II, the US had the best Navy the world had ever seen. No less than 28 Battleships and over 40 Fleet carriers (not including the innumerable light, escort and jeep carriers). The combined Army and Navy Air Forces the US could put in the field was in excess of 45,00 aircraft with trained veteran crews. It could be debated about the power of the US land forces when compared to the USSR, but there was one huge difference between the two states. The day the war ended, the US began de-mobilizing it’s over 8 million men under arms and sending the vast majority of that war equipment to the scrap yard.
After reconquering the entire Pacific and, with British assistance, North Africa and Western Europe, not one square foot of foreign soil, above that necessary to bury our dead, was kept by the US. And that is true, whether you want to believe it or not, to this very day.
You got a problem with Cheney - take it up with the man. Meanwhile you can take your Bullshit “EMPIRE” comments and shove them up your decrepit ass!
Comment by SShiell — 12/9/2009 @ 2:24 pm
You are wrong. American Exceptionalism is _not_ our civic religion.
I agree that America is exceptional. But in the quote above, you completely miss the point. It’s _America_ that is better, superior, and special, not “us”. That’s exactly where the jingoists and chauvinists go wrong… they feel that American exceptionalism rubs off on them and makes _them_ special.
Too bad for them. The reality is that American Exceptionalism exists without anyone wearing it on their sleeve (or lapel). Wearing a flag pin does not make the wearer special.
C’mon… the President of the United States does not have to go around talking about our exceptional society in order to make a point. He _actually is_ speaking softly and carrying a big stick.
You are right when you say that Obama did not send troops to Afghanistan because of a belief in America’s special place in the world. But you say that Obama’s decision to send troops to Afghanistan was “political”? He did it so that he could help his party win midterm elections or some calculation like that? Bullshit. Perhaps you use the word “political” because it was a considered policy, a deliberated and deliberate effort to wring some sort of good outcome out of Afghanistan? Please spell that out for us slow people.
Finally, if the President points out that there have been some screw-ups, there are certainly idiots out there who think that it weakens America’s exceptional status.
I don’t care about the opinions of idiots.
Comment by Postagoras — 12/9/2009 @ 2:29 pm
Alas, an off day for Mr. Moran.
Transnationalism has only slightly more import than transexualism and only then because people like Darth Cheney get the vapors every time that Obama opens his mouth and you have a topic that allows you to use big words.
Comment by shaun — 12/9/2009 @ 2:29 pm
Rick,
Excellent post.
Regards,
Comment by the Dragon — 12/9/2009 @ 3:27 pm
His approval of the massive buildup of CIA Predator attacks in Pakistan, which have killed hundreds of innocent Pakistanis as well as a few dozen terrorists, would seem to belie most claims Obama won’t do what is necessary to protect America’s imperative interests. Jimmy Carter was a failure in many ways but it was the Peanut Farmer who put into place the successful security regime and alliances in the Persian Gulf that saw us through the Iran-Iraq War, the Persian Gulf War, 12 years of Iraqi misbehavior, and subsequent Iranian troublemaking and/or war in the post-Saddam/Taliban era. Bubba was hours from war with North Korea until the Peanut Farmer claimed a “peace deal” of sorts that prevented a war that probably would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives in Seoul alone (its a free fire zone for NoKo artillery, let alone all the chem/bio WMD they had then in 1994 and still have).
Bubba looked the world in the eye and said no on Rwanda because the military wouldn’t have it and our interests were apparently not at stake.
Obama will do the same in 2011 on South Sudan and would not hesitate to fire the tactical nukes in a nasty war with Iran, Pakistan or North Korea. The difference may be in the decision-making process to get to that point, but the result will be the same. American presidents, even the failures like Carter and Clinton, defend the country reasonably well enough to get by when the ish hits the fan.
Comment by Eddie — 12/9/2009 @ 3:45 pm
President Obama is clearly woefully ignorant of our nation’s history else he would not feel the need to apologize to a nation that has accomplished all that this nation has accomplished. To those nay-sayers who operate out of hatred (primarily of GWB and the excellent Mr. Cheney - as baseless as it is pathological), I say that you clearly aren’t paying attention to all the good this nation does and all the good our people do. Whenever any nation anywhere in the world is in trouble from a tsunami or any other natural disaster (even in nations who are clearly and vocally inimical to us), we are right there to help in any way we can. Americans are uniquely charitable to their fellow humans and if this weren’t such a good place in which to live, why would so many employ whatever means available to come here - legally or not?
As to whether or not President Obama will hesitate to use nukes should they be required, I don’t have the same confidence that Eddie does in the President’s “stones” - Mr. Obama honestly believes that everything is negotiable (and I’m not doubting his sincerity in that area). It’s his background, kids. Negotiation is a lovely thought but a naive one. You do not stop a bully by negotiations. You stop a bully by smacking the living crap out of him. You UP THE PRICE of being a bully to a price the bully is unwilling to pay.
