What is American exceptionalism?
Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, although they spend a lot of time these days at one another’s throat, appeared on the night of the South Carolina primary to agree on at least one thing: Each believes in “American exceptionalism,” and, they say, Barack Obama does not. Gingrich has already devoted an entire book to the topic, and in an interview with my colleague David Rohde, a top foreign policy adviser to Romney made it clear that American exceptionalism is a theme that Romney intends to stress throughout the campaign.
It’s easy to see that these candidates view their own ideas about American exceptionalism as a strong opportunity to contrast themselves with the incumbent. It’s harder, though, after sifting through the various ways the term is used, to establish what it actually means. Far from being a simple concept that one can easily endorse or reject, American exceptionalism is a loose skein that uneasily unites many different strands of thought, faith and ideology.
Like so much in the discussion of American history, the phrase is often traced to Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. But that doesn’t explain much, because when de Tocqueville wrote that “the position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional,” he was referring primarily to the development of a practical — as opposed to literary or artistic — worldview, stemming from the American landscape and the lack of an aristocracy. More to the point, Gingrich seeks to ground the term in the American Revolution: “The ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and the unique American identity that arose from an American civilization that honored them, form what we call today ‘American Exceptionalism’,” he wrote in A Nation Like No Other, published last year. But that explanation, too, is inadequate; after all, the authors of the Declaration of Independence went out of their way to universalize the values underpinning the American experience (“when, in the course of human events…”), not to cleave that experience off from the rest of the world.
Rather, the faith in the uniqueness of the American experience is best found in its Puritan heritage, the belief that God made a covenant with the founders of America and intended to use American civilization as an example for the rest of the world. In a much-cited speech, Massachusetts Governor John Winthrop referred in 1630 to his colony as “a city on a hill” that could serve as a beacon to the world. But grounding American exceptionalism in religion creates multiple conceptual minefields. For one, the early colonies were not really bastions of liberty; in addition to their slaveholdings, they were, as Gingrich acknowledges, governed like “a theocratic dictatorship.” For another, an appeal to the supernatural puts the idea of American exceptionalism on a similar plane with, say, the Jewish concept of being the Chosen People or the ancient Chinese idea that their country is at the center of the universe — which is to say, there is nothing exceptional about thinking that your civilization is exceptional. Nonetheless, the idea that the United States occupies a privileged and arguably unique place in history is critical to understanding the phrase “American exceptionalism,” from the Manifest Destiny period to the present day.
In the 20th century, American exceptionalism took on a particular meaning in political theory. Typically, it was used to explain why the United States — unlike nearly all developed nations — had never developed a significant working-class political movement. Curiously, although Gingrich and Romney are principally using it in the context of American foreign policy, that usage is of fairly recent vintage. It is also where the meaning of the term is probably the muddiest and does not make as neat a litmus test as Gingrich and Romney seem to want. One can believe that the foundation of America in ideas of liberty and self-governance — rather than in ethnicity or royal domain — makes the United States “exceptional” and yet still be deeply skeptical about America’s use of force abroad. Instead, what Gingrich and Romney appear to be advocating under the name of exceptionalism is either American unilateralism — the idea that the United States has a right and/or obligation to act in the international sphere even if all other countries and multinational institutions don’t join in — or American infallibility — the idea that nothing the United States does in the international arena is ever morally unjustified.
On such subtopics there is robust debate, particularly since 9/11. The Canadian scholar and politician Michael Ignatieff has identified three problematic areas of American exceptionalism in the international realm. These include American exemptionalism, the idea that prevailing international standards don’t apply to the U.S., particularly in the ratification of human rights conventions; double standards, the idea that rules will be ignored or enforced depending on the U.S. perception of its interests; and legal isolationism, the notion that legal findings outside the U.S. should have no bearing on how American judges rule and think.
Here is where Gingrich and Romney probably see a place they can sink their teeth into. It is nearly certain that current or former members of the Obama administration have publicly taken positions against “American exceptionalism” if it’s defined as unilateralism, infallibility, exemptionalism, etc. The political hope is that such parts can be made to stand for the whole and thus used as one more way to call out Obama’s supposed patriotism vacuum.
Gingrich’s anger management
By Michael A. Cohen
The views expressed are his own.
WINDHAM, N.H.—Newt Gingrich is flying high these days – on top of national Republican polls and currently leading in three of the first four Republican primary and caucus states. He hasn’t been this relevant in American politics since Bill Clinton sat in the White House and Titanic was the biggest movie in America. But while the new Newt is clearly enjoying himself, seeing him on the campaign trail brings back familiar glimpses of the old Newt, defined far more by his acid tongue than he was by his policy acumen.
