Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

America: A Nation Apart (We're #1! We're #1!)
The Economist ^ | November 6, 2003 | John Parker

Posted on 11/08/2003 6:26:47 PM PST by quidnunc

The terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 have not only widened the differences between America and the rest of the world, but have also deepened divisions within the country itself

At nine o'clock on the morning of September 11th 2001, President George Bush sat in an elementary school in Sarasota, Florida, listening to seven-year-olds read stories about goats. “Night fell on a different world,” he said of that day. And on a different America.

At first, America and the world seemed to change together. “We are all New Yorkers now,” ran an e-mail from Berlin that day, mirroring John F. Kennedy's declaration 40 years earlier, “Ich bin ein Berliner”, and predicting Le Monde's headline the next day, “Nous sommes tous Américains”. And America, for its part, seemed to become more like other countries. Al-Qaeda's strikes, the first on the country's mainland by a foreign enemy, stripped away something unique: its aura of invulnerability, its sense of itself as a place apart, “the city on a hill”.

Two days after the event, President George Bush senior predicted that, like Pearl Harbour, “so, too, should this most recent surprise attack erase the concept in some quarters that America can somehow go it alone.” Francis Fukuyama, a professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University, suggested that “America may become a more ordinary country in the sense of having concrete interests and real vulnerabilities, rather than thinking itself unilaterally able to define the nature of the world it lives in.”

Both men were thinking about foreign policy. But global terrorism changed America at home as well. Because it made national security more important, it enhanced the role of the president and the federal government. Twice as many Americans as in the 1990s now say that they are paying a lot of attention to national affairs, where they used to care more about business and local stories. Some observers noted “a return to seriousness” — and indeed frivolities do not dominate television news as they used to.

But America has not become “a more ordinary country”, either in foreign policy or in the domestic arena. Instead, this survey will argue that the attacks of 2001 have increased “American exceptionalism” — a phrase coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in the mid-19th century to describe America's profound differences from other nations. The features that the attacks brought to the surface were already there, but the Bush administration has amplified them. As a result, in the past two years the differences between America and other countries have become more pronounced.

Yet because America is not a homogeneous country — indeed, its heterogeneity is one of its most striking features — many of its people feel uneasy about manifestations of exceptionalism. Hence, as this survey will also argue, the revival and expansion of American exceptionalism will prove divisive at home. This division will define domestic politics for years to come.

Not all New Yorkers any more

From the outside, the best indication of American exceptionalism is military power. America spends more on defence than the next dozen countries combined. In the nearest approach to an explicit endorsement of exceptionalism in the public domain, the National Security Strategy of 2002 says America must ensure that its current military dominance — often described as the greatest since Rome's — is not even challenged, let alone surpassed.

In fact, military might is only a symptom of what makes America itself unusual. The country is exceptional in more profound ways. It is more strongly individualistic than Europe, more patriotic, more religious and culturally more conservative (see chart 1). Al-Qaeda's assaults stimulated two of these deeper characteristics. In the wake of the attacks, expressions of both love of country and love of God spiked. This did not necessarily mean Americans suddenly became more patriotic or religious. Rather, the spike was a reminder of what is important to them. It was like a bolt of lightning, briefly illuminating the landscape but not changing it.

The president seized on these manifestations of the American spirit. The day after he had defined America's enemies in his “axis of evil” speech, in January 2002, Mr Bush told an audience in Daytona Beach, Florida, about his country's “mission” in the world. “We're fighting for freedom, and civilisation and universal values.” That is one strand of American exceptionalism. America is the purest example of a nation founded upon universal values, such as democracy and human rights. It is a standard-bearer, an exemplar.

But the president went further, seeking to change America's culture and values in ways that would make the country still more distinctive. “We've got a great opportunity,” he said at Daytona. “As a result of evil, there's some amazing things that are taking place in America. People have begun to challenge the culture of the past that said, ‘If it feels good, do it'. This great nation has a chance to help change the culture.” He was appealing to old-fashioned virtues of personal responsibility, self-reliance and restraint, qualities associated with a strand of exceptionalism that says American values and institutions are different and America is exceptional in its essence, not just because it is a standard-bearer.

