American exceptionalism and its impact on presidents’ foreign policy

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM AND ITS IMPACT ON PRESIDENTS' FOREIGN POLICY

LEAH ACHOR

Dr. Frederick Neikirk

Department of Political Science

Geneva College

May 2012

(Update and Final Revisions August 2012)



Table of Contents

List of Figuresiv

PART I

1. Introduction

1.1 History of the Term

1.2 Importance

2. Introduction to Definitions

3. Traditionalists

3.1 The United States' Inception Makes It Exceptional

3.1.1 Summary of Inceptional Exceptionalism

3.2 The United States' Mission Makes It Exceptional

3.2.1 Summary of Missional Exceptionalism

3.3 The United States' Nationalism Makes It Exceptional

3.3.1 Summary of National Exceptionalism

3.4 Traditionalist Summary and Foreign Policy Implications

4. Erosionists

4.1 The Troubling Erosion of Exceptionalism

4.1.1 Summary of Troubling Erosion

4.2 The Healthy Erosion of Exceptionalism

4.2.1 Summary of Healthy Erosion

4.3 The Neutral Erosion of Exceptionalism

4.3.1 Summary of Neutral Erosion

4.4 Erosionist Summary and Foreign Policy Implications

5. Equalists

5.1 Equalist Summary and Foreign Policy Implications

PART II

6. Introduction to Content Analysis

6.1 Foreign Policy Implications of Views of American Exceptionalism

6.2 Methodology

7. Content Analysis

7.1 George W. Bush

7.2 Barack Obama

7.3 Mitt Romney

7.4 Summary of Content Analysis

8. My View

8.1 Is the United States a Christian Nation?

8.2 Undeserved Exceptionalism

9. Conclusion

Works Cited

Works Consulted



List of Figures

Figure 1A

Exponential Increase in Discussion of “American Exceptionalism” in American Media5

Figure 7A

Bush's Words Included in Analysis65

Figure 7B

Obama's Words Included in Analysis69

Figure 7C

Romney's Words Included in Analysis73

Figure 7D

Percentage of Analyzed Content Considered Exceptional76



PART I

1. Introduction

“Too often Americans talk past one another. Although most of us agree that the United States is exceptional, we do so for very different reasons.”

David Lake David Lake, “Is America exceptional? Liberals, conservatives agree--and disagree,” CNN Opinion, December 2, 2012.

The debate over American exceptionalism is largely a definitional one. This amorphous concept is defined in innumerable ways. Some people think American exceptionalism is God's distinct blessing on the United States since the nation's beginning. Others think it is a superiority complex which informs conservative political ideology. Still others think it is nothing more than extreme nationalism Godfrey Hodgson, The Myth of American Exceptionalism (New Haven, London: Yale University Press: 2009). or an excuse for imperialism. Byron Williams, “What Is American Exceptionalism?” HuffingtonPost.com, November 11, 2011. Most often, however, American exceptionalism as a concept is left undefined altogether. Any preliminary study of American exceptionalism will demonstrate that those who discuss it mean various things. Therefore, my first task is to impress upon the reader the crucial task of examining each definition and each view of American exceptionalism before diving into the concept's implications.

Broadly speaking, American exceptionalism is the belief that the United States is qualitatively different from all other nations. Though widely acknowledged, this idea has been wholly underestimated and its influence underrated. Some of the most fundamental arguments in the United States may well hinge on ideological beliefs grounded in a position on whether or not America is exceptional--and if so, what does this mean?

1.1 History of the Term

Americans have a funny way of reforming epithets into positive characterizations. The use of the term “American exceptionalism” easily fits this pattern. Most American exceptionalism scholars reference Democracy in America (1835, 1840), Alexis de Tocqueville's seminal work, as the first of the explicit demonstrations of American exceptionalism. A French observer of the United States in its earliest days as an organized republic, Tocqueville praised the United States, noting its national political qualities and continually returning to the country's extraordinary birth for an explanation of its uniqueness. Traveling around the country in 1831, he identified three factors which contribute to the United States' uniqueness: its geography, its law and judiciary system, and the moral character of its people. Alexis de Tocqueville EDITED BY Michael Kammen, ed., Democracy in America (New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2009), 17. exceptionalism foreign erosion policy

Tocqueville notes the characteristics of exceptionalism, rooted in the all-important genesis of the nation. He claims that they form a consciousness that is conducive to popular sovereignty and “recognized in values, heralded in laws; it expands with liberty and moves unencumbered to its ultimate fulfillment.” Ibid., 53-4. Tocqueville's exceptionalism is based on the newness of the United States' approach to social equality as well as the abundance of opportunities, not necessarily successes. He claims definitively, “The people rule in the American political realm as God rules the universe.” Ibid., 55. Undoubtedly a product of his time, Tocqueville effortlessly associated the success and culture of the United States with reliance upon God. However, Michael Coulter Michael Coulter, “Alexis de Tocqueville and the Distinctive Characteristics of Democratic America,” (paper presented at “America: Still the Last Best Hope?” conference at Grove City College, Grove City, Pennsylvania, April 7-8, 2011). and T. David Gordon T. David Gordon, “The Roots of Tocqueville's American Exceptionalism,” April 1, 2011. claim that Tocqueville is misquoted, and that when he stated the United States is “exceptional” he was referring to something else--perhaps a negative quality.

In what is likely the most frequently referenced passage of Democracy in America, Tocqueville states,

The position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one. Their strictly Puritanical origin--their exclusively commercial habits--even the country they inhabit, which seems to divert their minds from the pursuit of science, literature, and the arts--the proximity of Europe, which allows them to neglect these pursuits without relapsing into barbarism--a thousand special causes, of which I have only been able to point out the most important--have singularly concurred to fix the mind of the American upon purely practical objects. His passions, his wants, his education, and everything about him seem to unite in drawing the native of the United States earthward…Let us cease then to view all democratic nations under the mask of the American people, and let us attempt to survey them at length with their own proper features.

Gordon argues that, in describing Americans' distaste and neglect of the sciences and arts, Tocqueville was not praising this uniqueness. Instead, he was pointing out that Americans are less suited to scientific pursuits and are therefore somewhat less accomplished global citizens. Americans are more practically-minded people due to their Puritan heritage and the necessity of working the land. These factors, of course, serve as reasons the United States is unique. If Gordon interprets Tocqueville properly, then, “The American is `exceptional,'…in his lack of artistic or intellectual culture. But this is not damning with faint praise; this is damning with vigorous criticism.” Gordon, “Roots of Tocqueville's Exceptionalism.” Coulter agrees with Gordon's take, commenting that “the general argument is that Americans have little interest in art or literature, which Tocqueville attributes to the practical orientation combined with the Puritan religious influence. Exceptionalism in this regard is not a good thing.” Coulter, “Tocqueville and the Distinctive Characteristics.”

A second example of a less than complimentary use of this term is Joseph Stalin's criticism of American communists. In what was likely the first use of the phrase “American exceptionalism,” Stalin was referring in 1929 to Jay Lovestone and John Pepper's theory that the American communist party was not constrained to follow the same pattern that other communist bodies had. Marxists Internet Archive, trans., “Stalin's Speeches on the American Communist Party,” Stalin Works Project, (Corvallis, OR: 1000 Flowers Publishing, 2005), Preface. Instead, Lovestone, Pepper and other American communists suggested the pursuit of a different course to communism than the Soviet Union had taken. The dissenters argued that the qualities of the United States made it possible for American communists to rely on different means and to work amenably with groups Stalin opposed. Therefore, this theory could have given American communists reason to separate themselves from Stalin's vision of a worldwide communist body. Stalin was unsurprisingly perturbed by the theory of American distinctiveness and only used the term “American exceptionalism” derisively.

Despite its varied early connotations, American exceptionalism has become an American rallying point, especially for politicians. People have somehow morphed this concept into one of great pride in the American way, and it is used often in political discourse. So how much power does this concept have?

1.2 Importance

There are two related and easily identifiable implications for this idea of American exceptionalism. The first is its growing impact on politics as reflected in the media. Jerome Karabel of The Huffington Post produced the following figure, which displays how dramatically the number of mentions of the term “American exceptionalism” in the news has increased in the last eleven years.



Karabel claims this dramatic increase reflects the importance of American exceptionalism in politics, calling it a “key battleground in the 2012 presidential election.” Jerome Karabel, “`American Exceptionalism' and the Battle for the Presidency,” Huffington Post, December 22, 2011. This is unsurprising to those who have been following the election, particularly debates and remarks made by President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

The second implication is the way it allows us to understand the U.S. in comparison to other nations and thus, American exceptionalism is also influential on foreign policy. Seymour Martin Lipset, one of the foremost scholars in the field of American exceptionalism, has said, “It is impossible to understand a country without seeing how it varies from others. Those who know only one country know no country.” Seymour Martin Lipset, American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1996), 17. It is crucial to develop a national sense of self before attempting to approach the world. Stephen M. Walt, on the other hand, says American exceptionalism is a “basic misunderstanding of America's role in the world.” Stephen M. Walt, “The Myth of American Exceptionalism,” Foreign Policy, November 2011, 72-75. If a perspective on American exceptionalism can be such a departure from what is right, this idea certainly has profound implications for the way the United States approaches interactions with all other global actors. American exceptionalism also affects the way politicians conduct domestic policy. For example, politicians have chosen to preserve the imperial measurement system in the United States rather than adopting the globally accepted metric system. This and other instances of keeping American traditions alive are part of exceptionalism's domestic influence.

Elections and foreign policy are related in that a president's foreign policy is a determinant of his electability. A president's take on American exceptionalism is an important part of his plan for foreign policy action. The way a president looks at his own country determines how he will respond to others, especially if he believes the United States has a particular role to play in the world. Consequently, it is very important that voters in elections are knowledgeable about candidates' perspectives on American exceptionalism and foreign policy. Informed voting can be helped by a study of a politician's beliefs about America and its role in the world.

In light of this, what is the link between politicians' rhetoric and their views of American exceptionalism and resulting foreign policy? This exercise is not a purely academic one. I am confident that a president's foreign policy can be retraced to his estimation of the uniqueness of the United States. If so, there is value in determining a potential candidate's view of American exceptionalism because it can help predict what kind of policy a president will enact. This, in turn, has important implications for citizens' informed voting. Given this discussion, this paper has two purposes: to shed light on the various definitions and meanings of American exceptionalism and to explore the link between views of exceptionalism and foreign policy.



2. Introduction to Definitions

The crux of this study is the definition of American exceptionalism, which, I intend to show, impacts a person's foreign policy. Americans generally agree that the United States is different from other nations. The debate, of course, lies in what this means, as well as what normative prescriptions should guide the country. This debate is definitional, but it also hinges on one crucial point: whether someone believes the United States is simply different or if it is better. Of the authors in my study, very few are willing to claim that the United States is better; it is only different from other nations.

The way the term is used in the media, however, is unrepresentative of the literature. “American exceptionalism” is often used in a political context to mean “better” in order to caricature people who believe this (usually conservatives). These caricatures are driven by the idea that believing in the United States as better is a superiority complex: inaccurate, hubristic, and even xenophobic. Some fear this belief in superiority gives the U.S. too much power to dominate other nations economically and militarily. Nevertheless, when people comment on Obama's or Romney's take on whether the United States should be a leader in the world, they are often inferring that these men have a certain position on whether the U.S. must be better than every other nation in order to merit such a role.

Given these debates, it is crucial to anyone speaking about American exceptionalism that the conversation begins with an understanding of whether other speakers are dealing with the United States as different or better. In this analysis, I will shed a bit of light on how some describe the U.S. as “better” and attempt to provide some clarity as to the unspoken definitions of American exceptionalism that mean “different.”

However, it is important for me to clarify that the categories I developed to make sense of the definitions of American exceptionalism are not perfect. They are fuzzy because I created three broad categories as well as emphases within each category, which overlap to varying degrees. You will see in my analyses of various authors' works that sometimes the same evidence is used to come to a slightly different conclusion. Though similar authors are in the same broad category, I have given them differing labels because these best identify their emphases and arguments for or against the exceptional nature of the United States.

Scholars, journalists, bloggers, politicos, and others have written on the topic of American exceptionalism, and most can be placed in one of three categories: belief that the U.S. remains unique, belief that the U.S. once was unique but is in the process of losing its uniqueness, or belief that the U.S. has never been unique compared to other nations. I have named these divergent perspectives traditionalist, erosionist, and equalist, respectively.

3. Traditionalists

“America is really exceptional, which means that not everyone can be like us and we should not expect them to be.”

James Bennett James C. Bennett, “Exceptional Down to the Bone - Anatomizing the origins of the American character,” National Review, June 21, 2010.

Traditionalists are those who believe that the United States is a unique or special nation, one whose status cannot be altered, even by drastic national actions. What made America exceptional has been completed or is immutable, and the nation will continue to be exceptional. It must be noted that very few traditionalists are willing to claim that the United States is “better” than other nations; it is simply considered different.

Within the traditionalist camp are three schools of thought which point to different sources of evidence for the exceptionalism of the United States: its inception, its mission, or its nationalism. Remember that my labels are not precise and that labels are applied to the emphases the authors present, though various authors' ideas overlap a good deal.

3.1 The United States' Inception Makes It Exceptional

Many scholars return to the beginning of the United States to find evidence for its uniqueness among world nations. America was truly the “great experiment,” and history has shown that the Founding Fathers had something right when they wrote the American Constitution. There is reason, however, to dig even further into the early American conscious. Exceptionalists who find evidence for American uniqueness in the early days of settling the New World or the establishment of the United States as a nation are students of American inception. Within this group are three emphases: the influence of the Puritans, the lack of feudal tradition, and the availability of land for settlement.