On Monday night, Gingrich took his frontrunner status on the road to New Hampshire, where he spoke at a packed town hall in Windham to crowds that were as ecstatic for him as they would have been for Leo and Kate. More than a thousand Republican partisans were there to greet him. What they got was the sort of grandiose ideas and red-meat political attacks against liberals – and in particular President Obama – that have been the hallmark of Gingrich’s political career, the key to his recent political rise, and perhaps his best hope for winning the Republican nomination. In a year in which Republican voters are angry with Obama and angry with Washington, all the GOP wannabes are cultivating conservative ire – but no one quite does it as effectively and as gleefully as Newt.
For Gingrich then, New Hampshire is a win-win state. The state is generally seen as Mitt Romney’s fail-safe; the place where he must—and should be able to—win in order to keep his election hopes alive. Moreover, the state GOP tends to be less socially conservative than their Iowa brethren; more attuned, it seems, to a Romney rather than Newt candidacy. Nonetheless, Gingrich’s numbers in New Hampshire are beginning to tick up, becoming Romney’s top rival and within shouting distance of first place. If he loses, the world won’t come to an end – and if he wins it could be the killer blow to Romney’s campaign. All the more reason, it seems, for Gingrich to play up his frontrunner credentials and critique Romney.
Ironically, however, Gingrich opened the proceedings by calling on Romney to end all negative campaigning. He even pledged that he would tell all his supporters to refrain from such behavior unless attacked – and such a letter was drafted by the Gingrich campaign and sent out yesterday. The tactic of decrying negative campaigning is Frontrunner 101 – if your opponent can’t attack you, he probably can’t beat you either. Of course, as these things go, this call for a cease and desist came less than ten hours after the former Speaker said of Romney that “he’s earned money bankrupting companies and laying off employees over the years at Bain.” Clearly for Gingrich some habits die hard.
to oneofthesheep reagan did have a way of getting people to trust him. unfortunately that trust started the huge deficit slide we have seen since then, with 80% of the deficit increases coming under the past three gop presidents. reagan and bush 1 took the deficit from 900B to over 4T in 12 years, and bush 2 added an additional 8T (including war costs) to that in just 8 years! what both reagan and bush 2 were able to accomplish were huge give-away tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations, with little or no “trickledown” as promised. now the rest of us “sheep” are to believe another round of huge tax breaks to the same group will turn things around. we can’t be that stupid can we?
Campaign cash finds its way to the courtroom
By Adam Skaggs and Bert Brandenburg The opinions expressed are their own.
Attacks on judges who “legislate from the bench” are commonplace in conservative politics, but the current crop of Republican presidential contenders has taken attacking the judiciary to a new level. New frontrunner Newt Gingrich is the most outspoken — promising that if elected, he would impeach judges, abolish judgeships, and ignore court rulings he doesn’t like.
Gingrich’s plans violate basic constitutional norms and would set off a constitutional crisis. But, ultimately, they ring hollow: however effective in motivating the Republican base, the attacks on the courts are not credible policy proposals.
Outside the realm of presidential politics, however, there is a looming — and very serious — threat to our justice system. Despite all the attention focused on money in politics, few Americans know how much campaign cash is pouring into courts of law, and how it threatens to undermine equal justice for all.
Judges are elected in 39 states, and in recent years, judicial election spending has skyrocketed. In the last decade, spending on state high court elections more than doubled — candidates raised $206.9 million between 2000 and 2009, compared to only $83.3 million in the 1990s.
Now a new report shows that the percentage of outside spending by special interests and political parties nearly doubled in the most recent judicial election cycle, compared with the previous mid-term election. The report — from the Justice at Stake Campaign, Brennan Center for Justice, and National Institute on Money in State Politics — shows that just 10 “Super Spender” groups accounted for nearly $15 million in total spending in 2009-2010 — almost 40 percent of every dollar spent on high court elections.
All of these numbers threaten a value cherished by most Americans, one that is central to our democracy: fair, impartial and equal justice. Court cases are supposed to be decided by the law, not by who wrote the biggest campaign check to the judge.
Just keep in mind which wing of politics supported allowing judges who accepted large campaign sums from likely litigants to sit on cases involving them; it’s the Caperton v. Massey Energy Supreme Court decision from just a few years ago.
Gingrich’s laborious plan to save the youth of America
By Eric Edmonds
The opinions expressed are his own.
Republican Presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich continues to insist that child labor laws in the U.S. are “truly stupid,” that the poor lack good work habits, and that the former would solve the latter. He hasn’t mentioned any specific policy changes, yet it’s clear that he doesn’t like the way things are done now, and that that he thinks America would be better off if kids worked more. If only the economics agreed.
