Promoted by Steven D, and thank you Frank for your help.
Given Steven D’s impassioned pleas for content in Booman’s continued absence through illness I thought I’d break my vow of Omertà on all things USA which normally applies between Presidential election cycles. You see I have a certain resistance to writing about things I know little about and also have a strong sense that a countries own citizens have the primary right and responsibility to determine its policies free of interference from outsiders – well meaning or otherwise.
I make the exception of Presidential elections and some global issues like human rights and climate change because the election of “the leader of the free world” effects us all dramatically and often traumatically and because the USA state, whatever about its own citizenry, makes no bones about the fact that it regards the whole world as its back yard when it comes to dumping its externalities on others.
I also want to pay tribute to the extent to which Booman has informed my thinking on all matters of US politics. He’s up there with Paul Krugman as perhaps the most influential blogger and thinker shaping my world view on key issues of economics (Krugman) and US politics (Booman). Just as I sometimes take issue with Krugman’s politics (his recent ham-fisted interventions on Ukraine and Scotland in particular), I sometimes take issue with Booman’s take on economics which sometimes seems more influenced by the Chicago School of economics than by Keynes, Krugman, Stiglitz or Piketty.
(Continued below the fold)
But it is with Booman’s (often implicit and perhaps unconscious) embrace of American Exceptionalism that I have generally had the biggest problem: I simply don’t believe that America has some God given right or grace to impose its beliefs and values on others, or that it is in some way an inherently more moral nation.
Up until the mid 1960’s this would not have been a major point of departure for me. The USA had been born as a genuine revolution against colonial oppression, had fought a civil war (in part) against slavery and continued forms of colonial oppression, had struggled against continued racism, and had sought to promote personal freedom against more totalitarian ideologies abroad.
The USA had been slow to enter the First and second world wars, and when it did, did so for generally the right reasons. The post 1945 Marshall plan and generally non-punitive stance towards the defeated German and Japanese nations (despite the atrocities they perpetrated) did it great credit, and enabled the re-construction of Europe and Japan and the development of a more liberal and inclusive political cultures here and there. Even the cold war against Stalinism was defensible, and thanks to the much under-appreciated contribution of Gorbachev, eventually led to a good outcome.
But sometime around the mid 1960’s the USA’s influence on the world – always open to debate – seemed to me to switch from being predominantly for the good to being predominantly for the ill-being of mankind – the achievements of The Great Society and cultural icons like Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen notwithstanding. Perhaps it was the assassinations of of JFK, RFK and MLK that were the pivotal moments, resulting in the escalations of the war in Vietnam and the gradual morphing of a racial struggle into a class struggle in the USA, making it now perhaps more of a class ridden society than the European societies it had so rightly denounced in its fight for independence.
Ironically it was the defeat of communism abroad and the resultant fear of social democracy at home which seemed to free the American elite from any concern for social justice, and allowed them to focus on a totally self-interested and self righteous quest for their own aggrandizement without regard to all others and without fear of political consequences. Perhaps best epitomized by the rise of Reaganism and neo-conservatism, the American elite engaged in a concerted campaign of installing brutal dictatorships abroad in support of their own corporate interests and waging a class war on their own people at home.
Far from the reluctant engagement in world wars of an earlier era, the USA now has military bases installed in over 100 notionally independent states abroad, and is not slow to use their influence in the promotion of their corporate interests. Globalization has essentially meant that the nation states of the post colonial era have been replaced by the mostly US corporate super-states of the new millennium. Citizen’s have become employees and markets and it is the $ rather than the electorate which rules.
And so we had the totally bizarre over-reaction to 9/11 which threatened to puncture this dream of complete invincibility and imperiousness to any legitimately different interests abroad. Target governments did the USA’s bidding or else had USA rule imposed on them either directly (Afghanistan, Iraq) or indirectly through compliant national elites hooked on US corporate “investment” in their territories. The total destabilization of the post colonial world order this has wrought is most immediately visible in the chaos in the Middle east today, but can also be seen in multiple US arms industry fueled conflicts in the “third world” today.
Meanwhile the planet is gradually getting burned up carrying a human footprint it cannot sustainably handle resulting in rising and acidifying seas, floods, famines, droughts and local resource scarcity conflicts mediated by machine guns rather than traditional authority or democratic institutions. In order to deny this reality the US elite has fostered totally bizarre religious cults denying climate change, evolution, and science in general, whilst promoting alliances between white supremacism, Zionism and millenarian cults which seem to see the destruction of the earth as a good thing – a sign of the second coming – or at the very least an inevitable and unavoidable outcome of the human condition.
So where are my differences with Booman in all this, you might well ask. Perhaps they are differences of emphasis and degree rather than fundamental in any sense. Perhaps living in the USA and seeking to influence its political culture from the margins means that Booman could not, even if he wanted to, take on the shibboleths of American Exceptionalism, the excesses of Zionism, or the stark reality of a class struggle which only one side – the elite – is really fighting, and where everyone else, including his beloved Democrats have already lain down and played dead. I might have to make a similar accommodation with political realities if I were in his place.