The Puritan governor John Winthrop indelibly marked the American psyche with his famous 1630 exhortation to fellow Massachusetts Bay settlers: “For we must consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us.” Terry Golway, ed., Words that Ring Through Time (New York: The Overlook Press, 2009), 58. Thus, a study of American exceptionalism would be grossly incomplete without an examination of the Puritan influence that shaped the ideology of the New World. Daniel J. Boorstin's The Genius of American Politics (1953) does just this. Focusing on the United States' unique inception, Boorstin defines American exceptionalism as the unusual lack of a coherent national political philosophy Daniel J. Boorstin, The Genius of American Politics (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1953), 8. due to the belief in “givenness.” It is also the belief that the values in America are in some way or another automatically defined. Ibid., 9. Boorstin proposes three forms of this automatic definition: a gift from the past, a gift from the present, and continuity.

Boorstin identifies givenness as a gift from the past in many Americans' belief that the American Constitution was created with uncommon foresight from the Founding Fathers. The American law and character which today depart from the Constitution, according to Boorstin, can be attributed to this same brilliance which included a system of amending the document in its creation. He contends that the gift of the past comes in the belief that any reinterpretation of the Constitution is actually what the Founders meant in the document. Ibid., 15-16. As a lobster grows into its exoskeleton, Boorstin holds, many American citizens believe the United States is gradually growing into the proper manifestation of its law and character. In contrast, the legal system of England is tied to the static Magna Charta until the House of Lords determines to gradually reinterpret and change the law. The United States is unique in its legal grounding and incredible foresight.

The gift of the present is “the notion that values are implicit in the American experience,” Ibid., 23-24. or the American creed. The United States has one of the strongest matrices of virtues in the world, though Boorstin points out the unique irony of the difficulty in expressing them comprehensively. Somehow, “magically,” the values of democracy, liberty, and opportunity are known by every American, as if they came with the air we breathe. Ibid., 25.

Continuity is Boorstin's estimation of the unique situation of the United States, no doubt on account of its geographical position. He says, “The prize for which Europeans would have to shed blood would seem the free native birthright of Americans.” Ibid., 34. There has been continuity in infrastructure and in safety from being overtaken by outsiders as well as special opportunities for expansion and exploitation of the land. Ibid.

The use of this fundamental givenness in history depends on its actors. For the Puritans, the belief in “givenness” even as they arrived on the North American continent Ibid., 38. was the sense of divine order in the universe and the providential bestowing of the their task as they settled the New World. The continent was not discovered by accident, these pious settlers believed; consequently, the inhabitants had no small purpose. Ibid., 47. The particular circumstances of settling of the New World were a necessary condition for the current American situation; they cannot be duplicated in another nation.

For immigrants to the U.S., American givenness is the lack of national focus on imparting a particular American creed. If an immigrant does not learn the ways and customs of the United States, his American dream is unlikely to come true, but nobody is forcing his enculturation. Because of the uncommonly loose nature of American affiliation, the U.S. has been the world's “melting pot” for generations. Boorstin said of this phenomenon, “[An immigrant] is not required to learn a philosophy so much as to rid his lungs of the air of Europe.” Ibid., 28. The absence of a distinct political philosophy enables multiple cultures to subtly and unconsciously combine with American traditions.

This “givenness” has not crippled the United States, but has kept it on a unique track onto which other nations cannot possibly venture. In conjunction, Boorstin says the United States' lack of an explicit political philosophy and the difficulty in passing on undefined American characteristics precludes the United States from expecting other nations to adopt its political traditions. The birth and development of the United States is unique and cannot be replicated in another nation. Therefore, according to Boorstin, foreign policy should not be used to make other countries like the U.S., nor should politicians attempt this futile task.

Louis Hartz emphasizes a second unique characteristic of the United States: its lack of feudal tradition, which keeps it from becoming a class-conscious society. In his The Liberal Tradition in America, he capitalizes on Tocqueville's statement that “[Americans] are born equal, instead of becoming so.” de Tocqueville and Kammen, Democracy, 112. Hartz explains that the lack of a societal hierarchy is what makes the United States unique, but he echoes Lipset in saying that this can only be seen in the act of comparison to other nations, without which distinguishing the United States is impossible. Lipset, Double-Edged Sword, 17. The lack of feudal tradition, argues Hartz, leads to the U.S.'s liberal tradition, which draws heavily on Locke's concepts of equality of man and individualism. He argues that this is an unseen and yet interwoven political philosophy, much like Boorstin's “givenness.” However, Hartz departs slightly from Boorstin in cautioning against mindless consensus. He says the curious “basic ethical problem of a liberal society [is] not the danger of the majority which has been its conscious fear, but the danger of unanimity, which has slumbered unconsciously behind it.” Louis Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1955), 11. Hartz claims this egalitarian mindset also allows the United States to be less reactionary than Europeans and less inclined to have a strong socialist movement, which is echoed by Lipset. Ibid., 6. All of these combine to set the United States apart because of its lack of social class structure.

The third emphasis of early exceptional American traits is that of the availability of land. This is discussed by another exceptionalist who focuses on the birth of the United States, Frederick J. Turner (1920), whose “frontier thesis” explains the United States' unique development due to geographical circumstances. He defines American exceptionalism as the uniqueness--particularly democratic uniqueness--resulting from settlers' interaction with vast available land on the North American continent. He contends that the settling of the West uniquely formed the American political structure; it “has vitalized all American democracy, and has brought it into sharp contrasts with the democracies of history, and with those modern efforts of Europe to create an artificial democratic order by legislation.” Frederick J. Turner, The Frontier in American History, Chapter IX, “Contributions of the West to American Democracy,” (Harvard University, 1920), public domain. He asserts that the United States' ability to settle its own land, unburdened by geographical limitations or other national borders, combined with a belief in Manifest Destiny, allowed the nation to flourish and provide a different expression of human progress than any other nation can provide. The “just so” circumstances induced the American society that survives today.

Turner argues that “American democracy is fundamentally the outcome of the experiences of the American people in dealing with the West,” Ibid. but since the contiguous land of the United States has been won and settled by the time he writes in 1920, he wonders whether the continuation of democracy is possible. He asks, “What ideals persist from this democratic experience of the West, and have they acquired sufficient momentum to sustain themselves under conditions so radically unlike those in the days of their origin?” Ibid. The answer, he finds, lies in the enduring ability of American land to offer a physical and ideological frontier.

When ideological minorities in the early United States faced opposition, they moved. Turner finds that this mobility enabled individualism--one of the indisputable tenets of Americanism--to spread across the continent, bringing democracy with it. He explains,

Consider the Dunkards, the Icarians, the Fourierists, the Mormons, and similar idealists who sought our Western wilds…[Mobility] gave to the pioneer farmer and city builder a restless energy, a quick capacity for judgment and action, a belief in liberty, freedom of opportunity, and a resistance to the domination of class which infused a vitality and power into the individual atoms of this democratic mass. Even as he dwelt among the stumps of his newly cut clearing, the pioneer had the creative vision of a new order of society. Ibid.

Unlike other developed European nations, the United States provided the safe haven for pioneers of ideas, religions, and methods. In fact, it can be argued from Turner's thesis that, though settled, the U.S. today is the “New World” for those whose ideas are persecuted elsewhere. It is no wonder the United States has the highest immigration rate in the world, with upwards of forty million immigrants living within its borders as of 2010. Dilip Ratha, Sanket Mohapatra, and Ani Silwal, “Migration and Remittances: Top Countries,” The Migration and Remittances Factbook 2011, World Bank Group, 2011.

Deborah Madsen (1998) draws on Turner and acknowledges the Puritan influence Boorstin emphasizes in her detailed account of the growth of American exceptionalism in the nascent United States. Throughout her work, she demonstrates the explicit connection between the Puritans' Tudor ancestry and the formation of the American creed in the New World. The colonists, says Madsen, claimed a “complex Tudor inheritance” whose “historical and theological assumptions…developed a distinctive and long-lasting narrative of American identity” Deborah L. Madsen, American Exceptionalism (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998), 9. in which God redeems entire polities, not just individuals. Ibid., 9. In this, her definition of exceptionalism, Madsen allows the fact that there were many similarities between the inhabitants of the Old World and the New because the Puritans certainly could not throw off everything connected to their homeland. However, she claims that, though some European customs necessarily translated into the New World, the Puritans saw themselves as an exceptional and distinct people with a particular task to undertake. Referencing Perry Miller's study of early Americanism, Madsen says he capably “describe[d] the unique qualities of American Puritanism and the long-term impact of these qualities upon the developing nation.” Ibid. The Puritans' beliefs and activities were indispensable to the particular formation of the United States, and they have not been duplicated elsewhere.

A theory therefore only applicable to the United States, Madsen's explanation connects the theological roots of Manifest Destiny to exceptionalism in the American West. The birth of the United States as an ideological nation is seen as unique. However, Madsen does claim that proponents of a theory of “national perfection” are bound to be put off by American slavery's clear violation of human equality and American ideals. Ibid., 150. A foreign policy informed by this does not disparage the beneficial qualities of the United States, but cautions against hubris. Americans must acknowledge national sins as evidence that inhabitants of the United States are not perfect, but this must not keep the U.S. from being steadfast in its good qualities of equality and justice which are constantly being reevaluated to apply to all people.

3.1.1 Summary of Inceptional Exceptionalism

Each of the inceptional theorists holds that the United States was special at its creation. The most striking enduring characteristic of the nation in the New World is the Puritan heritage brought to America. The religious piety and the work ethic brought by the devoted Puritan settlers set the continent's inhabitants on a course unlike any other witnessed in history.

