American exceptionalism and its impact on presidents’ foreign policy
History of the term and its definitions. Summary of inceptional, missional and national exceptionalism. Traditionalist summary and foreign policy implications. The troubling, healthy and neutral erosion of exceptionalism. Foreign policy implications.
| Ðóáðèêà | Ïîëèòîëîãèÿ |
| Âèä | äèïëîìíàÿ ðàáîòà |
| ßçûê | àíãëèéñêèé |
| Äàòà äîáàâëåíèÿ | 03.12.2014 |
| Ðàçìåð ôàéëà | 346,5 K |
Îòïðàâèòü ñâîþ õîðîøóþ ðàáîòó â áàçó çíàíèé ïðîñòî. Èñïîëüçóéòå ôîðìó, ðàñïîëîæåííóþ íèæå
Ñòóäåíòû, àñïèðàíòû, ìîëîäûå ó÷åíûå, èñïîëüçóþùèå áàçó çíàíèé â ñâîåé ó÷åáå è ðàáîòå, áóäóò âàì î÷åíü áëàãîäàðíû.
Second in dismantling the exceptionalist theory, he uses the example of communist dissension in satellite states to illustrate that strife in the individual ethnic and cultural enclaves disallowed total homogeneity. Therefore, it is possible that Americans may uncritically and improperly overestimate the homogeneity of the United States is a whole. Ibid. The entire nation cannot be classified as exceptional if the nation contains multiple and diverse cultural communities, Hixson argues. Here he is supported by Michael Kammen (1997) who argues that the variegated composition of the United States has kept it from becoming an exceptional nation. Instead, the U.S. has sectioned itself into enclaves of similar characteristics. He says that the country has not had a consistent pattern of exceptional behavior or characteristics, and he argues, “It is both difficult and dangerous to conclude that the United States as a whole, over an extended period of time, is different from all other countries with respect to some particular criterion.” Michael Kammen, In the Past Lane (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 171.
Hixson concludes that the weakening of the myth of American exceptionalism would be a good for the development of a “constructive” relationship between the two superpowers. Insisting on America's exceptional state, he says, perpetuates a kind of paranoia that is unhealthy in relations with the Soviet Union. Hixson encourages the United States to look outside itself in hoping for the flourishing of other peoples and extending compassion to those downtrodden by governmental heavy-handedness in communist states.
Richard Cohen, an opinion writer for the Washington Post, decries American exceptionalism as a narcissistic, proud mindset that has no place in the United States. Adopting the religious Right's definition “that America, alone among the nations, is beloved of God,” Richard Cohen, “The Myth of American Exceptionalism,” RealClearPolitics.com (May 10, 2011). he thereby rejects the validity of American exceptionalism. Cohen harshly criticizes the religious Right for attempting to achieve political ends by equating American qualities with God's favor. Calling it a cult, he claims this stubborn, smug belief in uniqueness has crippled American institutions and “discourage[d] compromise,” considering, “Once you say God likes something, who can quibble?” Ibid.
Cohen sarcastically asserts that the nation is “exceptional” in its many unresolved problems, and the smugness of exceptionalists flows into many spheres. For example, the educational system is ineffective and dysfunctional, producing “students who are too dumb to know they're dumb.” Ibid. They perform terribly compared to Japanese students, all the while thinking that they are succeeding in their subjects. Another potent example is the health care system that is “cleverly designed to bankrupt the average person.” Ibid. The country also has unusually high crime and execution rates among industrialized nations. Nevertheless, Cohen asserts that exceptionalism has allowed Americans to believe “How you feel is more important than how you perform.” Ibid.
Cohen does claim there is a bit of traditional “exceptionalism” he supports, and this is the way in which Americans are more tolerant than many European nations, particularly with regard to racial equality. Ibid. Though the United States has a stained record, it has not been nearly as intolerant as European nations whose religious and ethnic wars have ravaged history. Likely due to available land, America has been a successful melting pot, Cohen says, but it is not an exceptional nation. The outlandish ones are those who improperly use religion in politics to cite “the imaginary past to defend their cultural tics.” Ibid. This is unacceptable because the United States cannot stay the same; it “clearly must change fundamentally or continue to decline,” Ibid. Cohen says. The nation is no more perfect than any other nation, and those who claim so are smug and narcissistic.
Bruce Fein (2010) of the Huffington Post echoes that American exceptionalism is a “narcissistic soundtrack” of some 2012 presidential hopefuls. Bruce Fein, “American Exceptionalism Is Un-American,” The Huffington Post (December 17, 2010). Attempting to demonstrate a disconnect between the Founding Fathers' intentions and those who claim to uphold these men's ideas, Fein articulates three problematic views within American exceptionalism: Americans are more virtuous or less susceptible to wrongdoing than other world citizens, American history is wholly moral, and the United States is less likely to act immorally than other nations. Ibid.
Using the Federalist Papers, Fein attempts to demonstrate the Founding Fathers' true intentions for the United States. Federalist 51, 75, and 10 intimate that human nature is not different according to one's homeland, including questions about the President's exemplary ability to make treaty decisions alone and the people's morality without government enforcement of law. Fein also lists some of America's moral transgressions from the slavery allowed at the founding of the country to modern water boarding and the situational suspension of habeas corpus. He does not neglect to say that America certainly is above other nations in its respect for people and toleration of varying viewpoints. However, he claims it is “juvenile” to call the United States exceptional because it is “not as bad” as other nations.
Howard Zinn (2005) defines exceptionalism as the idea that “the United States alone has the right, whether by divine sanction or moral obligation, to bring civilization, or democracy, or liberty to the rest of the world, by violence if necessary.” Howard Zinn, “The Power and the Glory: Myths of American exceptionalism,” Boston Review (2005). Clearly disagreeing that the United States is or should be exceptional, Zinn focuses on this supposed violent streak in American history, noting critically the growth of the theory of American exceptionalism alongside the territorial destruction completed by the settlers of the American continent.
Consequently, Zinn's most insistent mantra is that exceptionalism has been the excuse for imperialism and world dominance, especially through the use of military power. In examining the Bush Doctrine, he questions former President George W. Bush's belief that God has a divine plan for the United States. Zinn puts his fear concisely, “With God's approval, you need no human standard of morality.” Ibid. Following this idea through the highlights of American foreign policy, he claims that the ideology of communism in the late twentieth century did not hinder the American drive for dominance, but fueled its wider expression, just as terrorism does today. He importantly grants that other nations have used morality as justification for territorial expansion but qualifies this fact, saying the United States “has carried the claim farthest.” Ibid.
Zinn also criticizes a popular foreign policy implication of exceptionalism: that the U.S. should be a world police force and the protector of other nations. Bush especially used this ideology in pursuing terrorists in other lands, but Zinn claims this action was actually a continuation of previous American foreign policy. The United States “for a long time has acted as an aggressor, bombing and invading other countries…Unilateral military action, under the guise of prevention, is a familiar part of American foreign policy.” Ibid.
Zinn fears that American education overlooks the United States' improper territorial and ideological domination because American exceptionalism is such a pervasive national doctrine. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he does not denounce a particular political group, pointing out that this dangerous exceptionalist ideology has been held and promoted by conservatives and liberals in American history. Like others, his greatest concern is with the double standards that the United States follows. The country often exempts itself from treaties it otherwise supports, and Zinn finds this unacceptable. He insists that the United States has a responsibility to abide by international human rights and environmental standards rather than avoiding actions like signing the widely accepted Kyoto treaty. In the same vein, Zinn argues that the United States is hypocritical in supporting “rights to life and liberty” while refusing to set an example for the world in mutually agreeing to preserve them. In light of this, Zinn supports a more global approach to identity, heralding William Lloyd Garrison, who said, “My country is the world. My countrymen are mankind.” William Lloyd Garrison, Declaration of Sentiments Adopted by the Peace Convention, September 28, 1838, TeachingAmericanHistory.org.
5.1 Equalist Summary and Foreign Policy Implications
Equalists deny that the United States has ever been exceptional. Clearly, this is a departure from traditional and erosionist sentiment, and it consequently has drastic implications for foreign policy. Equalists all hold that the United States must not set itself up on a pedestal over other nations because it is not better than others; they combat politicians' claims of superiority rather than scholars' definitions of American differentness. In light of this, the U.S. must take an equal part in global affairs by signing popular and beneficial treaties, not supporting them without making a binding agreement. The U.S. must also join international organizations in which cooperation can assist all countries involved. The American goal should not be the economic or military trumping of its equal partners in global peace and success. The military should therefore be scaled back and used only when necessary. Diplomatic discussion is preferred.
Most importantly, if the United States is no better or worse than any other country, it should not assert any superiority or belief that its values or traditions are better. Every nation is somewhat unique, equalists say, and the U.S. does not stick out as demonstrably different. It does not have the right or privilege of influencing other nations' government or culture without explicit permission--and even then, an expanded role is questionable. Instead, the United States should govern only its own affairs and allow other nations to prosper as they see fit. If any nation needs help in this prospering effort, the United States should provide aid as an equal member of an international community.
PART II
6. Introduction to Content Analysis
As I have mentioned, one's view of American exceptionalism must somehow affect one's view of foreign policy. Convinced of a demonstrable link, I have laid out the various perspectives on American exceptionalism and now move to analyze particular presidents' and candidates' ideas of exceptionalism and make the case for a connection between these and their prescriptions for United States foreign policy. Few people who write on American exceptionalism connect the theory to foreign policy explicitly, but this is exactly what my study has attempted to do.
First, however, it is important to understand the logical inferences that can be made for foreign policy from particular views on exceptionalism. I have inferred most authors' expected foreign policy positions; they have not specifically stated these in their works, but I contend that my conclusions are logical and reasonable.
6.1 Foreign Policy Implications of Views of American Exceptionalism
The traditional inceptionalists argue that the United States is a particular phenomenon which cannot be duplicated. Though the influence of the Puritans, an egalitarian society, and the availability of land continue to the present, their particular impact on the United States will never be replicated in another society. The Puritans, for example, are never going to go to another land to attempt a “city on a hill” experiment. The land of the earth is also largely settled (Antarctica does not look promising), so the presence of open land will not likely be a factor in a new nation's flourishing. The United States is one-of-a-kind and no other nation will ever be like it with the same national genesis. Therefore, the inceptionalists see no need for American nation-building, for there is no hope that any other nation will ever be like the United States. The U.S. will always remain unique and great because of its qualities, but national security should still be a top priority. These inceptionalists believe the best foreign policy positions are along the scale of isolationism, protectionism, and unilateralism.
Traditionalists who emphasize the mission and distinct national characteristics of the United States argue that the U.S. has something to offer the rest of the world, so it is reasonable to expect that their foreign policy will tend to allow for more leeway, and their foreign policy aligns with the erosionists who hope that American exceptionalist sentiment does not continue to erode. These exceptionalists believe that the United States is responsible for maintaining an active role in world leadership and that its mission is to spread the beneficial characteristics of the U.S. to other nations, perhaps through nation building. They promote the giving of foreign aid as well as supporting democratic governments and movements as tasks on the way toward preserving American exceptionalism and leadership.
The groups differ, of course, in that the erosionists fear that exceptionalism could be lost, while the traditionalists are convinced of a perpetual American uniqueness. The erosionists who find the decline in American greatness troubling believe that the United States must take steps to preserve its position at home, but especially abroad. They agree with the traditionalists that somehow the U.S. is unique, but it is in danger of losing this status if it does not continue to defend American-ness. These erosionists are often concerned about the safety of the U.S. as accommodating diplomatic tactics are used more and more. It is no wonder they favor a strongly pro-American foreign policy to grasp the unique position that should only be held by the U.S., but whose retention is tenuous without a free and unfettered American foreign policy.
Finally, the erosionists who believe discontinuation of exceptional sentiment is a good thing align with equalists on foreign policy. The erosionists may agree with the traditionalists and others that the U.S. should be a leader, but this should only occur from within a structure of international cooperation. The United States should never act unilaterally in its own interests according to these groups, and it certainly should not attempt to export its own cultural and political institutions in nation-building efforts. Instead, international organizations rather than American dominance and paternalism should be heralded as the mechanisms for global good. In addition, the U.S. should resist setting itself apart by refusing to ratify popular treaties. The Kyoto treaty, for example, which codified nations' attempts to reduce harmful greenhouse gases, was supported by the U.S. but never ratified. In this, the United States set its sovereignty above global interests, which was seen as self-serving and hypocritical. Erosionists and equalists who advocate the abandonment of the term “American exceptionalism” are eager to see a multilateral foreign policy suitable for a beneficent leader or no leader at all.
The erosionists who are neutral about American exceptionalism can fall anywhere on the foreign policy spectrum.
6.2 Methodology
I decided to analyze the rhetoric of political figures to as a first test of my hypothesis of the relationship between American exceptionalism views and foreign policy. I chose the two most recent presidents, President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, as well as Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2012 election. Because of their contemporary relevance and somewhat varied political positions, I expected I would find some interesting contrasts. To determine their definitions and views of American exceptionalism, I read and annotated their remarks on foreign policy in order to compare them to the definitional categories of American exceptionalism I created. By identifying what exceptionalists in each category would say, I could classify Bush, Obama, and Romney in the proper categories.
This exercise was 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.
I studied the rhetoric of these three politicians in hopes of determining their views of American exceptionalism through content analysis. I employed instrumental content analysis, and I had to make some subjective decisions on what particular words and language really “mean”--a great debate in itself that has plagued the social sciences for many, many years. However, since I was the only individual involved in this project, the results are consistent because I alone analyzed each speech and word. I made subjective decisions, but because I used the same criteria to make the decision every time, my decisions were reliable. External validity is another question, but I can only report on the analysis that I completed.
I analyzed Bush's and Obama's State of the Union Speeches as these would give a good picture of the Presidents' views on the strength and character of the United States, particularly in regards to what words they use to reassure Americans that the country is “great.” I chose to look only at Bush's first term speeches in order to evenly compare them to Obama's one term of speeches. Though the speeches within weeks of their inaugurations are not technically State of the Union addresses, I considered them the same and therefore had four speeches for each. I analyzed Romney's 2010 book No Apology: The Case for American Greatness and his foreign policy speech at the Citadel in October 2011 as proxies for State of the Union addresses.
I used the foreign policy views stated in the State of the Union addresses rather than any actions that Bush or Obama has actually completed. This is due to the pressures on Presidents while in the White House from Congress and current events or crises. In using the stated foreign policy views, I attempted to distill the Presidents' personal views rather than the actions they were compelled to do because of political pressure. Taking this into account, I implemented Ole Holsti's instrumental approach to content analysis. In Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities (1969), Holsti says the instrumental approach, in contrast with the representational approach, acknowledges that words can be used to influence an audience; “hence the content of messages may be shaped by the communicator's intent to manipulate his audience in certain directions.” Ole R. Holsti, Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1969), 33. Since we know that politicians are hardly ever speaking without intent to influence or manipulate their audiences, these words may not be exact representations of what Bush, Obama, or Romney personally believes. However, this analysis of speeches is meant to help in predicting what a President might do in office because of his view of American exceptionalism, and therefore the pragmatic instrumental approach is more appropriate.