As to bombing IRAN, the Mullahs are smart enough to bury their machinery and manufacturing locales far underground and it is well known that we don’t have “bunker busters” of sufficient power to do the job. So now what?
Bottom line: I do not believe that President Obama is anti-American, as do many people on the right side of the aisle. I do, however, believe that he is naive, unprepared and incapable of performing his office as the American people deserve.
So go ahead, pile on! I don’t give a rat’s eardrum what y’all say. That’s what I believe and that’s that.
Comment by Gayle Miller — 12/9/2009 @ 4:03 pm
A most excellent observation and post.
Exceptionalism is not in this administration’s vocabulary.
The Obungle administration cannot get out of it’s own way. There has not been a more embarrassing bunch of amateur bunglers and boondogglers in control of the executive branch since peanut-boy ran the show.
Bungling, dithering and whining like never before is the new benchmark of these neo-libs.
Instead of “tax and spend” all I see is “spend and whine”.
Authentic Chicago thugs must be looking on in shame. Union bosses and DailyKos flunkies are wondering WTF?
One thing that caught my eye today is this:
“President Barack Obama told House Republican leaders to “stop trying to frighten the American people” even as he and Democrats said they see a possibility for bipartisan cooperation on job creation legislation.”
Read it all at:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/71449-obama-to-gop-stop-trying-to-frighten-the-american-people
The democrat party is in total control and can do as they wish yet all they can do is whine about those nasty, powerful republicans. Boofreakinghoo. Pussies, they are.
Gutless, thin-skinned bastards. Obungle, Pelosi, Reed and all the rest of them. Heh. If they can’t control their own party how can they possibly influence the rest of the world?
Save the planet? They can’t even save their own asses.
Typical democrat politicians. They are paying way too much attention to the polls. Lucky for us.
Comment by CZ — 12/9/2009 @ 4:19 pm
Using nukes? I mean come on; let’s hope never.
CZ,
are you in a contest to see how many insults you can pack into a post? Why don’t you just say you don’t like Obama?
Comment by funny man — 12/9/2009 @ 4:26 pm
A substantial minority of Americans, perhaps 20 or so percent, do not believe in American exceptionalism. Obama happens to be one. It informs his worldview, and you are correct to be afraid–very afraid–about what this will mean when that 3 a.m. telephone call comes. After all, his reaction will be what the Greeks or Uzbeks would do, not what his predecessors would have done.
Cheney was too kind when he called Obama “dithering.” No, he was “polling.” And you can damned well expect the same if, God forbids, another terror attack happens on his watch.
Americans ignored the obvious in 2008. I doubt they make the same mistake ever again, or will be left with such a horrible choice in 2012. Every day this Administration implodes is another reminder that elections do have consequences, in this case, very negative ones.
Comment by obamathered — 12/9/2009 @ 4:33 pm
The United States of America is definitely exceptional. We are exceptionally good staying on top by whatever means necessary.
As an athiest, I find this to be fantastic, since I live here. I don’t understand how the religious - Christians especially - can reconcile that though.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 12/9/2009 @ 4:46 pm
funny man Said:
4:26 pm
CZ,
are you in a contest to see how many insults you can pack into a post? Why don’t you just say you don’t like Obama?
CZ: In 100 words or less? Prbably not.
You sure ARE a funny man, funny man. Just keep on hopin’. And don’t forget to keep on changin”.
Comment by CZ — 12/9/2009 @ 5:08 pm
Dick Cheney lied us into a war with Iraq, that cost American lives and wasted a trillion dollars. Sorry Rick, but anything that comes out of that war criminal’s mouth is bunk.Obama wouldn’t hesitate too use the full force of our military to defend our interests.Want to know whats exceptional about America? that a mixed race skinny kid, with a mother that was on food stamps, and a father that had abandoned them, would go to Harvard Law and be elected president. You don’t think Obama realizes every day where he came from? So he bowed to the emperor of Japan, so did Bush senior, big deal. It must be hard work to come up with new material to bash Obama all the time. Its like someone crying wolf every day, after a while you just ignore it.
Comment by Joe — 12/9/2009 @ 6:32 pm
I like Cheney.
Sorry I missed him on Hannity last night.
Great post !
Comment by SB Smith — 12/9/2009 @ 6:37 pm
Joe: “It must be hard work to come up with new material to bash Obama all the time.”
Only when he shuts his mouth.
Comment by obamathered — 12/9/2009 @ 6:39 pm
Joe said:”Obama wouldn’t hesitate too use the full force of our military to defend our interests.”
Best laugh I’ve had today.
Regards,
Comment by the Dragon — 12/9/2009 @ 7:15 pm
I have seen not a single fact put forward here by Rick, or by any of the rightwing comment-writers, to support their positions: none. Nada. Zip.
We get it: you hate Obama. Beyond that hatred you’ve got nothing. Vapor.
Comment by michael reynolds — 12/9/2009 @ 8:59 pm
The point of my post is, exactly that. So what. It’s political.
