Exceptionalism Again -- Messieurs Lowry and Ponnuru Respond
In National Review, Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru have responded to critics of their piece on American exceptionalism. Their latest includes a gracious response to the critique I published here.
The relevant excerpt:
Conor Friedersdorf rightly points out that Obama followed his statement that he believes in American exceptionalism the same way that Greeks and Brits believe in the exceptionalism of their countries with an acknowledgment that the United States has a “core set of values . . . that are exceptional.” We should have noted those words. But the fact that Obama said them, and has on other occasions also had warm words about his country, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, does not alter our judgment. It would be remarkable if any president did not say such things. What is remarkable are some of the things he has said that it is impossible to imagine any of his predecessors saying, e.g., this bit from his United Nations speech in September: “For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.”
What I don’t understand is how the fact that Obama said those words, “and has on other occasions also had warm words about his country, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence,” does not alter their judgment. After all, in their original piece, they wrote that President Obama is like liberal intellectuals in that he has a difficult time coming up with a decent account of patriotism. But isn’t asserting that our core values are exceptional and praising our Founding documents “a decent account” of patriotism?
Messieurs Lowry and Ponnuru also wrote that “every important aspect of American exceptionalism has been under threat from President Obama and his allies in Washington.” But isn’t it in fact the case that certain aspects of American exceptionalism — like the assertion that our core values and Founding documents are exceptional — aren’t under threat at all, even if other aspects of our exceptionalism are under threat?
Finally, the authors wrote in their original piece that “On those occasions when Obama places himself in the context of American history, he identifies himself with the post-Wilsonian tradition — with, that is, the gradual replacement of the Founders’ design.” As I pointed out, however, President Obama often identifies with the Founding documents when he places himself in the contest of American history. As I noted, “ever since Barack Obama’s introduction to a national audience at the 2004 DNC, when he invoked The Declaration of Independence and E Pluribus Unum, he has very deliberately and repeatedly placed himself in the context of American history by arguing that his story is possible only in a nation with the Founding beliefs of America. Where did this idea come from that he identifies only with a post-Wilsonian tradition when he is constantly alluding to the promise of the Declaration, and how the realization of its truths transformed his personal history in the most profound way? It is utterly false, and proving as much is as easy as reading any number of his speeches.” I also offered a particular speech where those utterances could be found, and cited several of them.
Given all this, I don’t see how the authors can say that their judgment is not altered — perhaps their conclusion remains the same, but new arguments to justify it are required since the original arguments have been shown to be lacking.
It’s also worth returning to the new argument that the authors are making. Never mind President Obama’s rhetoric about American exceptionalism, they argue:
It would be remarkable if any president did not say such things. What is remarkable are some of the things he has said that it is impossible to imagine any of his predecessors saying, e.g., this bit from his United Nations speech in September: “For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.”
In a prior column, Mr. Lowry explained exactly why he thinks that quote is remarkable:
“For those who question the character and cause of my nation,” Obama said, “I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.” In other words, he’s the personal redeemer of a nation sunk in war crimes (we condoned torture), highhandedness (we ignored the U.N.), and hypocrisy (we promoted democracy selectively) prior to the ascension of his blessed administration.
Two points about this argument.
1) Messieurs Lowry and Ponnuru may find it wrongheaded, distasteful, even unprecedented for an American president to assert that a prior administration has done abhorrent things. But even if they are correct on all counts, that hardly proves that President Obama rejects American exceptionalism, does it? Isn’t it perfectly possible to believe America has committed grave sins, to egocentrically think that one’s administration is evidence of redemption from those sins, and to also believe in every pillar of American exceptionalism? After all, no one thinks that America’s exceptionalism is owed to the Bush Administration’s policies in the War on Terrorism, so why is repudiating those policies in the strongest terms imaginable an attack on American exceptionalism?
2) But I don’t think it actually is unprecedented for an American president to criticize the country’s past actions, and to say that his administration is a corrective — to take a recent example, didn’t George W. Bush argue that in the past the United States has been too willing to work with dictators in the Middle East, made mistakes in its Iraq policy, and been insufficiently supportive of democracy there? Certainly his words against the policies of predecessors were less pointed, but they amounted to a substantive critique and the assertion that his administration would prove to be a corrective.
Again, I understand why someone might argue that President Obama is incorrect in his assessment of American shortcomings, or even that a president should never criticize his country in that way, but I don’t see how any of that bears on the larger debate about American exceptionalism, unless the assumption is that American exceptionalism means we’re incapable of ever doing abhorrent things. I don’t think Mr. Lowry or Mr. Ponnuru believes that.
Lastly, Messieurs Lowry and Ponnuru write (emphasis added):
Friedersdorf also questions our assessment of Obama’s agenda. He does not, for example, see how moving a hybrid public/private health-care system further toward nationalization could be a blow to America’s distinctiveness. To assume that a difference of degree cannot be important is, however, fallacious. That the health-care policies that President Obama seeks would greatly increase middle-class dependence on the federal government cannot be seriously disputed; neither can the fact that it would be a move the country in a European direction, a point none of our critics dispute.
