I read an article today by Geov parrish in which he talked about American exceptionalism. I had never heard this term before, so I looked it up and found a Wikipedia article about it. There's even a book about it (American exceptionalism : a double-edged sword by Seymour Martin Lipset, W.W. Norton, 1996.) Here's a review by Bradley Karlin (University of Michigan) and a blurb from Norton (the publisher). In the same article I ran across kleptocracy. The OED's definition: "A ruling body or order of thieves. Also, government by thieves; a nation ruled by this kind of government." The first citation is from 1819.

Tinman

Interesting, Tinman. I hadn't heard about American Exceptionalism before, but from reading your links, I think it is American arrogance. Don't other countries offer hope for opportunity and humanity in unique ways, too? It sounds like we are so different from other countries, which just isn't true. No wonder there is so much anti-Americanism today.

Oh, and I love your kleptocracy! I have always loved the word "oligarchy", and now "kleptocracy" is right up there with it!

In a way the US belief in its superiority is not surprising; the USA is wonderful country. The British, of course, know that this belief, while common, is actually false.

As everyone knows, the honour of being the finest country in the world belongs to Britain, although it's not something we talk about since that would simply be stating the obvious:-)

Richard English

Having read the various articles here I think this sentence from the summary maybe expresses better than anything I could say the view that most other nations have of the USA,

"...The United States pursues both unilateral and multilateral policies at different times, DEPENDING ON WHAT IS IN THEIR SELF-INTEREST..." (my capitals)

Both the UK and Canada (and many other countries) accept and adhere to international agreements (such as the Kyoto Protocol) even when the agreement is counter to their own self-interest. In the USA the agreement must coincide with US interests otherwise it will simply be ignored (such as, again, the Kyoto Protocol).

This is not an anti-American statement; it is simply a statement of fact.

Richard English

Even though I'm a US citizen, RE, I must agree with what you say. It seems that we're just too close to the forest to see the trees. Of course, given another twenty years, there will be no more forests, so the problem will be self-correcting!

Richard, the US is not a party to the Kyoto Protocol, and it did not ratify it. It is not breaching any agreement; in never made any such agreement.

I agree, to a point, Asa, though I think Richard has gone a bit too far in his analysis. I believe it is unfair to say that other countries are altruistic, while in the U.S. "the agreement must coincide with US interests otherwise it will simply be ignored." I would argue against this being a "statement of fact." To me, it is an opinion.

While more recently, I agree, we have been imperialistic, I don't think you can judge our entire history on the last few years. [After all, that imperialism was brought on, in part, because of the 9/11 murders.] For example, our participation in WWII surely helped (along with our allies) to keep the French from speaking German today. Was that participation in our best interests? Probably not. While, yes, we were avenging Pearl Harbor, we could have done that in a more isolationist way.

I don't mean to sound so pro-American. We surely aren't perfect, and I don't agree that we are different from other countries. Yet, fair is fair.

[This message was edited by Kalleh on Thu Dec 25th, 2003 at 22:21.]

Kalleh, I suspect you were mislead by an article when you said, "Tinman. I hadn't heard about American Exceptionalism before, but from reading your links, I think it is American arrogance." The Geov Parrish link is from a site which is devoted to "progressive philanthropy and political activism." The organizations it funds (Greenpeace, Planned Parenthood, Rainforest Action Network, Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Sierra Club, Ms. Foundation, AIDS Action Council and Amnesty International), however worthy, show a distinct and non-neutral perspective here.

Here is a quick summary-excerpt from a more thoughtful consideration of American Exceptionalism:

As G. K. Chesterton put it: "America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence. . . ." As noted in the Introduction, the nation's ideology can be described in five words: liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissezfaire. The revolutionary ideology which became the American Creed is liberalism in its eighteenth- and nineteenth-century meanings, as distinct from conservative Toryism, statist communitarianism, mercantilism, and noblesse oblige dominant in monarchical, state-church-formed cultures.

Other countries' senses of themselves are derived from a common history. Winston Churchill once gave vivid evidence to the difference between a national identity rooted in history and one defined by ideology in objecting to a proposal in 1940 to outlaw the anti-war Communist Party. In a speech in the House of Commons, Churchill said that as far as he knew, the Communist Party was composed of Englishmen and he did not fear an Englishman. In Europe, nationality is related to community, and thus one cannot become un-English or un-Swedish. Being an American, however, is an ideological commitment.

-- American Exceptionalism: A Double Edged Sword by Seymour Martin Lipset

That is the point made in the article and the point with which I agree. The USA decided that Kyoto was not in its interests and thus did not participate. That's effectively (if not legally) the same a breaking it.

There are other examples that prove the truth of this - the USA's agreement with WTO principles which is breaks when it suits US interests - most recently when it imposed steel tariffs to protect its steel industry. The UK did not (which is doubtless why our steel industry has almost disappeared).

I agree that it would be wrong to say that other countries are always altruistic and that the USA is not, but the evidence seems to me to show that the USA always puts its own interests first. That is not always the case with other countries and I can cite many examples.

Richard English

quote:

---

but the evidence seems to me to show that the USA always puts its own interests first.

---

That's just not the case. I reiterate, if it were, we would not have sent our men to Europe to fight for freedom in WWII. I don't want to make this a U.S./rest-of-the-world fight, but let's be fair about it.

Consider the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The pros and cons for NAFTA are continuously being argued. While it surely helps other countries, it hinders ours in many ways. Yet, it has been effect for 10-years now. Now, I agree that many of these initiatives are complex (beyond complicated) and have mixed effects on countries. Yet, it hardly would be fair to say that the motivation for other countries is selflessness, while the motivation for the U.S. is "always" a selfish one.

Enough said on this subject from me.

I am offended.

Let's drop the subject.