In evaluating words to use, I chose to look for words that are often used when exceptionalists describe the U.S. and its position in the world. These included “blessed,” “called,” “character,” “destiny,” “distinct,” “evil,” “exceptional,” “good,” “ideals,” “lead,” “mission,” “responsibility,” “role,” “special,” “strong,” “task,” “values,” and words with these roots. In counting these, I used a word processing search feature which located every instance of a particular word or word root in a document. I counted the number of times this word and its relatives appeared in the context of foreign policy, including references to the United States' trade and economic interactions with other nations. I summed all the instances of the words in a spreadsheet and created charts with each person's word totals for analysis and later comparison.
In an attempt to classify Bush, Obama, and Romney, I read and annotated their words in order to determine their views of American exceptionalism as well as identify particular words and phrases which could illuminate their views of the United States' character and characteristics. I combined this study with the word analysis and stated foreign policy views in order to provide a full picture of their views and accurately classify them. I found that my categories and foreign policy positions were not perfectly predictive of the men's views in the arena of American exceptionalism.
Though American exceptionalism is not a scarce topic in literature, identifying a definition for American exceptionalism has proved to be a difficult task. People often refer to different emphases or definitions of American exceptionalism when they discuss it. One crucial finding is the use of the term meaning “better” in political discourse, while most scholars' works simply argue for or against the “difference” of the United States. The overwhelming disparity among definitional standpoints is perhaps the most valuable finding of my study.
7. Content Analysis
7.1 George W. Bush
“We've been called to a unique role in human events.”
George W. Bush George W. Bush, “Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union,” The American Presidency Project (2002).
George W. Bush, president from 2001 to 2009, puts particular emphasis on the global battle between good and evil. He is convinced that the United States is on the side of good and terrorists, for example, are always on the side of evil. There is no question in his mind that what the United States does is good and for a good purpose. This is demonstrated by Figure 7A below, which shows the frequency with which Bush uses particular “exceptional” words in his 2001-2004 State of the Union speeches.
Figure 7A. Bush's Words Included in Analysis: blessed, called, character, destiny, distinct, evil, exceptional, good, ideals, lead, mission, responsibility, role, special, strong, task, values. Related words included in totals (lead = leads, leader, leadership, etc.).
Bush uses the words “good” and “evil” (sixteen times) to describe the conflict between the U.S. and other forces in the world. He also refers to the United States as a “blessed” country (four times) “called” (eight times) to do something good because of this blessing. He speaks of American leadership frequently (twelve times) and strength even more (twenty-two times), but as we will see, this is characteristic of several American politicians. Some of Bush's distinct phrases are as follows:
· “America has a window of opportunity to extend and secure our present peace by promoting a distinctly American internationalism.” (2001) George W. Bush, “Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on Administration Goals,” February 27, 2001, The American Presidency Project.
· “America will lead by defending liberty and justice because they are right and true and unchanging for all people everywhere.” (2002) Bush, “State of the Union,” 2002.
· “I know we can overcome evil with greater good.” (2002) Ibid.
· “Our Founders dedicated this country to the cause of human dignity, the rights of every person, and the possibilities of every life. This conviction leads us into the world to help the afflicted and defend the peace and confound the designs of evil men.” (2003) Ibid., 2003.
· “As our Nation moves troops and builds alliances to make our world safer, we must also remember our calling as a blessed country is to make the world better.” (2003) Ibid.
Given these words and his behavior while in office, I conclude that Bush is a traditional exceptionalist with both missional and national emphases. Bush would most likely deny the possibility that the United States would ever lose its exceptional status, putting him squarely in the traditionalist camp. His rhetoric points to his belief that the United States has the particular task of leading the world in goodness because of the national characteristics it so strongly and uniquely holds. The U.S. is different, blessed, and therefore called to better the world. He also claims that we have a “distinctly American internationalism,” and a responsibility to promote “liberty and justice,” which signals his belief in the unique national characteristics of the United States that other nations can only have by following the example of the U.S. This country can promote liberty and justice because it holds them dearly and in a way no other nation does.
It is very important to note that Bush is willing to say that the United States is actually better than every other country for many reasons, including moral ones. He even claims, “There's power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people” Ibid. and, “Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better.” Ibid., 2004.
Bush's foreign policy followed logically from his view of American exceptionalism. He implemented a fairly vigorous American foreign policy characterized by international action, with or without global approval; after all, if the United States is as deeply good as Bush believes, who is to question its unilateral action? The action that best exemplifies Bush's foreign policy is the unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq after the 9/11 attack. In addition, the American-led nation-building of Bush's foreign policy reflects his belief that the United States must go and change the world to be like itself. Specifically, Bush's campaign in Iraq had the intention to create a democratic society that would be favorable to the United States in its values and interests. He was interested in giving foreign aid to nations struggling to become democratic and being an ally to any nation seeking to adopt American policies and values. Bush argues that the United States is a world leader because of its success, military prowess, and virtue, and therefore even unilateral foreign policy actions can be justified.7.2 Barack Obama
“In words and deeds, we are showing the world that a new era of engagement has begun. For we know that America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America.”
Barack Obama Barack Obama, “Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress,” February 24, 2009, The American Presidency Project.
Barack Obama, President from 2009 to the present, has been brutally criticized by the Right for his comments about American exceptionalism. When asked in Strasbourg, France in April 2009 if he believed in American exceptionalism, he answered, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Mitt Romney, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2010), 29. Mitt Romney directly accused Obama for un-Americanism because of these comments, and more recently he has stated that Obama “doesn't have the same feelings about American exceptionalism that [conservatives] do.” Seema Mehta, “Romney, Obama and God: Who sees America as more divine?” Los Angeles Times (April 13, 2012).
Before studying his rhetoric, I knew Obama would be an interesting case in exceptionalism because he seems to have a lot to prove. First, I found some unexpected contrasts in the frequencies of words used in his State of the Union addresses versus those of Bush. Figure 7B below illustrates these contrasts.
Figure 7B. Obama's Words Included in Analysis: blessed, called, character, destiny, distinct, evil, exceptional, good, ideals, lead, mission, responsibility, role, special, strong, task, values. Related words included in totals (lead = leads, leader, leadership, etc.).
Notice the differences. Obama is much less willing to call the United States “blessed” or “called” to anything, much less nation-building, as reflected in his foreign policy. He does use the word “destiny” six times, which signals a sort of hopefulness about the possibilities of the United States and its citizens. Obama also uses “good” and “evil” only once, which indicates that he does not believe there is deep struggle between right and wrong in the world in which the United States is unequivocally on the side of good. Obama does mention “lead” more often and “strength” the same number of times, but again he pulls ahead in mentioning “mission” (eight times) and “values” (twenty-two times) more frequently than Bush.
Obama's characteristic phrases include the following:
· “It is time for America to lead again.” (2009) Barack Obama, “Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress,” The American Presidency Project (2009).
· “In words and deeds, we are showing the world that a new era of engagement has begun. For we know that America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America. We cannot shun the negotiating table, nor ignore the foes or forces that could do us harm.” (2009) Ibid.
· “To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend, because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America.” (2009) Ibid.
· “Recent events have shown that what sets us apart must not just be our power--it must also be the purpose behind it.” (2011) Ibid., 2011.
· “From the coalitions we've built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we've led against hunger and disease, from the blows we've dealt to our enemies, to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.” (2012) Barack Obama, “Address Before a Joint Session of Congress on the State of the Union,” The American Presidency Project (2012).
· “America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs, and as long as I'm President, I intend to keep it that way.” (2012) Ibid.
Obama's words and phrases led me to classify him as an erosionist who believes decline in American exceptional sentiment is troubling rather than healthy. Obama's claim that the United States must lead “again” indicates that he believes the rightful leadership has been lost and must be regained. (No doubt Obama blames his predecessor for the recent decline in American leadership and strength.) This, however, was the most difficult of my classifications and highlighted some of the weaknesses and overlaps in the categories I created. The way Obama speaks, especially in terms of American “values” would seem to indicate that he is a traditional exceptionalist in the national school. However, he speaks about losing and regaining American prominence, which disallows classification as a traditionalist. Further difficulty comes from his foreign policy, which includes elements from the categories of troubling erosion and healthy erosion. Overall, the words he uses to characterize the United States do indicate a particular perspective, and I decided to classify him by these to identify a resulting link to his foreign policy.
Here note that Obama never speaks about the United States as inherently better than other nations or its citizens as inherently good as Bush does. For Obama, exceptionalism means different and perhaps able to lead because of differences, but it does not mean better. This sets him apart from the two Republicans in this study.
Obama's foreign policy does follow from his view of American exceptionalism, though it does so imperfectly according to my projections. Obama's emphasis on “foreign engagement” signals his belief in a multilateral foreign policy rather than a unilateral one. He believes that the United States should be a leader, but only a gentle one from within the realm of international cooperation. He is intent that the United States performs competitively in concrete areas like clean energy, technology, and education, but he believes it is important to rekindle the proper leadership of the United States through the joining of international organizations and ratifying of widely supported treaties. This “gentle leader” form of foreign policy is not as security-focused as I expected an erosionist to have if he believes the loss of American exceptionalism is dangerous, but it coincides well with Obama's disbelief in inherent American goodness. The United States has something to offer the world, he believes, but only if it succeeds at something first, not simply because this is the country offering it. Obama intends his foreign policy to keep the United States on the world stage because it will benefit this country, not because the country necessarily merits perpetual presence on the stage.