The availability of land is another widely cited reason for the differences in the formulation of the American character from those evinced in Europe. The settlers' takeover of land was relatively easy and required little to no legal proceedings. Their adventurousness and encouragement to settle land was a boon to the resulting democratic tradition of the United States.

It is important to note that the influence of the Puritans who settled in the North American continent, their lack of feudal tradition, and the availability of land at the beginning of the United States cannot be duplicated. Traditional exceptionalists who emphasize the nation's inception are adamant that these events were unique and once-and-done. They cannot and will not occur anywhere else in the world, and therefore the beginning of the United States will forever mark it as exceptional.

3.2 The United States' Mission Makes It Exceptional

Another group of traditional exceptionalists emphasizes the mission of the United States as more weighty than the nation's beginning alone. The emphasis of missional exceptionalists is the goal of being an example to others that Americans have always had deep in their psyche. Though these exceptionalists also find evidence from the Puritans, it is of a different sort. They turn to the Puritans' strongly held belief in God's leading them to create the “city on a hill” in the New World. They held their sacred duty to glorify God with an undeniable tenacity, and this duty marked all local and governmental interactions.

Sacvan Bercovitch (1975), one such missional exceptionalist, asserts that the Puritan influence marked New England's founding and continued to affect American thought through the Romantic era. The Puritans' belief in their own particular destiny informs Bercovitch's definition of exceptionalism as a nation's widely held belief in a sacred mission or duty which no other nation can accomplish.

Citing Cotton Mather's reference to John Winthrop as “Nehemias Americanus,” Cotton Mather, “Nehemias Americanus. The Life of John Winthrop, Esq., Governor of the Massachusetts Colony.” Magnalia Christi Americana, ed. Thomas Robbins, 2^nd ed. (Hartford: 1853), Vol. I, 118-131. Bercovitch examines Mather's choosing of this term for the New England dignitary and “Jerusalem” for the region itself. Sacvan Bercovitch, The Puritan Origins of the American Self (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1975), 61. The biblical prophet Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem with a band of Israelites released from exile to rebuild the city, particularly the temple and the walls. In the same way, Mather equates Winthrop to the prophet who leads his people into a new or reclaimed territory charged with a purpose. The Puritan purpose was to do what no other men had been able to do thus far: establish a nation to acknowledge God and serve as an example of a successful experiment in the benefits of holy devotion. Reacting to the circumstances which forced them to leave Europe, including “the failure of European Protestantism,” Ibid., 102. the Puritans developed a wholly new society to be a model for all others. They believed “the destiny of Christ's people in America was the destiny of mankind.” Ibid., 62. Bercovitch's analysis of Mather's work highlights the religious devotion and inherent trajectory of a people's particular American “destiny” even before the political establishment of their nation.

Though a high calling, the Puritans did not waver in their stated purpose. In fulfilling their mission, the Puritans believed the settling of the New World could be the reasonable expression of faith and producer of earthly success. Ibid., 136-9. Indeed, the providential circumstances which benefited the Puritan settlers would be remembered by Americans like Harriet Beecher Stowe, who shared their belief in exceptionality and declared that the United States “gloriously” revels in the same Providence as it fulfills its commission “to bear the light of liberty and religion through all the earth.” Bercovitch, 87-8, referencing Stowe, referenced by Edmund Wilson, Patriotic Gore: Studies in the Literature of the American Civil War (New York, 1962), 8-9, 84-85. Bercovitch's study of Puritan language reveals its hold even hundreds of years later in the ethos of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Clearly, the religious settlers of the United States held such a strong belief in a particular mission that it continues to inform the nation's religious and secular psyches today.

Elaborating on the Puritan-influenced mission in the groundbreaking American Revolution, Walter McDougall (1997) argues that the Founding Fathers did not believe the United States was exceptional in order that it might do something miraculous on the world stage, but that it might be something special and provide an example of democracy for the rest of the world. Walter A. McDougall, Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World since 1776 (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997), 20. “Foreign policy existed to defend, not define, what America was,” he says. Ibid., 37. George Washington and others formulated the existing government to keep the United States from foreign entanglements and leave it to be a successful unilateral nation. The position Washington held as the first head of the executive branch of the United States allowed him to protect the qualities that made the United States a new and remarkable republic, but his foreign policy duties “were not themselves an expression of [American Exceptionalism].” Ibid., 28.

McDougall departs from some missional traditionalists in saying that the United States is exceptional in its domestic characteristics, but that it should not attempt to promote these elsewhere or force other nations to adopt American practices. Ibid., 20. He argues that the Founding Fathers did not believe in “choosing friends” based on compatible governments or similar values, nor did the U.S. seek to eradicate all opposition, as John Quincy Adams said, “America does not go in search of monsters to destroy…” Ibid., 33. Rather, foreign policy was determined based on the United States' best interests, which were fundamentally the interests that would preserve the new government which would operate by the hand of people of the nation but for the world to see.