Is it true that one cannot take an explicitly anti-Zionist, anti-corporatist, and anti-imperialist position in US politics today without being, at best marginalized, and quite possibly brutalized or imprisoned as a result? Is that the state of human rights in the USA today where SCOTUS has ruled that corporations are people with the right to religious beliefs, where money is free speech and the more money you have the more speech you are allowed?
If so, Booman, for all my differences with him, is a prophet shouting in the wilderness. I hope his voice will be heard for many years to come. May he have a full and quick recovery. We have need of more of his kind. His humanity shines through.
Thanks for doing this, Frank. As I suggested on EuroTrib not long ago, I think we desperately need some constructive criticism from our friends. I hope your diary gets the sort of thoughtful attention that I think it deserves.
I’m not sure exactly where we went off the rails with the whole exceptionalism thing. It grew to overbearing proportions with Reagan and the neocons, but the seeds were there long before. Eisenhower tried to warn us, but I think by then it may have already been too late.
I suspect our part in the two world wars and their aftermath had a lot to do with its growth. In both cases we came in late to what had become essentially stalemates and helped win decisive victories. And then with the Marshall Plan we were able not only to stoke our own economy to something like its full potential, but also to play the caring big brother, helping Europe and Japan to rebuild after the terrible destruction of the war. In the space of two generations, we went from essentially isolationist hicks to Leaders of the Free World [TM]. A recipe for hubris if there ever was one.
And second everything you said about Booman. I know we all miss him. Kudos to Stephen D for stepping into the breach.
Gore Vidal always dated it with the creation of the NSA and blamed it on Truman. IMHO he had the right date but not quite the right culprits. It was the GOP “do nothing Congress” that actually did quite a lot. As that Congress overrode Truman’s veto of Taft-Hartley (and it has never been repealed), it probably would have over-ridden a veto of the National Security Act of 1947.
It metastasized from there and then flipped out when the USSR host body died.
I can see Mr. Vidal’s argument and tend to agree with it. I would add that until Iran-Contra I felt America had the means to correct this error. As Booman and others have so eloquently have stated the point of no return started with the Nixon pardon. We have been a nation without a moral compass ever since. I am disgusted beyond words.
“…when the Iran-Contra Affair hit, that I felt it was so vitally important that there be no repeat of pardons. But there was a repeat of pardons, on Christmas Eve 1992. And the man issuing the pardons was the man who was probably most responsible for the crimes.”
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2014/9/8/231113/3218
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/3/5/03133/36598
The Pike and Church Committees were likely the last chance. Ford and Kissinger killed the former and the latter got filed away as a worthy exercise in Senate oversight, but otherwise forgotten.
Iran-Contra wasn’t unique except that the approval for it was given by a President that was gaga. This sort of crap began flourishing under Ike which for some reason is overlooked because he said a few words about the power of the MIC as he was on his way out the door.
I agree with that. The Church commission certainly uncovered stuff worse than Iran Contra in ’75. Was anyone really held accountable for what Church uncovered?
I was gonna say, 1947 and the Natl Sec Act and the creation of the CIA, soon to consider itself an unchecked power unto itself.
But I don’t excuse HST — with politics and the1948 election in mind and knowing he would further strengthen the hand of the despised dictatorial FBI director (per Click Clarfford, his top aide, years later), he decided to follow the mob in the direction which became the creation of the official natl secur state.
The buck stops with Truman. And we’re still paying for that mistake 67 years later.
Otherwise, a fine piece by our contributor.
Not excusing Truman — only considering the possibility that it didn’t much matter what he did. So easy to forget that Congress did have major powers back then and the “do nothing Congress” after having been sidelined for a decade took full advantage of it during their short two year reign.
American exceptional ism goes back to at least Teddy Roosevelt if not before.
though you can argue the founding fathers articulated it.
sorry for the typo.
Most countries have or have had nationalist movements at one stage or another. A little chauvinism goes a long way in politics. It’s hard to make a claim to be a separate country if you can’t articulate why you are different from others, even if only by geography. Many citizens consider their country to be the best, or at least think they are special in some way.
So what makes American Exceptionalism different, if not unique? Is it just the sheer power of the USA to articulate it’s self-image on the world stage, all the way from Hollywood to economic dominance to military adventurism?
When is national pride harmless and indeed charming, and when does it become a dangerous delusion? Was the Nazi “Master Race” concept different in kind from white supremacism in the USA today? When did Zionism cease to be an understandable and reasonable response to the Holocaust and become a reason to ethnically cleanse others?
Is religion inherently harmful because it leads some to believe they are “God’s Chosen People” with at least a moral superiority over others?
Did American Exceptionalism become a self-reinforcing delusion when the USA became the world’s sole Superpower in the 1980’s and no competing ideology could be allowed to exist that might dent that sense of superiority for fear it might become a competing centre of power?
