“Man is neither angel nor brute, and the unfortunate thing is
that he who would act the angel acts the brute.” – Blaise Pascal, Les Pensées
(1669)
Letter #95 to Friends and Familiares #95: Is
American Exceptionalism Dead? Part III: What American Exceptionalism is Not
The first two essays in this series have delved into the external symptoms and inward flaws that indicate the approaching end of America's exceptionalism, at least in terms of power. In my next essay, I
commit to spell out what I believe American exceptionalism is supposed to be,
if indeed it exists at all. My thinking
on this apparently arrogant subject has a lot more to do with principles than power. In that sense, those in our time who have
espoused this concept have come from diverse backgrounds and include people as
far apart as the Reverend Martin Luther King and President Gerald Ford.
To find the thread that
binds together these men, and many women as well, I would like to start out by clarifying the popular notion behind the rhetorical device of this American
exceptionalism. While this notion, and variants of it, has its
adherents, my sense is that the leading idea of this exceptionalism is a misconception
that America’s might makes right her actions or that American leadership is an exceptionally malignant force in the world because of this 'hyper-power' and has been for a while.
Neither imperialism nor
its dialectic of “leading from behind” is a source of American exceptionalism. Each represents a reaction to the rise of
American commercial power and military capacity. While American imperialism began
to appear from the early nineteenth century onward, it has only been the last fifty
years during which the illusion of coercion has intoxicated too many leaders
into an amoral realpolitik or, worse, into a tendency to project military force
too quickly at the expense of the weak.
One view produces
bloodless calculation, as seen in the stark indifference to the unceasing slaughterin Syria. The other view has produced the string of phony wars in the Dominican
Republic, Panama, Grenada, Kosovo, Serbia and Libya as well as pushed for
invasions of bloody consequence in Viêt Nam and, perhaps, in Iraq. While
coincident with the apotheosis of American commercial power, that economic leadership preceded this hubris of power by almost a century. Things started changing when the
British, exhausted and insolvent after two world wars, handed their empire and
policing role to their ‘American cousins’.
Unfortunately, the
counterpoint to this inflation of power – the notion of leading from behind –
is an over-reaction to this hubris and often degenerates into an excuse for indifferent
diffidence that compromises what American exceptionalism ought properly to be. In a sense, this new paradigm of leading from
behind parallels the British shift away from empire seventy years ago. In the case of the United States and her accession to empire, the world
saw two large empires squaring off for almost five decades in another world war
of ideas.
Both the United States and Soviet Union divvied up the policing powers according to immediate interests at play. Imperialism and policing
is not a sustainable foreign policy; war broke down (at least) direct British
influence in the Second World War. The
Cold War was another world conflict that bankrupted the U.S.S.R. As the lone ‘hyper-power’
for the last quarter century, America’s policing role and aggressive pursuit of
policy has basically made the U.S. insolvent with wartime debt levels in
peacetime and a monetary policy that has the world sloshing through deep pools
of inert currency.
(Once that currency moves
or others trade in their stored dollars for other newly recognized store-value currencies and / or selling off Treasury notes and bonds,
inflation will spike and accelerate a long-deferred deflation of artificially
high asset values generated by near-zero percent rates suppressing the discount
rates applied to asset valuations. The American people are weary of war-making
far from home with dubious assertions of national security where inconvenient
challenges tend to be exaggerated into existential threats.)
Thus, this doctrine of
leading from behind is the American version of handing off the hegemon
function, with its attendant costs, to others.
In the case of Syria and Ukraine, the unhappy beneficiary of this
bequeathing of power appears to be the European Union, particularly
Germany. The problem is that the Germany-led
E.U. is as unprepared today to assume that mantle as were the United States
when Great Britain made this shift in the 1940s.
The unwillingness of the
current Administration to initiate the process of a significant push-back in
the face of evil or illegal aggression – that is, take the lead through a
concerted first step so new partnering powers can feel empowered to stand with
the democracies – has vitiated leading from behind to a public compromise of what our
Republic stands for. The United States is managing to alienate
allies, to embolden terrorists and to encourage illegal expansionism.
In short, the stars and
stripes are coming to mean weapons or self-enriching development aid for many
of the world’s poor while, at the same time, the disenfranchised of the earth see
America backing away from confrontations with countries strong enough to impose
significant casualties. This behavior of
a school-yard bully – by bombing defenseless countries while recoiling from
more powerful adversaries – surely cannot be the stuff of American exceptionalism.
If it is, then those
friends of mine who argue that American exceptionalism is a myth used to
justify armed adventurism to safeguard short-term, primarily economic,
interests are sadly correct in their heated assertions. Nevertheless, there has been an American exceptionalism forged in the
past and applied judiciously across two centuries, until the 1960s, as the United States evolved
from a struggling post-colonial state in 1784, an emerging economy in 1820 and a great power in 1860. More about that soon.

.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment