At first, I was fooled into thinking the David Gelernter bit in Commentary might be an instructive piece on the religious foundations of the American nation. To a degree it is, but on the whole it's just more pulpit pounding.
The idea that Americanism is not just a religion but an actual branch of Judeo-Christianity is intriguing. Too bad Gelernter can't act as disinterested observer. How much more convincing he'd be if he didn't so identify with that religion.
'By Americanism I mean the set of beliefs that are thought to constitute America’s essence and to set it apart; the beliefs that make Americans positive that their nation is superior to all others—morally superior, closer to God.'
We should all accept our sense of moral superiority. But embracing it like a lover requires the glossing over of a great deal of our history and a very short memory. And if you can't fathom why other nations and cultures - and some fellow Americans - might feel threatened by that, then we all may be lost. But then, Anti-Americanists, as I gather from Gelernter, are merely religion-mockers, a group made up of journalists, professors, school teachers, Europeans, Muslims, and Al Gore.
Each of us believes we are morally superior to our neighbor. The real test of that ascendancy is our willingness to kill for it.
Posted by Bobby Farouk at January 15, 2005 07:16 AMWhat a silly article. Gelerntner seems wholly unaware of the radical changes that come over religions (or perhaps more importantly, believers) when they're transplanted into American soil. His assertions about Buddhists or Muslims having trouble with "Americanism" is not fundamentally different than what you might have read about Catholics a hundred years ago.
You can make as good a case for the disappearance of Puritanism by arguing that it was transformed by Emerson on one hand and Abolitionism on the other into political liberalism -- a movement religious in spirit even if lacking a creed. Mind you I find this theory dodgy and unprovable as well -- when I'm not pondering the latest smoking/ gun/"binge drinking" ban, at least -- but it holds just as much water as Gelerntner's.
What else has this guy done?
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 15, 2005 08:51 AMAs the article says, he's a professor of computer science at Yale. But more interestingly, he's one of the Unabomber's victims.
It's too bad it's such a silly, sloppy piece of work because I think the idea of Americans as the new Chosen People is fascinating (and disturbingly fantastic). Do we really think that? I mean, if you posed the question, Do you believe Americans are God's Chosen People? to the average main street Christian, would they say yes?
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at January 15, 2005 11:05 AMI think that they'd say no, myself, based on people I know.
That said, American exceptionalism is real -- it's just silly to reduce it down to a recasting of the book of Exodus. Furthermore, he's right that "New Jerusalem" imagery informed the thought of some colonists and some founders, and influences American thought today. But influencing isn't the same as equalling, and this is where Gelerntner falls on his ass.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 15, 2005 12:13 PMAmerican exceptionalism is real
Not sure what you mean by this. Is it real in that our faith in our "specialness" exists, or that our specialness is a fact? Further, when we say American exceptionalism, are we refering to America the world model, there for all others to copy and for us to export, or America with it's geography, resources, virtues and institutions existing here and no place else?
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at January 15, 2005 03:29 PMI'm not sure I can define American exceptionalism in a blog comment, but as I understand it, it's a theme of U.S. History that this country has been "different" somehow -- not subject to all the dreary rules of history. Almost a sense, looking back at the U.S., that it's had some sort of lucky rabbit's foot tucked away somewhere.
Mind you, this isn't necessarily intentional, though some founders did operate from visions of a New Jerusalem. Nor is this exceptionalism conciously percieved by Americans, though it has influenced ideas like Manifest Destiny and perhaps Wilson's fourteen points. Drawing careful lines between ideas (identifying the rabbit's foot) and conditions (identifying its effect) is really difficult, which is unfortunate because it's so necessary. Otherwise you tend to drift towards arguments that we're prosperous because our ancestors were virtuous in some way that requires everyone to agree with my own pet agenda, or else.