7.3 Mitt Romney
“It is long past the time to begin again to proclaim the absolute truth of American greatness and its singular purpose and calling in the world as the protector and defender of human freedom and human dignity.”
Mitt Romney Romney, No Apology, 293.
As of this writing, Mitt Romney stands as the most likely nominee for the Republican presidential bid for 2012. In this absolutely crucial election year, it is important to decide whether or not we like the country's current direction. We have been under President Obama for over three years. Have they been good years? Have they benefited the United States and bolstered our image overseas? If we elect Romney as President, what foreign policy decisions are we likely to see during his administration? For people who have not liked Obama's foreign policy, knowing Romney's take is important as the November election comes nearer. Those who have liked Obama's foreign policy, on the other hand, have in Romney's foreign policy a compelling reason to keep him from being elected.
In attempting to answer these questions, I have studied Romney's rhetoric, though I acknowledge that his experience is much more limited than a President who has served one or two terms. I have examined key chapters of Romney's 2010 book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, as well as his foreign policy statement at the Citadel in October 2011. I acknowledge that political campaigns have somewhat a different flavor from a presidential term, though both may cloud their speakers' ability or willingness to baldly declare their personal perspectives on American exceptionalism. Romney may also have a greater incentive to speak about the United States in exceptional terms during an election than does a President who has already secured the White House. Nevertheless, the analysis is striking. See Figure 7C below.
Figure 7C. Romney's Words Included in Analysis: blessed, called, character, destiny, distinct, evil, exceptional, good, ideals, lead, mission, responsibility, role, special, strong, task, values. Related words included in totals (lead = leads, leader, leadership, etc.).
Romney is overall more similar to Bush than Obama, which is unsurprising considering their political parties. However, in a couple of key areas, Romney is surprisingly similar to Obama. He speaks about the U.S. being “called” (one time) much less than Bush does, and he uses the word “destiny” (seven times) much more than Bush does. He also talks about a “mission” much less than Obama does, but he mentions a “role” for the United States in the world (four times) more than either of the others. On “values,” Romney lines up again with Bush (eight times).
Some of Romney's statements concerning foreign policy and American exceptionalism are as follows:
· “There are superior cultures, and ours is one of them.” (2010) Ibid., 264.
· “The American people are inherently good, and…America is destined to remain great.” (2010) Ibid., 277.
· “It is long past the time to begin again to proclaim the absolute truth of American greatness and its singular purpose and calling in the world as the protector and defender of human freedom and human dignity.” (2010) Ibid., 293.
· “The United States [should] exercise leadership in multilateral organizations and alliances…But know this: while America should work with other nations, we always reserve the right to act alone to protect our vital national interests.” (2011) Mitt Romney, (foreign policy speech delivered at the Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina, October 7, 2011).
· “The 21st century can and must be an American century…It is our duty to steer it onto the path of freedom, peace, and prosperity.” (2011) Ibid.
· “If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your President.” (2011) Ibid.
He also includes this list of ten reasons America is different from all other nations. He highlights its citizens as the determining factors:
1. Americans like to work.
2. Americans continue to esteem education.
3. Americans accept risk to venture for reward.
4. Americans are religious people.
5. Americans love their country.
6. Americans value life.
7. Americans value traditional marriage and family.
8. Americans keep their word and follow the law.
9. Americans are informed, involved, and responsible citizens.
10. America has a special destiny. Romney, No Apology, Chapter 10: “The Culture of Citizenship,” 248-279.
Romney's words and foreign policy positions place him in the same category as Bush: traditional exceptionalist in the missional and national schools. Only the United States, Romney believes, can best lead the world in “freedom, peace, and prosperity” because these are more than good values; these are American national characteristics held in a globally unique way. Consequently, Romney sees the United States as having a distinct purpose in the world--one given by God:
God did not create this country to be a nation of followers. America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world, or someone else will. Without American leadership, without clarity of American purpose and resolve, the world becomes a far more dangerous place, and liberty and prosperity would surely be among the first casualties. Ibid.
Romney believes that because the United States is good and because its people are good, it has a right to lead and advance its own interests.
Romney clearly believes the United States is better than every other nation. He believes it has been called by God to do a special task and he argues that the American way is unique and the best way to live because of the inherently good people who live in this country.
His foreign policy is very similar to Bush's in its emphasis on spreading American values to other nations, particularly democracy, freedom, individual rights, and open markets. Romney also advocates American leadership within international organizations but joining these for the highest goal of accomplishing American interests, which justifies unilateral American action at times. Romney and Bush also share the hope for American military supremacy and the ability to exercise international influence during peacetime and war. If elected President, Romney's foreign policy will consist of actions that advance and secure the U.S.'s dominant position in the world, whether unilateral or multilateral.