I think that’s a fair point — insofar as the health care bill will “greatly increase middle-class dependence on the federal government,” it is a blow to America’s distinctiveness. And I reiterate my preference for the kinds of health care reforms found here. I think it would be difficult to persuasively argue that pursuing this misguided policy itself makes President Obama an enemy of American exceptionalism, however, just as I think that President’s Bush’s prescription drug benefit and No Child Left Behind act — though they greatly increased the role of the federal government in American life — aren’t persuasive evidence that he was an enemy of American exceptionalism.
Messieurs? Are you intoxicated?
— paul h. · Mar 9, 11:06 PM · #
Oh, well, then, allow me to explain it to you: they said it, altering their judgment would mean they were wrong when they said it, admitting they’ve altered their judgement would mean admitting they were wrong, thus: they will not alter their judgement.
Seems pretty simple, to me. What’s not to understand? Were you under the impression you were dealing with reasonable people concerned about the truth, or something?
— Chet · Mar 10, 01:29 AM · #
It’s a toss up which side of this argument is more right than the other, but it does seem like a distraction from more important questions, so let’s just say you win this argument, that Obama has established a proper respect for American exceptionalism, conditioned by our many shortcomings. Is Obama’s vision for America going forward the right path for the country to take? If Obama could get his way domestically and in foreign policy, would this be good for America? If the progressive policies he has championed in speeches and interviews were passed, would they help America or hurt America? Is Obama’s direction the right direction, or should we elect someone with a different vision in 2012 so that we go in a different direction? If I knew the answer to at least some of these questions, I could get a better handle on your thoughts concerning Obama and the progressive agenda. I know where Lowry and Ponnuru are coming from, but you — not so much.
— mike farmer · Mar 10, 01:51 AM · #
Have I taken crazy pills? Are we really talking about “American Exceptionalism” as if it were serious? Isn’t it a joke? Is someone actually putting forth the idea that the POTUS has to defer to some made-up farce of an idea in every speech he gives? America is a real country with real successes and real failures. Where in god’s name does it get us to pretend otherwise? It’s so sad I almost can’t stand it. It’s like we’re some whiny, lame brat who walks around the room pounding his chest calling out anyone who looks at him crosswise..as if that does anything other than confirm his own lameness. Pathetic.
Honestly if you think American Exceptionalism is something real and important you should have your head examined.
— bakum · Mar 10, 06:34 AM · #
What’s all this American obsession with American exceptionalism anyway? Why is moving away from some aspects that have hitherto been more or less unique to US necessarily problematic? I mean, it would be problematic only if American exceptionalism meant American awesomeness and general superiority over all the other nations in every relevant way.
This is clearly not the case in many aspects, and some features of the American society and political system are only exceptionally embarrassing and nothing more. Like American refusal to sign numerous international treaties of the humanitarian kind, or America being the stingiest of all developed countries when it comes to foreign aid per capita, just to name a few.
Vast majority of people on this planet do not think that America is the shining city on the hill, let alone the beacon of freedom. Certainly not anymore.
But, they also do not think that their own countries are any of those things either or that their own countries are “exceptional” in any sense other than what one’s run-of-the-mill patriotism would dictate i.e. “it is exceptional because it is ours” logic.
It seems that Americans just can’t let go of their deeply held convictions that the US is the best country in the world ever. I mean, there are not many countries in the world where people are taught to believe such things about their own country, and none of the other countries where that does happen is truly (or at all) democratic. So, I guess that also makes the US exceptional among democracies.
— Marko · Mar 10, 06:41 AM · #
Mike,
If I can be permitted a very short answer, I’d say that President Obama is moving us in the wrong direction domestically and the right direction on foreign policy, though this may obscure the fact that he buys into a lot of the failed centrist Washington consensus as most recent presidents. I certainly prefer him overall to George W. Bush, but I’d gladly replace him with George H.W. Bush. Does that give you a better idea where I’m coming from?
— Conor Friedersdorf · Mar 10, 09:01 AM · #
It gives me a better idea, but if I knew whether or not you’d replace Obama with, say, Mitt Romney, I’d have a much better idea.
— mike farmer · Mar 10, 01:27 PM · #
Bakum and Marko,
For me it’s not so much that our government is exceptional and we have to constantly build it up over others — it’s more about upholding and praising certain classical liberal principles which are superior to those principles which lead to tyranny. If we ever accept a moral relativism which makes no judgement between freedom and domination, then we’re all lost. U.S. governance has come up short regarding classical liberal principles, but as a nation we’ve done far better than most. If these principles die, it will create a sad state of affairs for the world.
— mike farmer · Mar 10, 01:36 PM · #
@Mike Farmer,
I appreciate the thoughtful response. But I’m still confused.
“it’s more about upholding and praising certain classical liberal principles which are superior to those principles which lead to tyranny.”
So to me that sounds the president should not be giving speeches saying “hey, it’s ok to throw people in jail without trial,” or “freedom of the press is overrated” or “freedom of speech and peaceful assembly are all well and good but you don’t want it to go so far that people actually criticize the government without consequences.”