In the case of the US — most likely because this country harnessed more wealth and more quickly than any country had ever done. And successfully whitewashed the two major sources of the wealth: rich land stolen from the natives that were successfully annihilated and stolen lives of people enslaved from Africa.
Let me take a wild guess. A trillion-dollar-a-year military force.
Excellent job, Frank. I think what you’ve described is pretty close to the experiences that a lot of USians have had as well, In that, there is a journey from when the official story seemed to be real to the desperate search to find what is real enough to base one’s few political decisions on.
“American exceptionalism” seems to be one of those empty phrases that can accept whatever meaning you want to pour into it at the time. Context is everything in this discussion. Exception to what?
One argument goes that as soon as Amerigo Vespucci coined the term “Novus Mundus”, everything that happened on the western edge of the Atlantic Ocean was an exception to what happened on the easter edge of the Atlantic Ocean–at lest from the viewpoint of the European historians. The opportunity to build a civilization from scratch without necessarily adhering to tradition came slowly, but it is clear that Thomas More’s “Utopia” and Francis Bacon’s “New Atlantis” were very much conceptual plans for this new society that was to be the exception to their own.
What in fact happened was pretty unexceptional. The Spanish copied the Portuguese model of African settlement, operating a slave trade while looking for precious metals. The French and English became pirates of Portuguese and Spanish treasure ships while figuring out their own plans. When the French settled, they developed a fur trade with indigenous people that became sufficiently prosperous. When the English finally settled, the developed a tobacco plantation culture, a sugar plantation culture, and a place to send pesky dissenters, unemployed peasants, and prisoners. The plantation cultures quickly adapted to both American indigenous and African slavery. And the Barbadians soon settled Carolina, and looking for an export crop discovered that both rice and indigo were profitable as long as one had the organizational ability to manage substantial gangs of slaves, a management science developed in Barbadoes and Jamaica and later adapted to the Industrial Revolution.
To provide social control over populations of indigenous people and African slaves, the English created a frontier dynamic that divided and opposed against each other those people who might toss them out. Nothing very different from the English foreign office there at all. And the colonial elites made sure to ship their indigenous slaves to the Caribbean as an export crop. For the times, that was also pretty unexceptional.
But the Pilgrims created a social compact that constituted the basis of their community. Or that is what Thanksgiving Day, the national holiday celebrates no matter how obscured by commercialism it has become. And the Puritans sought to be in John Winthrop’s title, a “model of Christian charity” and in his allusion to Matthew 5:14, a “city upon a hill” whose light cannot be hid. An exemplar more than an exception. And then they used warfare to gain control of their own fur trade.
A second argument goes that the US was the first nation constituted on ideas from a diversity of peoples. And that being first somehow makes the US permanently exceptional without regard to France, Haiti, Italy, Germany, Russia, China, and all of the nations based on ideas in the 20th century. And a few English likely would quibble about the first based on ideas, Magna Charta, Glorious Revolution, and all that. And where are those ideas now? Are not those ideas the very ones that form critical political movements from 1848 through Marx, the US progressive movement, the New Left to today? If there are any exceptions in American exceptionalism, under this argument it would be the toleration and taking seriously the criticisms of folks like us an Occupy Wall Street and a flurry of other political movements as well. Not to mention those concerned about the state of the environment.
So, as best I can tell, “American exceptionalism” is like the flag pin that President Obama is forced to wear–a litmus test of loyalty to a cult of nationalism.
And most insidious, a special pleading not to be held to the rules of the compact of nations that the US itself forced, cajoled, and convinced other nations into establishing at the end of World War II. To be exempt from international law.
That leaves us the most vulnerable lion under the law of the jungle and with the never-ending responsibility of defending our own unique and exceptional status of power, wealth, and honor. Insistence on absolute power eventually leads to financial and political exhaustion. There’s nothing exceptional there either.
What the US appeared to do after World War II in reconstructing Europe seemed so exceptional because it seemed like the wise obligation of power. And the humanity of the people behind that power. Shamefully, declassification of documents around those decisions show that it was the expedient gambit of some people hysterical that the Soviet Union continued to exist.
Were we wrong to believe the promises of the Enlightenment ideas that pushed to enlarge the scope of democratic governance? I think that thinking we were exceptional gave 19th century abolitionists and reformers, early 20th century progressives, midcentury liberals, and even 1960s radical leftists a political lever to use on politicians.
The nationalistic reframing American exceptionalism took that lever away and now it is used as a whip to control characterized as disloyal.
Finally, I think that the comments are onto something; the Republcan “Do Nothing” Congress of 1946 fundamentally sabotaged the New Deal. It took 55 years to accomplish irreversibly, but the constant questioning of loyalty became a key tactic.
Loyalty to what? To an idea. To what idea? Unlimited American exemption from rules. American exceptionalism.
Deserves to be a fp diary in its own right
I agree with Frank. Make it so, please.