American Exceptionalism vs. Exceptional Anti-Americanism

"These are the times that try men's souls."
The Crisis, December 23, 1776
Thomas Paine

The scene was classic 'Obama'. It was about 4:50 p.m. local time on April 4, 2009 at Palaiz de la Musique et Des Congres in Strasbourg France and President Obama was speaking at a Press Conference detailing the outcome of what he called "a very productive meeting" of a two-day NATO summit. Mr. Obama had been in office by this point for just under four months and the Strasbourg-Kehl NATO summit was one stop along a seven day European trip which included London for the G20 economic recovery summit, France, Germany, Czech Republic, Turkey (also the first predominately Muslim nation), and a surprise visit to Iraq to round out his first overseas trip since taking office. At the time of the trip, his approval ratings in the United States averaged out to 61.1% between 9 different polls, including Fox News polls, CNN Opinion Research, Newsweek, Gallup, and Rasmussen Reports. Experts, however, estimated his approval ratings outside the U.S. far exceeded national approval ratings, which had much to do with the President's approach to repairing what he considered was America's tarnished image abroad.

After the President concluded a few prepared remarks about the Summit, he began to take questions from the traveling Presidential press corps, as well as international reporters. The fourth question came from Edward Luce of the Financial Times, who asked the President, "In the context of all the multilateral activity that's been going on this week-- the G20, here at NATO-- and your evident enthusiasm for multilateral frameworks, to work through multilateral frameworks, could I ask you whether you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy? And if so, would you be able to elaborate on it?"

Without skipping a beat, Mr. Obama replied:

"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don't think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.

"And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.

"Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.

"And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone."

Fallout of reactions from the trip was largely along political divides. Democrats and many among the mainstream media outlets on CNN, MSNBC, and the network news stations praised Obama for striking a much different tone from that of his predecessor, President Bush, who they claimed somewhat recklessly embarked on a unilateral crusade in the middle east. They believe President Bush did this by toppling the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11 as a response to state-sponsored terrorism and according to (now proven faulty) intelligence that supported WMD programs. The military actions in those countries, while eventually joined by members of NATO and a multilateral coalition of the willing, arguably scorned the international community and strained American foreign policy. Reaction among those on the right, however, such as Karl Rove and other hardlined Republican operatives, criticized the President for the tone of his remarks during the European trip, calling his trip, and other trips that followed, an American 'Apology tour.' Sean Hannity and other Conservative ideologues, predominately on Fox News and on talk radio, attacked the President's positioning as weakening American power and influence in the world. The Heritage Foundation published the top 10 apologies on June 2, 2009 and called his actions a humiliation.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/06/Barack-Obamas-Top-10-Apologies-How-the-President-Has-Humiliated-a-Superpower

The general opinion of Americans seemed to side somewhat with the latter group above. According to Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post, in an article posted on Februrary 22, 2011, "Public-opinion polling suggests the idea [that Obama does not believe in American Exceptionalism] has resonance among the American public. A December Gallup Poll found that only 58 percent of those surveyed agreed that Obama believed the United States has a unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world; 37 percent said he did not. By contrast, 74 percent thought George W. Bush, did, 77 percent thought Bill Clinton did, and 86 percent thought Ronald Reagan did. Among Republicans, 61 percent thought Obama did not believe in the greatness of America."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_apology_tour.html

Mr. Kessler's article, however, goes on to build a reasonable case that Obama never embarked on an apology tour, instead staunchly differentiating his administration from the previous administration's approach to foreign policy. Kessler uses quotes from Former President Bush and his Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, to illustrate how presidential tone and policy can help reinforce American soft power as much as 'military-might' demonstrates America's hard power. Mr. Kessler sums up his argument by illustrating how "in the early months of his presidency, Obama had a way of backing into his answers, starting off with a humble tone ("just as I suspect the Brits...") that some supporters of American power maybe found grating... [instead] Obama often was trying to draw a rhetorical distinction between his policies and that of President Bush, a common practice when the presidency changes parties."

All this aside, Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice summed American Exceptionalism up well when she stated to CBS correspondent Katie Couric during a Council on Foreign Relations seminar on December 3, 2010:

" I still believe the United States is exceptional in its conception, the American idea, no tie of nationality, ethnicity, religion to the territory. It's exceptional in the way that it has integrated people from around the world for generations. It's exceptional in the way that it's been willing to fight for the rights of others, even when they didn't know their names. You know, any ordinary country might not have stormed the beaches of Normandy to fight for the liberties of those people. And so, yes, I do think there's an exceptionalism."