And there’s little to argue with about that. However, I don’t understand how this connects to what Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru wrote at all. Frankly I’m not really sure what values they represent other than “America should not be criticized” and “Conservatives are proud of America as it is and Liberals are not.” This is my understanding of what “American Exceptionalism” is. In other words it’s not about the principals, it’s about “America: Like it or leave it” sort of sentiments.
If you disagree with that definition I’d be interested to hear your take. IN particular I picked out one passage from Lowry and Ponnuru which I just don’t understand:
“Obama’s judicial nominees are likely to attempt to bring our Constitution into line with European norms. Here, again, he is building on the work of prior liberals who used the federal courts as a weapon against aspects of American exceptionalism such as self-government and decentralization”
To me this says American Exceptionalism is slavery and second-class citizenship for women and minorities. It says AE is free-market with no controls or restrictions whatsoever. AE says I get to build a factory and dump whatever the hell I want to in the earth or in a river and damn the consequences. And it also says reform of all of these issues (and so many many more) will lead us to tyranny. No?
— bakum · Mar 10, 07:10 PM · #
Mike Farmer is correct that there actually is such a thing as American Exceptionalism that’s different than just thinking “My country is the bestest in the world”. However, Chet is correct that Ponnuru and Lowry are just engaging in more “Obama is a soshulist mooslim that hates Amurica” nonsense.
Mike
— MBunge · Mar 10, 07:11 PM · #
Bakum,
I wasn’t defending Lowry and Ponnuru, just giving my take on exceptionalism. As I wrote in the first “Exceptionalism” post, I believe Obama has contradicted himself enough times to invalidate any one speech, or excerpt of a speech, relative to determining his true position toward America and our traditional values. I guess I’m saying that arguing between simplistic claims of exceptionalsm and nuanced positions of exceptionalism distracts from the underlying question of what principles and values are most conducive to liberty, peaceful trade and human flourishing. The argument should, perhaps, center on progressive/socialistic values versus conservative/libertarian values more in line with the principles of classical liberalism, which inspired our imperfect beginning, but promised, and still promises, to be an exceptional way to form and be a state (with amendments, of course, to address the imperfections).
— mike farmer · Mar 10, 08:22 PM · #
I’m interested in your definition of conservatism because I’m having a hard time thinking of any by which Obama would be preferable to Bush (43), and I say that as someone who didn’t find Bush nearly conservative enough.
I’d also be interested in what you see as the differences between Bush 43 and Bush 41. Seems to me they’re not all that far apart on the ideological scale.
— Derek Smithee · Mar 10, 08:34 PM · #
Derek,
A conservative might find President Obama preferable to George W. Bush because while both are profligate spenders, only the latter launched a war on choice, presuming that the American military could remake Iraqi society into a functioning democracy. I don’t think that is a conservative project. A conservative might also object to George W. Bush’s attempt to amass so much power in the executive branch, undermining the balance of powers that the Framers so wisely established. A conservative might prefer President Obama’s education initiative to George W. Bush’s decision to federalize education in unprecedented ways. Finally, a conservative might value competence in executing non-ideological federal functions like disaster relief.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Mar 10, 10:04 PM · #
mike farmer,
If these principles die, it will create a sad state of affairs for the world
I suspect David Galland is broadly right. It’s entropy
Time degrades all systems to the mean. Some of the world has absorbed some of America’s unique ideas, but America has also absorbed a lot of the rest-of-the-world’s concerns.
USA is a lot less exceptional now than it once was.
— Keid A · Mar 11, 03:06 AM · #
Keid, to my mind, the principle are more important than Amercica being seen as uniquely exceptonal — if other countries have absobed the principles, then great — if we continue to uphold these principles, then great. If we have become better from cultural exchange with other countries, then, again — great. I would be satisfied with the whole world adopting a combination of principles which end war, ensure freedom and spread equal opportunity to all.
— mike farmer · Mar 11, 04:16 AM · #
Agreed
— Keid A · Mar 11, 04:55 AM · #
and yet, Obama has continued all of the significant policies of the Bush administration . . . but you still prefer him over Bush?
— Derek Smithee · Mar 11, 02:51 PM · #
and yet, Obama has continued all of the significant policies of the Bush administration . . . but you still prefer him over Bush?
+
— The Spokesrider · Mar 11, 03:18 PM · #
“and yet, Obama has continued all of the significant policies of the Bush administration . . . but you still prefer him over Bush?”
1. Many of the most objectionable policies of the Bush Administration (torture, warrantless wiretaps) were ended before Obama became President.
2. Others (like the war in Iraq and the Gitmo prisoners) are extremely twisted knots that Obama is trying to undo. If you want to criticize him for being unable to do so in the first 13 months of his Presidency, go ahead.
Mike
— MBunge · Mar 11, 04:53 PM · #
Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now. Keep it up!
And according to this article, I totally agree with your opinion, but only this time! :)
— Supra Skytop · Mar 12, 09:19 AM · #