Gingrich hasn’t been clear about what exactly he wants, but he seems to be advocating two complementary policies. First, he would like to see a reduction in the minimum age of employment. While campaigning in Cambridge, he said, “You go out and talk to people who are really successful in one generation. They all started their first job between 9 and 14 years of age.” Second, he wants to put poor children to work in their schools, because “really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits for working and have nobody around them who work.” Granted, if there really is no proclivity to work, it’s not clear how he will actually get these children to start working.
Nevertheless, let’s imagine Gingrich gets his wish. What would be the practical consequences of a reduction in the minimum age of employment in the U.S.? Most likely, nothing good.
The biggest hole in Gingrich’s plan is a simple one: adding more workers does not create new jobs. With 1,373,000 youths 16 to 19 currently looking for work, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, adding even younger children to this pile would likely serve to increase unemployment or reduce unskilled wages further.
@smarkus,
So? Back in 1960 Minimum wage jobs were plentiful. At today’s minimum wage, many have been automated, as I said.
What’s your point in opening YOUR mouth in this manner? Two dimensional comment in a three dimensional world.
All of Washington lives in Newt’s swamp
By Jack Abramoff The opinions expressed are his own.
Last week, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich romanced the Tea Party activists, who demand that the corrupt swamp of Washington be drained. His intrepid spokesman, R.C. Hammond, had a more arduous task: convincing the world that the former Speaker was not swimming in that same swamp. As facts emerged revealing that Gingrich took almost $2 million in “consulting” fees from the beleaguered Freddie Mac, Hammond delivered proof that the Gingrich operation was master of the inside-the-Washington-beltway game. Spinning Gingrich’s perfidious (yet legal) trip through the infamous revolving door to post public service riches, Hammond posited that taking millions in consulting fees was actually a positive: since Newt now understood “why the system is broken,” he now knew “how it could be fixed.” In other words, now that he had participated in legal corruption, he was more qualified to be our President.
By that metric, I should be announcing my cabinet choices any day now. After all, in 2004, my lobbying activities became the basis for the biggest corruption scandal to hit Washington since Watergate. Gingrich’s candidacy may or may not survive these revelations, but there is a bigger issue to consider than whether this late-night-talk show hosts’ dream politician makes it to the Oval Office.
America is sick of its political leaders raking in millions of dollars in fees from special interests. At a time when the average American can barely afford enough gasoline to get to work, our politicians are converting their elected positions into major paydays. Newt is not the first and won’t be the last to do this. He just has the bad luck to be surging in the polls. But the problem with this latest round of “shoot the leading Republican candidate” is that it deflects attention from the need to change the system. Every time one of these “gotcha” attacks becomes personal, it loses its capacity to engender real reform.
There is something sordid about converting public service to private boodle. Cashing in on government employment to help special interests increase their take at the public trough is even worse. Some politicians aim to become lobbyists the minute they arrive in the Congress. Others wait until defeat or retirement ends their legislative career.
Many – like Gingrich – try to disguise their role in the lobbying monolith by declaring themselves consultants. They cry that they’re not “lobbyists”, they are merely providers of strategic advice. I have news for them: that’s what lobbyists do! Sure, these petitioners only become lobbyists officially once they meet with Congressional members and staff, but the actual face-to-face meetings are usually only one component of lobbying campaigns. I was considered one of the nation’s top lobbyists, but I rarely met with Congressmen and staff about legislation. My forte was creating strategies and game plans, which my minions would implement. How is this much different from what Newt and almost every Democrat and Republican former Congressman and Senator claim to do in lieu of actual lobbying?
Indeed Mr. Abramhoff,
Always a treat to hear about the reformed crook who raped the public for years… If you had a lick of sincerity, you’d be forming a massive enterprise to expose the most pivotal politicians, bringing compelling pressure to bear on them, introducing criminal and civil litigation, and expunging them from power. So where are your balls, pussy cat? Jerry H. Nissen
Does Gingrich actually want to be President?
By Ben Adler
The opinions expressed are his own.
There is a well-established template for a politician who has ascended to the pinnacle of national politics, tumbled off of it, and wants to return to run for president. You get out of Washington. You occupy yourself in private or charitable endeavors, maybe write anodyne books and studiously avoid making controversial proclamations that might come back to haunt you.
Richard Nixon, after losing his 1960 presidential bid and his ill-advised 1962 run for Governor of California followed this script and was elected in 1968. But former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who recently announced his candidacy for president, hasn’t merely detoured from this path in recent years, he’s gone completely in the other direction. In fact, everything he has done since he was Speaker suggests he never planned to run for president, and he hasn’t made the appropriate preparations.