On this view, America is not exceptional because it is powerful; America is powerful because it is exceptional. And because what makes America different also keeps it rich and powerful, an administration that encourages American wealth and power will tend to encourage intrinsic exceptionalism. Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations dubs this impulse “American revivalism”. It is not an explicit ideology but a pattern of beliefs, attitudes and instincts.


(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: september12era
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last
To: quidnunc
Best line of the whole series of articles:

No one knows which of these ideas will be more influential in the world in future: America's top-dog exceptionalism or the EU's basket of squealing puppies.

21 posted on 11/08/2003 7:12:56 PM PST by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
22 posted on 11/08/2003 7:15:00 PM PST by spodefly (This is my tagline. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
America is not exceptional because it is powerful; America is powerful because it is exceptional.

How true. Excellent article.

23 posted on 11/08/2003 7:15:38 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
My favorite quote from the article:

In the 2000 election, 63% of those who went to church more than once a week voted for George Bush; 61% of those who never went voted for Al Gore. About 70% of those who said abortion should always be available voted for Mr Gore; 74% of those who said it should always be illegal voted for Mr Bush. As Pete du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, pointed out, a map showing the sales and rentals of porn movies bore an eerie resemblance to the map of the 2000 election results.

24 posted on 11/08/2003 7:35:15 PM PST by Ronzo (GOD alone is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
IMO -- unless one is just a knee-jerk reactionary who sees things in only black and white -- this set of articles should be seen as just plain excellent!

No human entity on earth is perfect. The best any country can claim is to be more good than bad and striving to get even better. That's basically what this series states.

AND, if your keeping score, the US looks MUCH better than the rest of the world by comparison in this series.

I don't agree with (even close) to every point in this series, MANY I would ardently disagree with if taken alone.

However, for a far reaching effort, I've not seen better.

I've saved all the parts of the series, as well.
25 posted on 11/08/2003 7:39:17 PM PST by Jackson Brown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bear_in_RoseBear
26 posted on 11/08/2003 7:49:15 PM PST by Rose in RoseBear (HHD [Visit THORLO SOCKS at! They support our troops!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
"Indeed, for many of them, Europe is in some ways unserious."

Indeed, for even more of them, Europe is decadent and self-destructive.

27 posted on 11/08/2003 7:55:45 PM PST by Savage Beast (The meaning of the California Revolution: The socioeconomic fabric is not indestructable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple; Molly Pitcher; JRandomFreeper; PhiKapMom; nicollo; Common Tator; Dog; dittomom; ...
America is not exceptional because it is powerful; America is powerful because it is exceptional.

28 posted on 11/08/2003 8:02:43 PM PST by kayak (The Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy is truly Vast! [JohnHuang2])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: quidnunc
Well, you just pooched an hour of my Saturday night! Very, very interesting article, and thank you for posting it.

Later, maybe - I'm going to have to chew on this one awhile.

30 posted on 11/08/2003 8:13:30 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
"It is not an explicit ideology but a pattern of beliefs, attitudes and instincts."

Does he mean this exceptionalism will cause trouble on the national political scene for decades to come because that exceptionalism has become deluted as the nation has balkanized?

Maybe politicans like Clinton had better weigh the cost of the loss of that exceptionalism before embracing and proclaiming their desire to bring to an end the dominance of the european culture in this nation.

31 posted on 11/08/2003 8:37:48 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: republicangel
You should read the WHOLE article before passing judgement.

Very true. This is a passage from the article previous to the posted:

In 1929, Jay Lovestone, the head of the American communist party, was summoned to Moscow. Stalin demanded to know why the worldwide communist revolution had advanced not one step in the largest capitalist country. Lovestone replied that America lacked the preconditions for communism, such as feudalism and aristocracy. No less an authority than Friedrich Engels had said the same thing, talking of “the special American conditions...which make bourgeois conditions look like a beau idéal to them.” So had an Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, and a British socialist, H.G. Wells, who had both argued that America's unique origins had produced a distinctive value system and unusual politics.

Works for me.