Also nodding to the Puritan-begun tradition of exceptionalism, Mark Tooley (2010) says that, though direct Puritan influence decreased as more immigrants came to the New World, the tradition of belief in a divine mission to uphold the world and lead it in godliness did not vanish. In fact, Tooley draws an interesting parallel to the political birth of the United States: “…the Puritan conception of America on a special mission from God that would benefit not just Americans but all peoples was reinforced by the heroic and spiritually animated struggle for American independence.” Mark Tooley, “Thanksgiving and American Exceptionalism,” The American Spectator Online (Nov, 2010).

Commenting on contemporary exceptionalist sentiment, Tooley critiques the Religious Left's belief that God actually has a special role for every nation, highlighting America's position in the world as an “outsized influence” compared to other countries' contributions to global prosperity. Ibid. He uses this as evidence of its special and rightly deserved status as a superpower. However, he explicitly combats the notion that a special American mission in the world is equal to domineering world command or that, due to many exceptionalists' traditional reliance on military might, “American exceptionalists are potentially dangerous.” Ibid. Instead, the United States is to be a beneficent leader with “special duties, not special privileges.” Ibid. Citing a bishop's words at the end of World War I, Tooley asserts that we must not be prideful in our mission, but we must not shirk it either. Indeed, “American exceptionalism is…an `awful responsibility' intertwined with obligation towards God and the rest of the world.” Ibid.

3.2.1 Summary of Missional Exceptionalism

The Puritans who settled the American continent never took this supposed obligation lightly. On the contrary, their purpose and hope in reaching the New World was to create a pious and missional society that would rival all others for the attention and approval of God himself. With his supposed blessing, they established their communities and paved the way for a morally conscious nation with a particular duty to the rest of the world. The mission in which they believed still manifests itself today, but it would not be so if not for their tenacious devotion to creating a “city on a hill” hundreds of years ago. Furthermore, the United States has enjoyed its economic and military success because of its adherence to the conviction that this country was chosen by God to have the duty of civilizing, leading, and perhaps Christianizing the world. This is an important addition to the missional policy, as success often determines the retention or disavowal of ideas. To the missional exceptionalists, the United States is special, designated by God as different, and therefore is expected to lead in the world. However, the working out of this leadership, discussed at the conclusion of this chapter, is disputed in foreign policy.

3.3 The United States' Nationalism Makes It Exceptional

National exceptionalists find that the qualities of the United States which are heralded, such as liberty, democracy, individualism, and work ethic, make it a distinct nation in the world. They argue that these are different characteristics than are glorified elsewhere or they are held in such a way that stands out from other countries' espousals of characteristics. This category of exceptionalism is the most difficult to define, as characteristic definitions are similar and “nationalism” is an amorphous feeling about the nation which nevertheless deeply animates American vigor.

Minxin Pei (2003) calls the United States exceptional because its citizens hold a very strong voluntary nationalism that is oddly unrecognizable to them. Minxin Pei, “The Paradoxes of American Nationalism,” Foreign Policy (May 2003). This nationalism is unique for three reasons: First, it is very widely-held by Americans. Second, it is a voluntary nationalism. Third, it is made of different qualities than any other nationalism in the world.

Citing a University of Chicago survey conducted after 9/11, Pei reports that 97 percent of Americans agreed with the statement “I would rather be a citizen of America than of any other country in the world,” and 49 percent agreed that “The world would be a better place if people from other countries were more like the Americans.” Other Western nations, even democracies, did not respond the same way to questions about their own homes or about the positive nature of American ways.⁵⁷ Ibid.

Second, Americans are uniquely volunteers, not mandatory participants, in their own national identity. Pei says,

Elsewhere in the world, the state plays an indispensable role in promoting nationalism, which is frequently a product of political manipulation by elites and consequently has a manufactured quality to it. But in the United States, although individual politicians often try to exploit nationalism for political gains, the state is conspicuously absent. Ibid.

Though most Americans are nationalistic actors in everyday interactions, their deeply-held nationalism is paradoxically denied in discourse. Ibid. This is a reflection of Pei's idea that Americans do not recognize their own nationalistic attitudes, especially considering “nationalism” is treated like a four-letter word today. Pei claims that nationalism may be hidden because other nations possess a different kind of nationalism that is more easily seen.