It will also probably be competently handled finally. Does world need an American leader who talks smack and doesn’t deliver or someone who is quietly competent and thoughtful working on these problems.
What bugs me is the implication is that Obama doesn’t love America or think we stand out among all the world’s nations for the ideals we say we espouse. His approach is for us to live up to our self image again.
Instead of saying we’re great, we need to be great again. That means no torture, closing Guantanamo as soon as practical, and accepting that we aren’t the swaggering giant our actions seemed to indicate.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 12/9/2009 @ 9:47 pm
20michael reynolds Said:
8:59 pm
We get it: you hate Obama. Beyond that hatred you’ve got nothing. Vapor.
CZ: Yawn.
Comment by CZ — 12/10/2009 @ 6:17 am
CZ:
I believe that was your most intelligent comment ever. Thanks for proving my point so eloquently.
Comment by michael reynolds — 12/10/2009 @ 10:57 am
Why would anyone state facts when they have impassioned feelings to support their positions? Michael, didn’t you know that Facts are so 20th Century?
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 12/10/2009 @ 8:38 pm
“The Cheneyite neocons have used the good name and hard earned trust and faith in America that previous generations built, to turn America into just another global Empire consumed with its own power and expansion.”
Please enlighten me on the other “global empires” that “conquered” a country and then dumped half a trillion dollars into it ~ as opposed to the old fashioned way of conquering, decimating the populace, and then shipping the wealth and natural resources back to the mother country?
Comment by Tyranno — 12/13/2009 @ 9:09 am
“I have seen not a single fact put forward here by Rick, or by any of the rightwing comment-writers, to support their positions: none. Nada. Zip.
We get it: you hate Obama. Beyond that hatred you’ve got nothing. Vapor.”
WOW! You just have to be willing to overlook so much to believe what Mike Reynolds and Surabaya Stew believe. They wish/want/need to believe that dislike of the president is based solely on emotional “hatred.” Are these observations so profound they obviate the need for explanation? I’ll bet a euro that you all are just channeling your own emotions from the last presidency, eh?
I mean, Jesus Mike, at least aim for a little objectivity in your perspective: Don’t you really mean, “Making the best of the mess… he inherited?” That disclaimer just seems to be chiseled onto the teleprompter.
Obama didn’t just screw his own base over Afghanistan. With his poll numbers cratering down into the 40s he felt he had to at least give the appearance of doing something for the national interests. How could he “walk away” when he had already hitched his cart to “The Good War” during the campaign; had already fired one General and hired “his” man to lead that “good war” (Notice we talk of leading, not winning); as he announced his “new” strategy in Afghanistan last March. Gen McChrystal wanted 80k, was told to shut up - publicly asked for 40K - and received 30K. And now you come along attempting to make a virtue out of political necessity. Seems to me now is the first time some of those Vietnam analogies - of Ivy league whizz kids fighting the war from the WH basement - might start gaining credibility.
I sometimes wonder if the tone of the obama criticism might not regulate itself if anyone in the mainstream media or on the sychophantic left ever challenged this neophyte President with the level of scrutiny and inquiry they seem to save for Republican Presidents. I know I am getting tired of hearing other WH officials, Gibbs, and MSM pundits after the fact
“clarify” what this brilliant man really meant.
“Cheney and his supporters should be hooted at and driven from the public discourse in shame.” Hhhmmm… that is exactly how I feel when I have to listen to obama read another vacuous, platitudinous, campaign speech from the teleprompter a year into his bumbling Presidency. . . and then listen to WH officials, Gibbs, and MSM pundits wax about how historic it all is.
So tell me please, are we not witnessing the “soft bigotry of low expectations or is this just the best the modern progressive liberal democrat party has to offer?
PS: Please tell me what other actions the obama administration has taken to further U.S. national interests as a “first among equals” in the world?
Comment by Tyranno — 12/13/2009 @ 10:11 am
The only place ‘exceptionalism’ can lead is to a fatal case of hubris; witness Bush and Cheney who believed then led us into an unmitigated disaster. Perhaps it would be worth paying attention to the source of the comment–Cheney himself. What he really means is ‘Cheney exceptionalism’: that he is not limited or constrained by common decency or reality. He wants everyone else to do what he wants, but sees no requirement that he should take anyone else’s opinion, office, or knowledge seriously. This is not ‘exceptionalism’ this is pride; a subtle and powerful sin that entwines the heart and mind of those affected convincing them they are right to denigrate those around them. For Cheney, and I think for Bush, there is no redemption from this sin. They will ride it down refusing to even see reality; they are far too comfortable in their chosen way. This is, by the way, a non-tragic version of pride–there is not sense in them that from this fatal flaw comes great suffering for others and themselves. They are blind to suffering. How terrible that America should create people like this, invest them with power, then listen to them blather after damaging the nation.
Comment by bboot — 12/16/2009 @ 6:46 am