7.4 Summary of Content Analysis
Admittedly, my analysis is imperfect. The categories I created do illuminate patterns and emphases, but authors could reasonably be placed in multiple categories, as the lines are fuzzy. In addition, foreign policy positions do not follow as logically from views of American exceptionalism as I expected. Therefore, I acknowledge the fluidity and qualitative nature of this study. This is my attempt to investigate an area which seems to be unexplored as yet. However, I have gathered some preliminary data and drawn some reasonable conclusions which provide tentative evidence of the link I suggested between views of American exceptionalism and foreign policy positions. I have given reason to think concretely about the impact of the belief in American exceptionalism and provided an avenue by which to do so.
Finally, a comparison of political actors is important for practical purposes, including voting. Figure 7D shows the results of my comparison of Bush, Obama, and Romney's use of “exceptional” words.
Figure 7D. Percentage of Analyzed Content Considered Exceptional. Words included in analysis: blessed, called, character, destiny, distinct, evil, exceptional, good, ideals, lead, mission, responsibility, role, special, strong, task, values. Related words included in totals (lead = leads, leader, leadership, etc.).
Romney clearly talks about exceptionalism much more than Bush and Obama, as 1.56% of his words in my chosen documents alone exuded exceptional sentiment. Bush came second with 0.53% and Obama third with 0.28%. Though these numbers are very small and come only from the several documents I studied, they are telling. Voters should take note. Those who will vote in the 2012 election and are interested in electing a candidate devoted to American exceptionalism would likely vote for Romney, who praises the United States often. Obama would be less attractive to these voters because he talks about exceptionalism less often. Furthermore, voters who are interested in a president who speaks about American exceptionalism may or may not desire this emphasis for its own sake. They may also be considering the effect of a view of American exceptionalism on foreign policy, to which this study speaks. This connection is crucial during election years, and wise voters must understand what the candidates believe in order to vote for the best candidate.
8. My View
“Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people.”
Deuteronomy 9:6, NIV
No doubt the reader has by now acknowledged that there are too many definitions of American exceptionalism to carelessly use the term. When people talk about exceptionalism, it is crucial to determine what they mean and whether or not they see the label as currently applicable to the United States. I have had much time to formulate my own informed answers to these questions. With the hope that I have not been overly transparent to this point, I will now explain my position.
I am a traditional exceptionalist. I believe that the United States has distinct features related to its mission, inception, and nationalism, particularly the latter two. As a Christian, I specifically emphasize the particular part that religion plays in the history and continuation of the American character, a part it has been playing since the Puritans settled on the North American continent four centuries ago. I believe the continuation of religion is good support for inceptional claims. Some of the weight of traditional exceptionalists' inceptional argument rides on whether or not the Puritans' faith and practice have survived to the present in the United States. To explore this crucial vein of thought, we ought to examine the question whose answer does, in fact, reinforce my view of American exceptionalism: Is the United States a Christian nation?
8.1 Is the United States a Christian Nation?
The Christianity of the United States is one of the most contentious issues in the public square today. Can or should the U.S. call itself a Christian nation? In 2006, 67% of Americans claimed that this is an accurate label for the U.S. Pew Research Center 2006, 5, quoted in Jeremy Brooke Straughn and Scott L. Feld, “America as a `Christian Nation'? Understanding Religious Boundaries of National Identity in the United States,” Sociology of Religion 2010, June 4, 2010, 71:3. Conservatives, especially evangelical Protestants, often argue for the public upholding of traditional Judeo-Christian values, or at least the recognition of the merits of religion. In fact, Jeremy Brooke Straughn and Scott L. Feld find that “Within the religious majority, belief in a Christian America…grows significantly stronger with intensity of religious commitment and national attachment.” Jeremy Brooke Straughn and Scott L. Feld, “America as a `Christian Nation'? Understanding Religious Boundaries of National Identity in the United States,” Sociology of Religion 2010, June 4, 2010, 71:3. Meanwhile, progressives argue that the proper outlook of Americans should be tolerance of all religions, including those “lacking” a god. They contend that the government and public organizations should not hold one religion higher than any other, regardless of what the Founders may have believed. Nevertheless, both historical ethos and its current counterpart must play a part in developing an accurate description of the United States' Christianity.
One of the most convincing arguments for the historical Christian nature of the U.S. is the Founders' implicit religious influence on foundational American documents, even though these men attempted to avoid institutionalized religion. The constitution says very little about the role of religion in the United States because the Founders dictated that the U.S. would not have a state-sponsored religion. Jon Meacham informs us that
[The Framers] valued religion, but given their knowledge of the religious strife that had plagued man's history and their appreciation of the importance to individual liberty of both freedom of and freedom from religion, `they saw the wisdom of distinguishing between private and public religion.' Jon Meacham, American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation (New York: Random House, 2006), 23, quoted in Geoffrey R. Stone “The World of the Framers: A Christian Nation?” Melville B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture. 56 UCLA Law Review 1 (2008), 24.
Though they did not formally acknowledge religion or a particular sect, the Founders implanted a tacit acknowledgement of religion as an integral part of a person's life, and that idea remains in the American fabric today.