There is an historical case to be made for Secretary Rice's argument. Although for some time during the Mid-1800s, specifically in 1840 when Democratic politicians argued for expansion into Mexican territory, a term that became known as Manifest Destiny justified American territorial expansion across the North American Continent; however, the phrase Manifest Destiny during the early 1900s was adopted by American Presidents to represent instead of American imperlism, American interventionalism. The principles behind Manifest Destiny was essential for upholding the Monroe Doctrine, a policy introduced in 1823 which prevented European powers from colonizing the Western Hemisphere. Any European colonization into the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as acts of aggression that would require U.S. intervention. President Woodrow Wilson expanded the policy and redefined Manifest Destiny to emphasize that the United States had a mission to be a world leader for the cause of democracy. As the only president ever to use the phrase Manifest Destiny in an annual address to congress, President Wilson said:

"... I think we all realize that the day has come when Democracy is being put upon its final test. The Old World is just now suffering from a wanton rejection of the principle of democracy and a substitution of the principle of autocracy as asserted in the name, but without the authority and sanction, of the multitude. This is the time of all others when Democracy should prove its purity and its spiritual power to prevail. It is surely the manifest destiny of the United States to lead in the attempt to make this spirit prevail."

This U.S. vision of itself as the leader of the Free World would grow stronger in the 20th Century, most notably after WWII with the creation of the U.N., implementation of the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and the Iron Curtain, the enactment of the Cold War, and most recently, the Freedom Agenda outlined in the Bush Doctrine, although rarely would our vision be inexplicably described as Manifest Destiny as Wilson had done. As the world's oldest continuously functioning democracy, America has always supported the cause for human rights and freedoms encouraged by Democractic institutions. When America was founded, it was the world's only Democractic government. Since 1789 to present day, 80 additional countries have adopted Democracy as a model for governance.

http://www.scaruffi,com/politics/democrat.html

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men to do nothing.

Our interventionalistic policies have not always served in the best interest of American national pride, as Ms. Rice noted in 2005 in Cairo when discussing U.S. Middle Eastern intervention. She said, "Our policies to try and promote what we thought was stability in the Middle East had actually allowed, underneath, a very malignant, meaning cancerous, form of extremism to grow up underneath because people didn't have outlets for their political views." This notion is most evident in current day turmoil and instability as seen as popular uprisings and protest sweeping across the Middle East and Arab world today.

Political unrest and instability started first with strong popular protests in the streets of the Northern African pre-dominantely Muslim nation of Tunisia around Mid-December, during the closing days of the first decade in the 21st century. The instability successfully ousted the Tunisian unpopular president and brought about a peaceful, albeit unstable transition in power within that nation, causing the unrest to spread and successfully topple Egypt's autocratic regime. America's past support for Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is an example of the sentiment Ms. Rice described above.

However, with the instability now gripping the regime in Libya, and the President of the nation, Muammar Gaddafi, ordering troops to fire on protesters in the streets of the country's Capitol city of Tripoli, America must actively resume the role of intervention on the side of promoting peace, stability, freedom, and security. While arguably we are no more or no less morally superior to take a leadership role in the world, no more than any other country, American has constructively exercised soft power to the advantage of all people, our virtues and values have always transcended nationalistic tendencies to represent universal human rights, and we have done more charitable good in underdeveloped countries than any other country in history. Additionally, we continue to serve as a military deterrent against other countries that would otherwise be recklessly belligerent, destructive to world peace, and imperialistic in national interests. We must leverage our standing as a world power to STOP the massacre in Libya and restore stability and relative peace in the region by calling upon all autocratic regimes to bring about political reform to their governments.

In the words of Abraham Lincoln, America is "the last best hope on earth," and as the greatest force for good in the history of the world, I urge the president to leverage the soft approach he has taken in the opening months of his administration and call for a cease to the violence in the Middle East. I will not criticize the President for the length in time it took for the Presidential office to issue a statement on the senseless killing in the streets of Tripoli, after all, he is far more privileged to information than any of us. However, as the Irish political philosopher Edward Burke once put it, "All that is necessary for the triumph of Evil is that good men do nothing"

At a time of exceptional anti-Americanism, we must evoke our role as an historically exceptional people and promote unwaveringly and without compromise freedom for all.