American exceptionalism

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 11: Line 11:
  
 
To this day, the US still tends to be more idealistic in its justifications for interventions.  In the 90s in particular, there were many interventions that had zero basis in national interest (including [[Somalia]] and [[Yugoslavia]]).  Many scholars, like Samuel Huntington, in his book ''Clash of Civilizations'', or the entire realist school of international relations, have a hard time understanding this part of US foreign policy.  Today, it rests on the assumption that the US military is naturally a force for good (think of the [[neocon|neo-conservative]] hawks of the Bush administration) and that any country they get involved in would recognise this fact. However, an [[Iraq]]i villager watching his mosque being destroyed by an American cluster bomb may have a differing opinion on this.
 
To this day, the US still tends to be more idealistic in its justifications for interventions.  In the 90s in particular, there were many interventions that had zero basis in national interest (including [[Somalia]] and [[Yugoslavia]]).  Many scholars, like Samuel Huntington, in his book ''Clash of Civilizations'', or the entire realist school of international relations, have a hard time understanding this part of US foreign policy.  Today, it rests on the assumption that the US military is naturally a force for good (think of the [[neocon|neo-conservative]] hawks of the Bush administration) and that any country they get involved in would recognise this fact. However, an [[Iraq]]i villager watching his mosque being destroyed by an American cluster bomb may have a differing opinion on this.
 +
 +
==See also==
 +
[[Mainifest destiny]]
  
 
==Footnotes==
 
==Footnotes==

Revision as of 12:02, 28 March 2011

American exceptionalism is a belief that the United States is unique, or exceptional, when compared with the historical development of other countries. It would be easy to pigeon-hole as nationalism, but it is more expansive and more concentrated than that. It is a popular ideal held by many US conservatives, though not entirely limited to the right. Several liberal historians and politicians have embraced certain aspects of American exceptionalism in their thought processes, in particular in the "vital center" and "end of ideology" views popular among American liberals in the mid 20th century following World War II. American exceptionalism is also a core belief within neoconservatism.

One major characteristic of American exceptionalism from a historiographical viewpoint is its tendency to 'gloss over' what it would consider 'bad' history,[1] and emphasise and in many cases mythologise the founding struggles[2] and subsequent consolidation,[3] of what is the modern United States.

American exceptionalism may view the United States through the lens of a special historical determinism for the United States, separate from broad historical trends in the rest of the world. It may, for a variety of reasons, view the U.S. as a nation that is immune (or should be immune) from things like terrorism and dictatorship - "It can't happen here". The U.S. in turn is supposed to assume an activist role around the world in promoting "freedom" or being a "shining example" to the world (the "City on a Hill"). This sort of presumptive moral superiority isn't always is virtually never welcomed by other nations, and is often almost always resented, particularly when the U.S. has a long history of engaging in gunboat diplomacy itself. The belief by Americans in American exceptionalism is probably the number one reason worldwide for resentment or dislike of the USA.[4]

Impact on American foreign policy

From the colonial days, the residents of what was to become the United States have long viewed their system and culture as unique. It was called a "City on the Hill" by colonial preachers. This worked itself into the foreign policy of the new country. Diplomacy with the European countries was mostly shunned, with a focus instead of establishing a hegemony over its own sphere of influence (Latin America).[5] The focus was not on the entangling alliances Europeans got wrapped up in[6], but on ensuring Europeans did not interfere with what was by right an American sphere of influence. This had dual effects, such as protecting Latin America from undue European interference, but also insured America kept itself out of the struggles to assert a 'balance of power' in Europe. It is often said that the US was sympathetic to Britain diplomatically, but played little part in the 'great game' of European diplomacy.

There were some good effects of this, such as more reluctance to outright imperialism. Although, it should be noted that the US still managed to acquire a few colonies, like Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, the Philippines, and Cuba. Latin America however, did feel the weight of US influence in the formation of their political institutions. It also led the US to employ idealistic and democratic rhetoric, even when getting involved in brazen "sphere of interest" or geo-political engagements, like the various coups in Latin America, or World War I.

To this day, the US still tends to be more idealistic in its justifications for interventions. In the 90s in particular, there were many interventions that had zero basis in national interest (including Somalia and Yugoslavia). Many scholars, like Samuel Huntington, in his book Clash of Civilizations, or the entire realist school of international relations, have a hard time understanding this part of US foreign policy. Today, it rests on the assumption that the US military is naturally a force for good (think of the neo-conservative hawks of the Bush administration) and that any country they get involved in would recognise this fact. However, an Iraqi villager watching his mosque being destroyed by an American cluster bomb may have a differing opinion on this.

See also

Mainifest destiny

Footnotes

  1. Such as slavery, treatment of the Native American, segregation, the Jim Crow South
  2. The founding fathers as demigods, the Constitution, Washington as the supreme example of commander-in-chief
  3. The frontier, the western tradition, the immigrant tradition, the capitalist tradition
  4. Except, perhaps, for blowing up their stuff and interfering in their governments
  5. See the Monroe Doctrine
  6. References George Washington's famous Farewell Address in 1796
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support