After Gingrich famously miscalculated and cost his party seats in the 1998 midterms by impeaching Bill Clinton for a brief episode of philandering, Gingrich left his own wife — who had just been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis — for his mistress. That was his first mistake; well, actually his second, since he had previously left his first wife while she was in the hospital with cancer for his second wife. (Gingrich’s personal history was the subject of a devastating profile in Esquire last year.)
Gingrich had over a decade before his presidential run to come up with a plausible apology, defense, excuse or explanation for his behavior, and he doesn’t appear to have bothered doing so. Instead, when recently asked about his adultery Gingrich claimed that cheating was the inevitable consequence of working too hard because of “how passionately I felt about this country.”
His ineptitude at explaining his love life is but one example. Gingrich stayed inside the Beltway and sought influence through think tanks and political action committees. His American Solutions group has competed with major conservative groups for attention and donations, weakening his campaign’s base of support among them. “He burned a lot of bridges,” Richard Viguerie, a leading conservative activist and fundraiser told TPM on Monday.
Suggest you watch the Zero Mostel / Gene Wilder version of ‘The Producers’ to understand what Newt is up to. He will drop out after his book sales reach a predetermined amount. That is what he’s after not a job. That would cut into his time shopping at Tiffany’s.
Refuting healthcare myths
– David Magnus, Phd, is the director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics. The views expressed are his own. –
The public discussion of healthcare reform has been full of so many lies and myths that it is less a policy debate than bad theater.
Critics of reform (conservatives hoping to score political points and oppose Obama on anything; free market ideologues; those with threatened financial interests) have stooped to absurdity in their public pronouncements. One publication declared that severely disabled physicist Stephen Hawking would never get life saving medicine in a national health system, ignoring that Hawking is British—virtually all of his life saving treatments were done through their National Health Service.
As debate over reforming health care continues, these are some of the key myths that get in the way of truly meaningful discussion.
Myth #1—We have the best health care in the world
This is probably true for some Americans. But on the whole our system is among the poorest of all developed nations. We spend far more per capita than any of our peers on healthcare, yet health outcomes measures are no better in aggregate. The World Health Organization ranking of health systems rated 36 other countries as having better health systems despite spending far less. The U.S. was right behind Costa Rica (and only two spots ahead of Cuba).
But the reality of the failure of our health system is best seen by the thousands of people being turned away in Los Angeles last week at the massive free clinic set up by the Remote Area Medical Foundation (see Reuters story). When the country spending the most money can not meet the basic medical needs of so many of its citizens, it does not have a good (or just) health system, much less the best system.
This country can no longer keep what passes for a health care system. I believe the survival of the republic is at stake here. A healthy nation is a happy one, and we have a right to pursue happiness.
Iran sanctions and wishful thinking
– Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own –
So what’s so difficult in getting Iran to drop its nuclear program? All it needs is a great American leader who uses sanctions to break the Iranian economy so badly that popular discontent sweeps away the leadership. It is replaced without a shot being fired.
That simplistic solution to one of the most complex problems of the Middle East was part of a keynote speech greeted with thunderous applause by 6,000 delegates to the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The speaker: Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and a likely Republican presidential candidate in 2012.
In the fourth month of the administration of President Barack Obama, who favors talking to America’s adversaries rather than ousting them, the Gingrich prescription sounded like a throwback to the days when neo-conservatives predicted that the U.S. troops invading Iraq would be pelted with flowers and sweets. Wishful thinking at its finest.
But in panel discussions and forums at AIPAC, one of the most powerful lobby groups in the United States, the idea of sharply tightened sanctions had plenty of proponents. The preferred lever: cutting off gasoline supplies to Iran, which relies on imports for around 40% of its domestic consumption.
On the final day of the conference this week, several thousand AIPAC activists converged on Congress to press their representatives for passage of pending legislation to sanction companies that sell, ship, finance or insure gasoline exports to Iran. Firms that continued dealing with Iran would be banned from doing business with the U.S.
Would an additional layer to a stack of sanctions imposed since 1995 get the Iranians to drop what the West insists is work toward a nuclear bomb? There is no reason to believe it would. There is every reason to believe more sanctions would inflict hardship on the Iranian people.
State control of media and indoctrination since birth? Wow, they sound exactly like the USA!
How about leaving Iran alone? Why shouldn’t Iran have a nuclear program, since Israel is nuclear-armed? Why not tell Israel that a price for persuading Iran to give up its nuclear program is for Israel to give up all its nuclear arms and stop making more?
This is a really interesting debate and there have been some interesting books written on the subject. Andrew Bacevich has a good book called “The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism” and the book The Rhetoric of American Exceptionalism I just got done reading and it provides a good anatomy of this debate over the past two hundred years. It seems to be the biggest dichotomy with Republicans is between Romney and Paul. Interesting to see how this turns out.