America: A Nation Apart (We're #1! We're #1!)

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.

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.

Re: The europhiles must be decisively defeated in 2004

How about Electoral votes: Bush, 520. Europhiles 17?

I really believe that North Vietnam may have been willing to get serious about peace talks in 1968 had our media (esp. TV) been more balanced reporting on the Tet offensive. Certainly Nixon believed that they would or he'd make them. He won just under 1 million more popular votes than Humphrey.

What Nixon did not know was that the American press was about to strip down to their black pajamas and earn the coveted General Giap "Most Valuable Guerilla Award." The establishment leftist fed the press efforts. Nevertheless, in 1972 Nixon won by a little more than 60 percent of the popular vote and won all states but one. Electoral votes: 520 to 17. There was one "blue" state.

Less than two years later he was out and the Communist had their victory assured. Nixon's plumbers' dirty tricks? How about Dick Tuck? Who? Aw, that Dick Tuck, the Democrats' dirty tricks were humorous -- you know, like today their lies and violent language are just satire.

Though both parties bugged each other nevertheless, months after the break in, the left tried the Watergate "issue." The Watergate frenzy began. Watergate was an "issues" nuke weapon that destroyed a wartime administration.

The left is desperate to find an "issue" nuke weapon today. So far nothing they've tried has worked. Losing all fifty states to George Bush won't stop them.

IMO the left desperately wants to use the war to transfer much of our sovereignty and military to the UN or other international control. Some of them actually feeeeeeeeeeeeeel that it is best. For example, Madeline Allbright said on the Medved radio show that she would give up sovereignty for "safety."

The ends justify the means. To fight that it's going to take exceptional acts. Mere elections ain't enough history has proven.

America versus the world
Greatest danger, or greatest hope?
Nov 6th 2003
From The Economist print edition
Yes, America is different. But it always has been. Mostly, the difference is good for the world, not bad
UNTIL a little over two years ago, the fashionable topic for debate in conferences, opinion pages and even bars around the world was whether globalisation was really Americanisation, and whether that was a good or a bad thing. Now, few pundits anguish about whether their countries are having to become more like America. The fashionable source of anxiety in both Europe and Asia is whether America is becoming so different from everywhere else that it is becoming a problem for the world, not a solution. It is not just a reckless Bush administration leading America astray, in other words. On this view, the United States is now inherently assertive and unilateralist, and so can no longer be trusted to lead the world. Instead, it should be feared.
Inevitably, Iraq is the crucible for this debate, though other events and actions?the Kyoto Protocol, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, the International Criminal Court, Guantanamo Bay, federal budget deficits, even cotton subsidies?are being called in as thesis reinforcements. Yet Iraq ought also to cast this debate in a colder, more sobering light. Will it be better for the world if America succeeds in bringing stability, prosperity and even democracy to Iraq, or if it fails? Is it American competence that is feared, or incompetence? If America, under George Bush or a Democratic rival, were to withdraw hastily under the pressure of attacks such as the downing in Iraq on November 2nd of a military helicopter (see article), would that be an encouraging sign of humility or a devastatingly irresponsible act? Given that foreign voices were so keen to disparage America for withdrawing from Somalia in 1994, for failing for years to intervene in the Balkans, for having ?allowed? the Taliban to take power in Afghanistan, and for being reluctant recently to send troops to Liberia, why should so many be hostile now to intervention in Iraq?
Exceptionally exceptional
One answer to this final question is that incoherence is one of the luxuries of impotence. Those who cannot, or will not, take responsibility themselves feel free to snipe at those who do. Another is that it is natural to feel afraid when dramatic, ambitious actions are being undertaken, for the consequences of such actions can themselves be dramatic. But a further answer is that to the outside world America is a strangely puzzling country?strangely, given the openness of its society and the abundance of information about it?and at times the puzzlement turns to worry. This is one of those times.
Such times have, however, occurred ever since the country was founded. As our Washington bureau chief writes in his survey this week, ?A nation apart?, the very phrase ?American exceptionalism? that is so often heard these days was first coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835-40, when that brilliant Frenchman wrote his ?Democracy in America?. Many of the things he pointed out then as profound differences between America and other countries continue to be remarked upon today?its vociferous democracy, its decentralisation, its liking for voluntary associations, the intensity of its people's religious belief. Even during the cold war, which critics like now to describe as a time when fear of the Soviet Union acted as a bond between Americans and others, today's sorts of worries were commonplace. Graham Greene's ?The Quiet American? (1955) complained that naive American idealists did more damage than good. Countless films, whether made by Americans or by foreigners, raised worries about a sinister military-industrial complex, about reds-under-the-bed obsessiveness, about zealotry.
Two other things, though, need also to be observed. One is that in recent years it is true that some of America's distinctiveness has become more marked. That is so in economics (working hours, productivity, innovation), society (population growth, religious belief, patriotism) and politics (a win-at-all-costs partisanship). Indeed, the combination of demographic vitality and productivity-led economic vigour is likely to make America even stronger in future, not weaker, despite the fact that high federal budget deficits could force some strength-sapping tax rises (see article). At least in economics, other countries are again going to have to try to follow some of America's example, if their living standards are to be kept high and unemployment low.
Democracy as solution, and as problem
The second observation, though, is that some elements of American distinctiveness divide America just as much as they divide it from others. Religious, puritanical, conservative Americans (mainly Republicans) are ranged against more secular, hedonistic, tolerant ones (mainly Democrats). Until the 2002 mid-term elections, carried out under the shadow of September 11th, successive polls had showed America to be a ?50-50 nation?. Both parties can find trends that could favour them in future: demography could favour Democrats, while economic drive and patriotism may favour Republicans. In America's cacophonous and hyper-active democracy, this means that actions and adventures tend to be self-regulating, at least over a period of years. Yet that offers both reassurance and worry: it may moderate excesses, and curb the influence of lobbies such as the religious right; but it could also encourage cutting and running from messes overseas.
If that were to occur, it would be a disaster for America and a tragedy for the world. The basic dilemma that was faced in Afghanistan and Iraq was that doing nothing and intervening both looked bad and risky options, but that doing nothing looked worse. In the Middle East as in Central Asia, intervention has been painful and progress has been stumbling. But despite the continued instability in both countries, life is better in both than before the intervention occurred; and much, much better than if al-Qaeda's terror camps had been left in place or if Saddam Hussein had been left in power. As the next leader argues, more needs to be done in Afghanistan, and at least some of it is likely to be. In Iraq, however, if the casualty toll among American forces keeps rising it could well prompt influential voices in Washington, including among Republicans, to press Mr Bush to declare victory and retreat.
Fortunately, he is unlikely to. The flip side of some of the things critics dislike about him?a black-and-white view of the world, a tin ear for dissenting views?makes him also show a stubborn determination. Put more favourably, he is a man with a sense of duty. Put more cynically, perhaps, he is a man who will be keenly aware that early withdrawal will look like failure, and such failure would be politically suicidal.
By intervening in Iraq, against the majority of world opinion but with the courage of its own convictions and the support of a few allies, America showed that it was indeed a different nation from others: one prepared to shoulder responsibilities and to do what it thinks is right. Such behaviour is alarming precisely because it is bold and, by today's standards, different. It is never likely to bring forth a cascade of praise or gifts. It was done, however, in a way likely to reinforce the concern, as administration officials poured abuse on their foreign critics and, through their violations of human rights, damaged America's own moral authority. Now, though, the argument has to be won by creating facts on the ground. If the facts are of failure, America will be likely to shrink back into its shell. But success is there to be had. It will take a long, costly and painful effort. Only once it is done, however, will hope be restored and danger dispelled.

Copyright © 2003 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

This work is represents a reincarnation of de Tocqueville.

No need to re-write de Toqueville. His insights stand.

Why are Americans religious... ask de Toqueville. Why are Americans patriotic... ask de Tocqueville. Why is America strong... ask de Tocqueville. He'll say it's because Americans believe in themselves, each one, individually. There is no incentive for betterment in lands where social positions are fixed, such as under aristocracy or socialism, and, especially, the twisted mixes of both as we have in Europe today. In those societies the world is fixed and has nothing new to say. For amusement and politics they reach for ideals, all the while knowing it is impossible. Americans don't give a damn for poetry. The purists call it "practical." De Tocqueville would call it self-interest. Betterment is the American imperative.

I'd gather that those here who like this article see themselves in the praise, and that those who dislike it see our failures the greater. Don't bother with examples of American socialism or defeat. None of it has changed the core americanism of the individual. Sure, we've had our socialists and our bureaucrats and our EPA and our 55. And yes, we have our factionalism and severe partisanship. No, it's not a New Deal creation, or Clintoon, or modern angst, it is and always has been the American way. Not all Americans choose well -- that's the beauty in America. Socialism has had every opportunity not to fail here, just as did every other populist movement, from the farmers of 1780s Massachusetts to William Jennings Bryan to FDR. Listen carefully to their rhetoric: even our leftists have had to honor the individual.

Therein is de Tocqueville's insight. America is the individual. Everything American is built around it. Education, politics, and culture, America is the individual. Don't forget what de Tocqueville came here to study. He wanted to know what is it a society based upon the idea that "all men are created equal." Therein is the genesis of the individual.

To hell with Marx, to hell with Nietzche. To hell with de Gaulle, and to hell with the Third Way.

For I am an individualist first, last and all the time, and I am bitterly opposed to the theory of Socialism -- that is -- to transfer the object of individual effort to State control and State supervision.
-William Howard Taft

Some people just know it.

Nicollo unmasked: Bromleyisms here

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.