Other thinkers analyzing the genesis of American Christianity actually consider it a predecessor of American exceptionalism, not a result of it. I have common ground with these authors, particularly Joseph Bottum. Bottum, the former editor of the religious journal, First Things, According to Jim Hartley's blog, “Gerontion,” Bottum was quietly replaced as editor of First Things in 2010. No explanation was offered until current editor R. R. Reno explained the circumstances of his dismissal in the June/July 2011 issue. Jim Hartley, “The State of First Things, June/July 2011,” Gerontion (blog), May 24, 2011. says, “American exceptionalism did not create the strange world of American religion. It was instead, the wildness and the wackiness of American religion that created the historical oddity of American exceptionalism.” Joseph Bottum, “American Exceptionalism and American Religion,” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life, January 1, 2010, 199: 64. He continues:
The evidence suggests that the majority of the unchurched, both past and present, hold some recognizably religious beliefs; they are merely unwilling to identify with any particular religious body or tradition…The United States remains religious, in the conveniently diffuse and riotously specific ways in which it has always been religious…Americans today retain that instinct, even if the public discourse no longer articulates a coherent philosophical rationale for it. Bottum, “American Exceptionalism,” 64-65.
Bottum's analysis asserts that the United States' religious flavor is a unique result of characteristics and history that no other nation has. This flavor also brings unexpected and unique outcomes in American policy and social interaction. Bottum argues well that American exceptionalism is undeniably indicated by American religion.
Hugh Heclo, another author with whom I agree, deals with the question of the United States' current religious ethos by answering seven questions, including, “Do Americans identify themselves as Christians?” (Yes) “Is Christianity a source of moral guidance?” (No), and “Is Christianity part of America's political institutions?” (Sort of). He concludes that there is a disconnect between terminology and actions. Though Americans identify themselves as Christians, most do not believe in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, nor do these constrain their actions. Heclo nevertheless grants that Christianity somewhat informs American institutions and politics. He provides a historical basis for this assertion, despite the Founders' reticence:
As the European impulse to legislate theology and legally establish an official Christianity was set off-limits in America, the free play of competition in the religious and political marketplaces became not merely less dangerous to social order but positively inviting. Here, the strands of Christian and republican thinking in the young nation fit together nicely to produce a highly moralistic but safely non-theocratic attitude toward political life. Hugh Heclo, “Is America a Christian Nation?” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 122, No. 1 (2007): 80.
Ïîäîáíûå äîêóìåíòû
Barack Hussein Obama and Dmitry Medvedev: childhood years and family, work in politics before the presidential election and political views, the election, the campaign and presidency. The role, significance of these presidents of their countries history.
êóðñîâàÿ ðàáîòà [62,3 K], äîáàâëåí 02.12.2015N. Nazarbayev is the head of state, Commander-in-chief and holder of the highest office within of Kazakhstan. B. Obama II is the head of state and head of government of the United States. Queen Elizabeth II as head of a monarchy of the United Kingdom.
ïðåçåíòàöèÿ [437,6 K], äîáàâëåí 16.02.2014The term "political system". The theory of social system. Classification of social system. Organizational and institutional subsystem. Sociology of political systems. The creators of the theory of political systems. Cultural and ideological subsystem.
ðåôåðàò [18,8 K], äîáàâëåí 29.04.2016Basis of government and law in the United States of America. The Bill of Rights. The American system of Government. Legislative branch, executive branch, judicial branch. Political Parties and Elections. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of the press.
ïðåçåíòàöèÿ [5,5 M], äîáàâëåí 21.11.2012The study of the history of the development of Russian foreign policy doctrine, and its heritage and miscalculations. Analysis of the achievements of Russia in the field of international relations. Russia's strategic interests in Georgia and the Caucasus.
êóðñîâàÿ ðàáîòà [74,6 K], äîáàâëåí 11.06.2012Strategy of foreign capital regulation in Russia. Russian position in the world market of investments. Problems of foreign investments attraction. Types of measures for attraction of investments. Main aspects of foreign investments attraction policy.
ðåôåðàò [20,8 K], äîáàâëåí 16.05.2011History of formation and development of FRS. The organizational structure of the U.S Federal Reserve. The implementation of Monetary Policy. The Federal Reserve System in international sphere. Foreign Currency Operations and Resources, the role banks.
ðåôåðàò [385,4 K], äîáàâëåí 01.07.2011Government’s export promotion policy. Georgian export promotion agency. Foreign investment promotion. Government’s foreign investment promotion policy. Foreign investment advisory council. Taxation system and tax rates in Georgia.
êóðñîâàÿ ðàáîòà [644,0 K], äîáàâëåí 24.08.2005Investments as an economic category, and their role in the development of macro- and microeconomics. Classification of investments and their structure. Investment activity and policy in Kazakhstan: trends and priorities. Foreign investment by industry.
êóðñîâàÿ ðàáîòà [38,8 K], äîáàâëåí 05.05.2014One of determinant national foreign policy priorities is European and Euroatlantic integration. Relationship between Ukraine and NATO was established in 1991, when Ukraine proclaimed sovereignty right after the fall of the USSR and joined the Council.
ñòàòüÿ [32,6 K], äîáàâëåí 29.12.2009