Pei argues that American nationalism is different from all others in three ways: it is a political, positive, and progressive sentiment. First, it does not have an ethnic or “superior” grounding, but a political one. The United States as the world's melting pot has been generally open to all immigrants and ethnicities

Second, it is a positive sentiment, not a bitter or “aggrieved” one. Because of the United States' openness to immigrants and history free of foreign occupation, Americans do not have any grudges against other world powers. Pei contrasts the United States with India and Egypt, who are very nationalistic but who cultivated this sentiment through subjugation by stronger empires. Instead, the United States' nationalism is often a product of foreign aggression or war, though it holds steadily strong years before and after wars. The University of Chicago survey mentioned above was also conducted before the events of 9/11 and found that 90 percent of Americans were happy to live in the United States over any other nation.

Third, it is a progressive sentiment. American nationalism is globally exceptional because it is the first forward-looking, triumphant political sentiment. Ibid. Pei admits that the creed of the United States does gain its strength from its historical grounding and, whether they know it or not, Americans uphold the values of the Puritans and the Founding Fathers. However, the character of the United States is such that its citizens do not sit still, but they are constantly active in making the world a better place. “They look forward to even better times ahead, not just at home, but also abroad.” Ibid.

This is undoubtedly why the United States is distrusted by numerous nations. Pei argues that modern anti-Americanism is a result of the distaste for this American nationalism and played out in foreign policy with a “missionary spirit.” Ibid. In addition, nobody quite understands foreign policy actions since Americans are unwilling to call their sentiments “nationalism” and foreigners are resentful of the capricious nature of American decisions. Ibid. Pei cautions the United States to check its nationalism if only for the sake of preserving national legitimacy abroad.

Jeffrey Bergner (2010) describes the Founders' goals in creating the United States as different from European goals in that they elevated people's demands over the government's. He states that the settlers of the New World were quite similar to the Europeans from whence they had come, save for the drastic political changes effected in America. Jeffrey Bergner, “Europe Is No Model: the genius of American politics,” The Weekly Standard, (May 2010). The new kinds of union and political culture formed have saved the United States from political and economic turmoil, which is presently manifesting itself in the economic meltdown in several European nations. Deep recognition of underlying unity, liberty and equality, limited government, and diversity has also set the United States apart from its European ancestors, Bergner claims. Ibid. Europe has been a different story since the United States was formed; in fact, “European politics is a slow engine of self-destruction.” Ibid. Meanwhile, the United States continues to thrive and produce some of “America's best traditions.” Ibid.

Noemie Emery (2008) asserts that knowing the difference between good and evil--and knowing where the United States stands--is essential for resting in the proper moral posture of the nation. Before the United States was officially established, she argues, the lines of good and evil had been identified by the immigrants to the New World.

Today, however, the definitions of good and evil are much more nuanced. “There is the evil that exists in even `good' states and people, which must be accepted and worked with, and evil that crosses the line and must be dealt with forcibly. Knowing the difference between them is the prime task of statesmen, who must never use force when other methods will suffice, but not shy from doing so when only force can prevail.” Noemie Emory, “Evil Under the Sun: Barack Obama and American exceptionalism,” The Weekly Standard (November 3-10, 2008). Emery analyzes John F. Kennedy's 1961 inaugural speech and Ronald Reagan's 1974 speech at a conservative conference, contrasting these forthright declarations about good and evil with the pervasive doubt about superiority that plagues the modern political Left. She fears that Obama rejects the notion of American exceptionalism and therefore misunderstands the core principles of good and evil, which can only mean the destruction of the American way of life. Ibid. This knowledge of good and evil, Emery stresses, is a distinctly American perspective that must be preserved in order to lead the world to its betterment.

Traditionalist Charles Krauthammer (2009) holds to an exceptionalism with two definitional bases: the United States' global superlatives and inherent virtue. First, the United States has captured several superlative titles, which it has held for multiple decades. Krauthammer highlights these titles: America has the “most dynamic, innovative, technologically advanced economy in the world.” Charles Krauthammer, “Decline Is a Choice; The New Liberalism and the end of American ascendancy.” The Weekly Standard, Vol. 15 No. 5 (October 19, 2009). He also cites the extremely high productivity of this economy and the people who constantly develop the new products on the global markets.

Second, Krauthammer claims that the United States is a benign hegemon, though an accidental one. He holds to a version of American exceptionalism whose expressions are best seen in national power, and he believes the United States has a right and responsibility to lead the world. He is not convinced, as he claims President Obama is, that the United States is inherently flawed and therefore unworthy to lead the world. In fact, he claims, “We are as benign a hegemon as the world has ever seen;” Ibid. this is a definition and evidence for exceptionalism.

Krauthammer's additional evidence includes the United States' accidental emergence as a superpower following WWII and its continued power following the Cold War. Another point of departure from the rest of the world is the United States' lone ability to protect. Krauthammer claims, “Europe can eat, drink, and be merry for America protects her. But for America it's different. If we choose the life of ease, who stands guard for us?” Ibid. He finds it unique that we have the strongest military, are able to protect the world, and yet we are not a malevolent actor on the world stage.