American Exceptionalism

Anyone care to discuss America's "exceptionalism?"

VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
September 11, 2013
A Plea for Caution From Russia
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. 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.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

From the earliest white settlers forward, Americans have thought themselves 'exceptional'.

And from that time till now, politicians have played upon that feeling. Most people (not just Americans) want to be exceptional, notable, worthy of respect; but in America, we're taught that our nation IS exceptional; that we shed the evils and decadence of the Old World to forge a new nation dedicated to the ideals of the Founders, with the right to promote our way of life around the world for the betterment of all.

(And never mind that John Adams and others explicitly warned against this.)

Putin is no Burns, though, so I suspect that his gift of seeing Americans in a different light will be ignored.

In many ways we are exceptional. Vanity comes to mind.

Whenever I hear the status quo defended by saying that some of the forces against the Syrian government are Islamic Fundamentalists two thoughts come to my mind. First, the Syrian government is one of the few two remaining governments to sponsor terrorism. Iran being the other. Libya and Afghanistan have had regime changes since 9/11/01 Second, religious fundamentalists try to take over the US government every four years.

I don't subscribe to the idea that the devil we know is better than the one we don't. We KNOW one is the devil and we DON'T know about the other.

"In 1970 Air Force general Hafez al-Assad, an Alawite, made an internal coup, and in 2000 he was succeeded by his second son Bashar, an opthalmologist trained in England. The Baath is a brutal one-party state characterized by a secret police that intensively spies on the population and punishes dissent with arbitrary arrest and torture. It raised standards of living and brought the country from being overwhelmingly rural farmers to having a slight urban majority.

(Juan Cole, Informed Comment)

Change is always bad for someone.

One thing that struck me - as a western European (Dutchie), anyway roughly midway between you guys: who's he to talk? Not that he doesn't have a point, but - for example - the Russians invaded Afghanistan long time before the Americans did so. Did they consult the United Nations before doing so? No way. And Putin was a part of the system even back then. In other words: he has a point, but he's a hypocrite.

ETA: The politician is a hypocrite - Surprise, surprise :-)

Leaving aside Putin's gambit, the line about exceptionalism is not really the most important one in the OpEd. But it was sure to prick the pride of Americans who were nurtured on the post WWII discourse of exceptionalism (following the publication of The Liberal Tradition in America) and the remaining acolytes of the New American Centurions (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Kristol, et al.).

The pot is calling the kettle black.

Two thoughts:

(1) The jab at "exceptionalism" is in direct answer to Obama's use of the term in his address on Tuesday night, and in that context, I think Putin is overreacting. I don't think Obama was using the term to be arrogant or to put down other countries: rather, I think he was trying to appeal to Americans' sense that, as an exceptional people, we have a duty to live up to higher moral standards.

And frankly, I don't have any problem exploiting this notion of exceptionalism if it's to get us to be better people.

(2) In the broader sense, however, in which Putin is using it, i.e. that the U.S. thinks it has a special, privileged place in the world that give it carte blanche to do as it pleases, the consequences be damned, then I agree that the exceptionalism balloon needed to be popped.

The problem is, Vladimir Putin, autocrat extraordinaire, is the wrong guy to do the popping. His track record on promoting freedom and human rights isn't exactly stellar.

#8

I'm pretty sure that those higher moral standards don't include an act of war without prior declaration by Congress. Certainly not in light of refusals and denunciations by various European countries, the U.N., and Christians living within the target zone.

However, you are correct in that Putin was perhaps not the best standard bearer for this argument.

But then, who else is there? There are few countries that have moral standing and sufficient force to make the U.S. at least listen.

> 9: Putin is quite right in addressing this. That's not the point. But he has no right to climb on a high horse.

> 8: What makes you say "Americans {...} as an exceptional people". You guys have three arms and two heads? You guys don't love your children? Don't get me wrong, not trying to put you down. But people = people.

I hope you don't mind the intrusion here, I'm not a member of this group but the topic is one that interests me. American exceptionalism has always been a bit of political propaganda, and the exception -alism is strictly political in nature - the great American experiment in democracy and material property. Personally, I love the idea that the critique comes from Putin, from Russia, whose exceptionalism is and always has been cultural, whereas their politics (and economics, as follows) have been one episode of miserable failure after another.

Of course, Putin is not the first Russian to point any of this out - but Americans tend only to listen to the things they want to hear, the things that help to inflate their already over-inflated sense of self. Besides, those Russian novels are so danged long!

I'd point out that there's no chance in hell that any foreign leader could publish an editorial critical of Putin in any of Russia's largest newspapers -- heck, even native Russians aren't currently allowed to do that.

#12

Heh. Reminds me of an old joke from the Cold War. "In America, we are free! We can shout out 'Down with Kennedy!' any time we want."

The Russian responds, "But we are free too. We can also shout out 'Down with Kennedy!' anytime we want."

#13: Or, as I tell my Russian friends, everything in America is free, you just have to pay for it.

#12: It's on:

McCain to attack Putin in Pravda

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/09/mccain-to-attack-putin-in-pravda-172...

Obama...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/24/obama-america-exceptionalism...

Sheesh... Okay: we're all individuals - I'm not. (Monty Python's Life of Brian - just in case).

No: America isn't really exceptional. If you really believe that, you're delusional. Somewhat special maybe though - I might buy into that one. But America is just one more nation. There have been so many others. Big and powerful?, yes! Exceptional?, no!

America is exceptional in thinking of herself as exceptional, at least. Seymour Martin Lipset did a lot of research on that aspect decades ago in American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword.

Just a little context for people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

The examples I can think of, of people who believe in their own exceptionalism, is not pretty. It often includes the willingness to sacrifice the "inferior beings" or the "heretics" or the "non-believers". Of course no "exceptional" group will worry about that, after all "they" are really are "exceptional".

Yes, late medieval Spain with its "Limpieza de sangre" (purity of the blood) and its inquisition for instance; and Nazi Germany thought very highly of itself too. Not a pretty picture.

But, to put it differently: we're all exceptional - nothing remarkable about that.

ETA: And before anybody starts shouting "Godwin's law" - no, it's not. In no way am a equating contemporary USA with Nazi Germany. I merely mentioned them as an example of "exceptionalism" going badly wrong.

The whole thing reminds me of George Orwell: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

But, having said all that, Putin - ex-KGB, the man who had "Pussy Riot" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot) locked away, and head of probably the most corrupt regime currently in action - has no right of getting loud.

Pot - kettle - possibly black?

>23 Nicole_VanK:
Agree as stated in #7

And just for some levity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXeIxtI--uc

>23 Nicole_VanK:

Having put Pussy Riot behind bars - with very modest sentences by Russian standards - is one of the very few of Putin's actions I will not hold against him. The naive western Pussy Riot fan cult is extremely embarassing, especially since nobody here seemed interested in researching the backgrounds of these hysterical "activists". Same thing with FEMEN in general.

Noam Chomsky:

http://inthesetimes.com/article/15702/obama_doctrine_exceptionalism_isolationism...

Screw Vlad Pussy! The guy is currently throwing his weight around vs. my country. Okay: Russia = big & Holland = small. That still doesn't mean we have to allow Russian "diplomats" to practice child abuse within our borders.

#27

What a difference a war makes; other than Latin/South America, the United States was dedicated to John Adams' view that we should encourage and praise freedom and democracy, but not intervene in the affairs of other nations. Adams was pre-Monroe, but even with that caveat, America avoided most conflicts outside its hemisphere until the Spanish-American War.

Our record since then has had a few bright spots (Puerto Rico, World War II) and a lot of bad ones. Prickly, stubborn John Adams seems to have had the right idea all along.

If Puerto Rico and WW II are considered the bright spots let's not get to the dark spots then.

More..
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&a...

29 America avoided most conflicts outside its hemisphere until the Spanish-American War.

Yes, but wasn't that because the United States was busy expanding across a continent? It's not a coincidence that as soon as 'Manifest Destiny' exhausted itself, Americans started taking an interest in Cuba, Hawaii and further afield.

Perhaps the American belief in 'exeptionalism' began with their early expansion against easily defeated enemies: first the Native Americans, then Mexico. They developed a sense of entitlement, and the belief in their right to expand their power, eventually, to the whole globe.

#32

The same could be said of other countries as well. I don't recall the Spanish or British Empires as having any greater concern for the rights and lives of natives, and both were pretty expansionistic as well.

Sadly, the U.S. chose to follow in those footsteps. And it was a choice; there was a lot of debate over what should be done with the former Spanish colonies, with some parties arguing America should grant them independence and embrace them as allies, not conquests. Unfortunately, they lost.

Both Mexico and the United States were expanding regional powers, so a conflict as to who would dominate the continent was nearly inevitable. Again, neither side considered the opinions or rights of the current inhabitants.

Was there ever a nation that had the capabilities to build an empire and didn't?

Not that I'm aware off. But isn't that the point? In that respect too, America is perfectly normal.

Well, this is just my opinion but I think we are exceptionally backward for the 21st Century.

On the Exceptionalism of the United States based on its Moral Purity:

Moral Purity

Critics on the left such as Marilyn Young and Howard Zinn have argued that American history is so morally flawed, citing slavery, civil rights and social welfare issues, that it cannot be an exemplar of virtue.62 Zinn argues that American exceptionalism cannot be of divine origin because it was not benign, especially when dealing with Native Americans.

Donald E. Pease mocks American exceptionalism as a "state fantasy" and a "myth" in his 2009 book The New American Exceptionalism.64 Pease notes that "state fantasies cannot altogether conceal the inconsistencies they mask", showing how such events as the revelations of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and the exposure of government incompetence after Hurricane Katrina "opened fissures in the myth of exceptionalism".

American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr argued that the automatic assumption, that America acts for the good, will bring about moral corruption. However Niebuhr did support the nation's Cold War policies. His position (called "Christian Realism") advocated a liberal notion of responsibility that justified interference in other nations. (wikipedia)

>36 TLCrawford:: Well, I would argue that you're pretty normal in that respect too then ;-)

>33 BruceCoulson:

Sadly, the U.S. chose to follow in those footsteps. And it was a choice; there was a lot of debate over what should be done with the former Spanish colonies, with some parties arguing America should grant them independence and embrace them as allies, not conquests. Unfortunately, they lost.

Tellingly, some of that debate happened before the Spanish-American War. And there was a large party of expansionists who wanted to annex Cuba outright. Basically, that's why the Americans started the war: to protect and expand their influence in the Caribbean, and seize a colony in the Pacific.

I don't think Mexico could be considered expansionist. At the time of the Mexican-American War its territory consisted of what it inherited from the Spanish Empire, minus Texas. They did try to develop the area north of the Rio Grande by encouraging American immigration there in the 1830s and 40s. Big mistake.

Is the character of being exceptional the admission of a State of Exception as defined by Giorgio Agemben? A state in which some individuals are expounded essentials, while others are non-essentials?
We seem to have reached this permanent state of emergency Agemben defines in State of Exception Homo Sacer II. Hence it is not surprising that such a state require exceptionalism.

Americans are delusional, prudish religious nuts–especially when compared to the rest of world: study

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/americans-are-delusional-prudish-religious-nuts-...