American Exceptionalism in a Multi-Polar World
On September 11, 2013, Russian President Vladimir Putin
published an opinion in the New York Times regarding possible American military
intervention in Syria. In response to President Obama’s address to the nation
regarding the intervention, Putin said:
And I would rather disagree with a
case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy
is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is
extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional,
whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and
poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way
to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask
for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal. (A Plea for Caution From Russia: What
Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria, New York Times, September 11, 2013)
President Putin’s opinion piece caused much consternation and anger in
the United States. I don’t wish to waste
time on the responses because they are predictable. Rather I would like to focus on President
Putin’s point that it is dangerous for America to see itself as exceptional. I do not agree. The fact is that Russia as well as America
has seen itself as exceptional throughout its history.
Henry Kissinger in his seminal work, Diplomacy (New York, 1994) points out that Russians like
Americans thought of their society as exceptional.
Russia’s expansion into Central Asia had many of the features
of America’s own westward expansion, and the Russian justification for it … paralleled
the way Americans explained their own “manifest destiny.”
The openness of each country’s frontiers was among the few
common features of American and Russian exceptionalism. America’s sense of uniqueness was based on
the concept of liberty; Russia’s sprang from the experience of common
suffering. Everyone was eligible to
share in America’s values; Russia’s were available only to the Russian nation,
to the exclusion of its non-Russian subjects.
America’s exceptionalism led it to isolation alternating with occasional
moral crusades; Russia’s evoked a sense of mission which often led to military
adventures. [p. 142]
Norman Podhoretz addressed the question directly in “Is America
Exceptional?” Imprimis, Vol 41, No. 10
(October 2012)
First of all, unlike all other nations past or present, this
one accepted as a self-evident truth that all men are created equal … the
individual’s fate would be determined not by who his father was, but by his own
freely chosen pursuit of his own ambitions.
There remained, of course, the two atavistic contradictions
of slavery and the position on women; but so intolerable did these contradictions
ultimately prove that they had to be resolved—even if, as in the case of the
former, it took the bloodiest war the nation ever fought. [p. 1]
Secondly… To become a full-fledged American, it was only
necessary to pledge allegiance to the new Republic and to the principles for
which it stood.
Thirdly … [i]n America… the citizen’s rights were declared
from the beginning to have come from God and to be “inalienable”—that is,
immune to legitimate revocation. [p. 2]
Podhoretz claims that the term “American exceptionalism” did not originate with de Tocqueville as many
believe but may in fact have originated with Iosif Stalin “who coined the term
… but only to dismiss it.” [p. 2]
Thus, when an American Communist leader informed him that
American workers had no intention of playing the role Marx had assigned to the
worldwide proletariat as the vanguard of the coming socialist revolution,
Stalin reputedly shouted something like, “Away with this heresy of American
exceptionalism!”
Stalin on American Exceptionalism as a Positive Factor
Iosif Stalin, in his “Foundations of Leninism” (Stalin, Selected
Works. Tirana, Albania, 1979), a series of lectures delivered at Sverdlov
University between April and May 1924, speaks of a Leninist style of work.
What are the
characteristics features of this style?
What are its peculiarities?
It has two specific
features:
a)
Russian revolutionary sweep and
b)
American efficiency.
The style of Leninism consists of combining these two
specific features in Party and state work.
[p. 100]…
American efficiency, on the other hand, is the antidote to
“revolutionary” Manilovism and fantastic scheme concocting. American efficiency is that indomitable force
which neither knows or recognizes obstacles; which with its business-like
perseverance brushes aside all obstacles; which continues at a task once stated
until it is finished, even it if is a minor task; and without which serious
constructive work is inconceivable. [p. 101]
Stalin went on to say that American efficiency may degenerate into “narrow
and unprincipled practicalism” if it is not combined with Russian revolutionary
“sweep.” [p. 101]
This is what is exceptional about America. It is a willingness to tackle all problems
with a practical approach to a conclusion; no matter the odds. If we have to overlay a little bit of
moralism to our endeavors, so be it.
Exceptional America
The very best of American
exceptionalism is the fact that we are not afraid to examine ourselves and our
motives in the world. As Kissinger
notes, as a result of the Cold War a new variant of American Exceptionalism
surfaced, an inspired call to the cause of freedom. [p. 471]
Kissinger quotes George Kennan, who formulated the foundations for the
policy of containment:
To my own countrymen
who have often asked me where to best apply the hand to counter the Soviet
threat, I have accordingly had to reply:
to our American failings, to the things we are ashamed of in our own
eyes, or that worry us; to the racial problem, to the conditions in our big
cities, to the education and environment of our young people, to the growing
gap between specialized knowledge and popular understanding. [p. 471]
Today we can add growing disparity of wealth (1% vs. 99%), unemployment,
health care, etc. America is exceptional
in this regard. We examine ourselves even
to the point of appearing ridiculous in the eyes of world and each other; yet
we emerge stronger. As Fredrich Nietzche
reminds us “That which doesn’t destroy us makes us stronger.”
We are not exceptional in the nature of our military power or our
willingness to impose our views on others.
We should not be exceptional because of our military industrial complex and we should not waste our national treasure in areas whose cultures and populations we do not
understand, pursuing policies where our national interests are not at
stake.
In international affairs, we have a deep belief as expressed by Woodrow
Wilson that “resistance to aggression [should] be based on moral rather than
geopolitical judgments. Nations [should]
ask themselves whether an act was unjust rather than whether it is threatening.” (Kissinger, p. 227)
If we sometimes appear moralistic in our tone, it is because it is the
language of our idealism. For example, President Richard Nixon,
[T] ook American
idealism seriously in the sense that he shared Wilson’s passionate
internationalism and belief in America’s indispensability. But he felt equally obligated to relate
America’s mission to his own conclusions about the way the world actually
worked…
[Thus] This is why
Nixon preferred to operate on two tracks simultaneously: invoking Wisonian
rhetoric to explain his goals while appealing to national interest to maintain
his tactics. (Kissinger, p. 706)
The challenge to American political leaders is how to
present our ideals in a manner like, for example, Ronald Reagan. “Reagan rejected the “guilt complex” which he
identified with the Carter Administration, and proudly defended America’s
record as “the greatest force for peace anywhere in the world today.” (Kissinger,
p. 767) No one doubted that Reagan really believed what he was saying; at it
appealed to us. Ultimately,
a matter may be better judged and one’s position better understood if presented
in a manner that is convincing.
Bottom line: To paraphrase
Stalin, America is exceptional because of the characteristics of (i) American
ideals combined with (ii) American business efficiency. Regardless
of the nobility of our motives, results count.
American leaders should combine our noble motives with efficient and
effective business-like results.