The Gelerntner essay isn't quite coherent enough to make this point, but I think his last few paragraphs are a good example of the muddy thinking you can drift into while thinking about these things. He cites conflations of European anti-religious feeling with anti-american feeling, which so far as I know are accurate. The problem is that he's using this to buttress his dodgy theory of "Americanism" as neo-Puritanism, implicitly asserting that America's "anti-religious" critics are perceiving the country accurately. Anyone who's seen Continental caricatures of President Bush dressed as a Catholic priest might beg to differ.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 16, 2005 09:01 PMBush dressed as a Catholic? How ridiculous.
How exactly does "American exceptionalism" differ from plain old national chauvenism?
Posted by: Alan Hogue at January 17, 2005 09:31 AMI think that's what dangerous about it. We give our national chauvinism a different name - a dressy name - which excuses us from an honest consideration of what it really is.
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at January 17, 2005 10:36 AMI just don't seem to be making my point at all, I suspect due to Gelerntner setting the context.
How exactly does "American exceptionalism" differ from plain old national chauvenism?
Because American exceptionalism is a theme of history. It's much vaguer than national chauvinism, which is a subject of historical study. It's not some sort of ideology, but rather just a way of asking some interesting questions:
Why didn't secularization continue in the US after the 1960's, as it did in Europe? Why did the welfare state never really develop in the US, as it did in Europe? Why was the Anglo/American confrontation with Native Americans genocidal and marginalizing instead of integrationist as in Latin America? Why did American constitutional democracy last so much longer than that of France? What explains the persistance of American isolationism? Why did a mix of ethnic groups form a melting pot in the US, but not in the Balkans? Why were military officers and plantation owners supporters of democracy in the US, rather than its opponents, as in Prussia? Why did race prejudice persist so doggedly in the US, as compared to Brazil? Why didn't the US make territorial or colonial demands after the World Wars?
Exceptionism isn't purely a theme of American history — similar questions can be asked of Costa Rica, the Netherlands, Brazil, or many other countries. It's not always a positive thing, either, as should be obvious from the questions I mentioned. But a sense of "differentness" is real, even if it is (or should be) morally neutral.
This sense can inspire national chauvinism (my Manifest Destiny example), can be used to back all sorts of positive agendas, and as perceived externally can fuel both adulation and demonization. But it's not the same thing as any of them, and it's very tricky to sort out exactly what things are real differences, what their causes might be, and what their implications are.
If Alan A's around, he might shed some professional light on this.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 17, 2005 11:25 AMSome definitions resulting from a Google search:
The American Creed: Does It Matter? Should It Change? Michael Lind reviews American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword in Foreign Affairs.
American exceptionalism has come to have two meanings. For many politicians, it is a term of praise: the United States, compared to other countries, is unusually good. For social scientists and political philosophers, American exceptionalism presents an intellectual problem: why does the United States differ in significant ways from most other industrial democracies?
A book on the history of American exceptionalism by Deborah L. Madsen:
Exceptionalism, the notion that Americans have a distinct and special destiny different from that of other nations, permeates every period of American history. It is the single most powerful force in forming the American identity.
An antiwar.com article equating American Exceptionalism with imperialism, before acknowledging that "America is exceptional":
Many Americans, like the citizens of dominant nations of the past, believe that their way of life is superior and should be shared with other peoples—often at gunpoint. Lately, this American exceptionalism has assumed even more pernicious forms.
A Counterpunch article on American Exceptionalism that sees both positives and negatives, before concluding with a predictable rant:
On a basic political level, this phenomenon is the belief that, for some reason (America's system of democracy, or maybe its economic superiority), the United States system is not subject to the same contradictions and influences as those of the rest of the world. . . . . It is this belief that gave the Pilgrims their heavenly go-ahead to murder Pequot women and children and it was this belief that gave General Custer his approval to kill as many Sioux as he could. . . . It gives George Bush the only rationale he needs to continue his crusade against the part of the world that stands in the way of the more mercenary men and women behind his throne as they pursue their project for a new American century.
[I]t informs a goodly number of decent Americans in their tentative opposition to those men and women. . . . It can be found in the struggle for equal rights for women, gays and lesbians; and it can be found in the struggle against racism.
Finally, here's what appears to be a half-finished essay on the subject, which is rich with links and quotations.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 17, 2005 02:22 PM