32 posted on 11/08/2003 9:07:21 PM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
70 percent of the French are not proud to be French. And who says the French have no shame.
33 posted on 11/08/2003 9:17:47 PM PST by Tribune7 (It's not like he let his secretary drown in his car or something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Must read. BTTTTT.
34 posted on 11/08/2003 9:24:52 PM PST by ellery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Thank you for posting these articles! I've been reading them off and on for the last two hours. This is more balanced than most of the stuff published in the U.S. And, as always, the de Tocqueville quotes never cease to amaze me.
35 posted on 11/08/2003 9:37:16 PM PST by sweetjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Thanks for linking this very interesting article. While quite useful in explaining to the Europeons some of the qualities that cause American exceptionalism, I question the the validity of the author's grasp of internal American dynamics. First, he seems to have no understanding of the economics of America. The federal deficits have not been caused by the tax cuts (which to date have been in the handsful of billions) but by the recession, with the 9/11 enhancer. With the current strong growth of the economy, due to low interest rates and tax cuts, the projected deficits are falling dramatically. This will not lead to an economic impasse as Parker argues. Second, he describes President Bush as a very polarizing figure. I would argue the polarization began with the Great Society approach in the late 1960's. This was greatly intensified with the merger of this socialist program with personal power aggrandizing degeneracy in the Clinton administration.

Two charts are very interesting. One shows the collapse in Democratic Party identification from roughly 50% to roughly 30% between the election of Jimmy Carter and the end of the Reagan administration. The second was Democrat approval of President Bush. This spiked to very high levels after 9/11, but has fallen in straight line fashion ever since to below 20% today. The great majority of Democrats cannot tolerate a President who will actively defend the American people and interest. They are the Party of Treason. If the patriots in that party, such as Zell Miller, can be brought into the Republican fold, a major realignment of the body politic will be complete. Conservatives need to argue for a limited government agenda within that realignment.

36 posted on 11/08/2003 9:39:41 PM PST by Faraday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
I've just read the first part. I did pick out the last sentence in the part about President Bush. To wit, By exaggerating existing divisions, Mr. Bush seems to have hardened his country's battle lines. And they seem to have hardened him.

I trust that to mean divisions within the country. It sounds soooooo leftist. I disagree that President Bush exaggerated existing divisions. Look at the left's "issue" du jour. Sixteen words, "imminent" threat, "Mission Accomplished!" banner, and many more. "Issues" are weapons. I watched the left destroy the Vietnam era wartime administration. They are trying to do it again. That was one reason we lost the Vietnam war here not in Vietnam.

Not all Americans agree that exceptional is good.

Robert Jensen, an employee of the journalism school at the University of Texas at Austin, says journalism should never yield to patriotism. It is journalism's job he suggests to bring every American to ask: Can we move beyond being American?

Why should we do that? Well, you see "Given the destructive capacity of the United States -- and our history of using it in the interests of power, not people -- never before has our answer been more important."

Others of his ilk agree and they are the majority in many mainstream sectors. It is the European chattering class attitude. It is here also and it is potent. They are one.

Even another 9/11 will not unite us, our left will blame America -- again!

Unlike the Vietnam war this one is for all the marbles. It's bad enough that it's turned into another politicians' war where PC is the scourge while the politicians' "graduated response" was it for Vietnam.

There is only one option. A temporary patriot-dictator to lead America through our early 21st century wars. If President Bush won't do it then we need to have another man step forward.

Perhaps if I had not seen the political quagmire of the Vietnam era I too would recoil at losing constitutional rights even temporarily. IMO if we want to keep our exceptional Nation we must take exceptional actions.

How to make it happen? One way might be to force the left into violent action by bringing back 1950s congressional investigations of their loyalty. A more risky way is a Democrat in the White House and trust patriots in the military and law enforcement to watch him (her?) closely and act to protect our Republic. These are interesting times.

Oh, lest we forget. There's Red China looking our way.

37 posted on 11/08/2003 9:44:10 PM PST by WilliamofCarmichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Good post, thanks.
38 posted on 11/08/2003 9:50:19 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
That is amazing. We need more reports (and postings) like this.
39 posted on 11/08/2003 10:36:41 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
To be honest, if I were French today, I wouldn't be all that proud of it. : )
40 posted on 11/08/2003 10:38:00 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson