News American Exceptionalism: What Does It Mean?

[Lapidus]

Repeatedly I heard the words "American Exceptionalism" from Republicans recently (Gingrich, Limbaugh, others). What do these words stand for? Do the "liberals" and President Obama do not believe in it?

 

[MATLABdude]

[quote from troll post deleted] I'm reminded of a quote I heard somewhere once, which is probably based somewhere else, and stolen from someone else, and applied to a completely different situation (as such things go). Nevertheless, a cursory Google search brings up one of its iterations, which is along the lines of what you're suggesting:

Liberals love their country the way that an adult loves something. While their love is honestly unconditional, they are willing to tell the person that they love when they are doing something wrong. When conditions are negative, they react by working to make a change and help the situation become better. They give support that is based on the nature of the relationship rather than on the particular environment of the moment. This is the way that an adult reacts within a relationship of love. Honest disagreement is evidence that they actually love the person/country; not that they hate it. They want the country to be better than it currently is, to live up to its potential. Hate is demonstrated by apathy within a relationship more so than it is action. True patriotism is striving to force the country to maintain its principles and become the best it can. If Liberals truly hated this country they would be indifferent to it and see to create society under a different organizing principle.

Conservatives love their country the way that a small child loves its parents. The relationship is based on what is going on that moment only. On one hand they see no wrong in what their parents do. A small child isn't able to decide to love a parent more or less based on the character of that parent. Children love their parents even if they beat them, molest them, or abandon them. This is the same as Conservatives. They define patriotism as blind adherence to authority and never allowing in the possibility that anything the country has ever done is wrong. They define dissent and disagreement as hating one's country and not being patriotic. Unlike Liberals they are quick to move their allegiances away from the country and into those small outlets of political agreement that serve as the basis of their identity.

http://open.salon.com/blog/sean_day..._conservatives_love_america_in_different_ways

Suffice it to say, American Exceptionalism is the belief that you guys (and gals) are special (exceptional), and that your s*%@ doesn't stink. The reality is that republics have come before (though never as inclusive), empires have come before (though probably never as lightly nor as transient), and the former has turned into the latter (and back) before. What has set you (and us British and British subjects) apart has been rule of law: that no one is above the law, nor bereft of its protections. Watch out for your politicians who want to kill (or impeach) all the lawyers or, to borrow from Pokemon, at least their 'evolved' forms, the judges.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Here are a few sentences copied from Wiki:

The specific term "American exceptionalism" was first used in 1929 by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin chastising members of the American Communist Party for believing that America was independent of the Marxist laws of history "thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions."[4]

Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense.[1][5] To them, the United States is like the biblical "shining city on a hill," and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

 

[nazarbaz]

To think that we are exceptional among other nations, groups and communities is one of the most common patterns of the human cultures... It's almost a cliché... Nothing "exceptional" about it...
The judeo-christian tradition is based since its very beginning on the notion of "election" in its primary meaning... But it's not specific to that group of cultures neither... I was born and raised in a different religion but I was taught since early childhood that "we were not like the others"... To use that kind of language in a suprematist strategy is not "exceptional" too...

 

[Jack21222]

This all stems from a comment that Obama made in 2009, when asked if he believed in "American Exceptionalim." He responded:

I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.

To me, that sounds like a fair answer. To some republicans, that's the equivalent of wiping one's backside with the American Flag, apparently.

 

[Galteeth]

American exceptionalism (by the way, physicsforums doesn't recognize "exceptionalism" as a word) is the belief that America and it's traditions of government are historically unique. I.E., the American "empire" will not go the way of other empires because it is, in some sense, categorically different.

I think the first sentence from the above referenced wiki article better answers the OP's question:

"American exceptionalism refers to the theory that the United States is qualitatively different from other countries. In this view, America's exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming "the first new nation,"[1] and developing a uniquely American ideology, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire. This observation can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville, the first writer to describe the United States as "exceptional" in 1831 and 1840.[2] Historian Gordon Wood has argued, "Our beliefs in liberty, equality, constitutionalism, and the well-being of ordinary people came out of the Revolutionary era. So too did our idea that we Americans are a special people with a special destiny to lead the world toward liberty and democracy."

 

[Jack21222]

American exceptionalism (by the way, physicsforums doesn't recognize "exceptionalism" as a word) is the belief that America and it's traditions of government are historically unique. I.E., the American "empire" will not go the way of other empires because it is, in some sense, categorically different.

I think the first sentence from the above referenced wiki article better answers the OP's question:

"American exceptionalism refers to the theory that the United States is qualitatively different from other countries. In this view, America's exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming "the first new nation,"[1] and developing a uniquely American ideology, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire. This observation can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville, the first writer to describe the United States as "exceptional" in 1831 and 1840.[2] Historian Gordon Wood has argued, "Our beliefs in liberty, equality, constitutionalism, and the well-being of ordinary people came out of the Revolutionary era. So too did our idea that we Americans are a special people with a special destiny to lead the world toward liberty and democracy."

The problem with this definition is that literally every country in the world is exceptional by this definition. Every country's traditions of government are historically unique. Every country is qualitatively different from every other country. Egyptian exceptionalism stems from being one of the oldest cultures. Indian exceptionalism stems from being one of the most populous countries and from driving out the British occupiers. British exceptionalism stems from having an empire so large at one point that the sun was always shining on some part of it.

I'm no historian, but EVERY country can come up with a list and say "this is why our country is exceptional; that is to say, qualitatively different from every other country."

This is the national equivalent of "everybody's special."

 

[WhoWee]

If we're not exceptional as a country - why do so many people count on us for assistance?

 

[russ_watters]

The fact that we're the richest in the world can explain that and it doesn't, as far as I can tell, have anything to do with the concept of exceptionalism.

 

[WhoWee]

The fact that we're the richest in the world can explain that and it doesn't, as far as I can tell, have anything to do with the concept of exceptionalism.

I always thought our exceptionalism was in the area of free enterprise - unlimited potential due to our freedoms and the American Dream of success? Isn't that why people chose to come to the US - to live the Dream?

 

[jduster]

America is exceptional in its amount of high school dropouts.

 

[WhoWee]

America is exceptional in its amount of high school dropouts.

Haven't graduation/equiv rates improved over the past 100 years?

 

[lisab]

Haven't graduation/equiv rates improved over the past 100 years?

When a country is trying to be exceptional, it shouldn't compare itself to how it was 100 years ago. It should compare itself to other countries, in the present.

Many aspects of life have improved all over the world in the last 100 years. Nothing exceptional about that.

 

[WhoWee]

When a country is trying to be exceptional, it shouldn't compare itself to how it was 100 years ago. It should compare itself to other countries, in the present.

Many aspects of life have improved all over the world in the last 100 years. Nothing exceptional about that.

Perhaps we should ask WHY graduation rates are not exceptional? Don't we spend more than everyone else on education K-12? As far as I know attendance is mandatory K-age 16? What is the motivation for anyone to drop out - could it be the attraction of public assistance for some?

 

[lisab]

Perhaps we should ask WHY graduation rates are not exceptional? Don't we spend more than everyone else on education K-12? As far as I know attendance is mandatory K-age 16? What is the motivation for anyone to drop out - could it be the attraction of public assistance for some?

If you already have a conclusion in your pocket, why go to the bother of gathering data?

 

[mheslep]

Apropos:

The author Robert Kagan has a book out titled, "The World American Made", to leave little doubt where he stands on the exceptionalism issue. The book has come up in White House discussions apparently. He's son of historian Donald and brother to political commentator Frederick, and has an article out today:

Why the World Needs America

On the subject of the current ongoing trend of more pluralistic governments and a relatively safe international system, I've toyed with the idea that the 'better idea' of democracy and free markets make today's world ~inevitable, as opposed to being enabled by a superpower like the US. Kagan's answer: wrong.

...Many foreign-policy experts see the present international order as the inevitable result of human progress, a combination of advancing science and technology, an increasingly global economy, strengthening international institutions, evolving "norms" of international behavior and the gradual but inevitable triumph of liberal democracy over other forms of government—forces of change that transcend the actions of men and nations.

Americans certainly like to believe that our preferred order survives because it is right and just—not only for us but for everyone. We assume that the triumph of democracy is the triumph of a better idea, and the victory of market capitalism is the victory of a better system, and that both are irreversible. That is why Francis Fukuyama's thesis about "the end of history" was so attractive at the end of the Cold War and retains its appeal even now, after it has been discredited by events. The idea of inevitable evolution means that there is no requirement to impose a decent order. It will merely happen.

But international order is not an evolution; it is an imposition. It is the domination of one vision over others—in America's case, the domination of free-market and democratic principles, together with an international system that supports them. The present order will last only as long as those who favor it and benefit from it retain the will and capacity to defend it.

There was nothing inevitable about the world that was created after World War II. No divine providence or unfolding Hegelian dialectic required the triumph of democracy and capitalism, and there is no guarantee that their success will outlast the powerful nations that have fought for them. Democratic progress and liberal economics have been and can be reversed and undone. The ancient democracies of Greece and the republics of Rome and Venice all fell to more powerful forces or through their own failings. The evolving liberal economic order of Europe collapsed in the 1920s and 1930s. The better idea doesn't have to win just because it is a better idea. It requires great powers to champion it.

If and when American power declines, the institutions and norms that American power has supported will decline, too. Or more likely, if history is a guide, they may collapse altogether as we make a transition to another kind of world order, or to disorder. We may discover then that the U.S. was essential to keeping the present world order together and that the alternative to American power was not peace and harmony but chaos and catastrophe—which is what the world looked like right before the American order came into being.

 

[Char. Limit]

Perhaps we should ask WHY graduation rates are not exceptional? Don't we spend more than everyone else on education K-12? As far as I know attendance is mandatory K-age 16? What is the motivation for anyone to drop out - could it be the attraction of public assistance for some?

As odd as it may be, I was recently in high school, and I don't remember anyone dropping out so that they could get a welfare check.

 

[WhoWee]

As odd as it may be, I was recently in high school, and I don't remember anyone dropping out so that they could get a welfare check.

That still doesn't answer the question of why they did drop out - did they think they didn't need an education?

 

[Char. Limit]

That still doesn't answer the question of why they did drop out - did they think they didn't need an education?

Basically. The vast majority got a job and figured that a diploma wasn't going to help them as much as going full time would. So they got a full-time job instead.

Of course, there were also the rare few that were expelled, but they're not doing so well.

 

[WhoWee]

Of course, there were also the rare few that were expelled, but they're not doing so well.

I'm aware of five persons from the past few years - 2 are on unemployment currently, one is in the county jail, the last two are working part time jobs and on their GED.

The one in jail had a job with his uncle - making about $20 per hour. Unfortunately, his uncle was doing some bad things on the side and got them both arrested.

 

[SixNein]

Back to the OP,

American exceptionalism is probably a result of 12 years of American history and not the most unbiased view of it either.

I'm sure many of you remember reading about how Columbus discovered America and the misnomer of Indians that sticks to this day.

 

[Jasongreat]

Back to the OP,

American exceptionalism is probably a result of 12 years of American history and not the most unbiased view of it either.

I'm sure many of you remember reading about how Columbus discovered America and the misnomer of Indians that sticks to this day.

It is not hard to find examples of American Exeptionalism from 1770- 1850, harder to find from 1850-1930, then harder to find from 1930 on. Now it seems american exceptionalism is that we do what every other county does towards the end of empire, imo, which kind of destroys the exceptionlism part.

 

[russ_watters]

It is not hard to find examples of American Exeptionalism from 1770- 1850, harder to find from 1850-1930, then harder to find from 1930 on. Now it seems american exceptionalism is that we do what every other county does towards the end of empire, imo, which kind of destroys the exceptionlism part.

Conquering countries, then rebuilding them and returning the countries to the people of those countries is a pretty exceptional thing for an "empire" to do.

In any case, here's what I believe: I believe that the US is primarily responsible for the unprecedented explosion of peace in the world over the past century or so due to a change in philosophy, specifically with respect to the conduct of war and building of empires in their aftermath. Near as I can tell, the idea of not building an empire with the spoils of war originated with Wilson's 14 points. His ideas led to the UN and to the dissolution of the old empires from the "age of empires" and hence an end to wars between major world powers.

Yes, America's military power allows us to force our will on the rest of the world. But in this context, "our will" is a world free from empires, aggressive wars and tyrants. And for that I think the world owes us at least a debt of gratitude that it was our will imposed on the world instead of the will of, say, the USSR or 1940 Germany or Japan.

 

[russ_watters]

American exceptionalism is probably a result of 12 years of American history and not the most unbiased view of it either.

Which years are you referring to? Please explain.

 

[jambaugh]

The United State and the "coalition of the willing" made war in Iraq for about ten years based on "faulty intelligence" about S. Hussein having Weapons of Mass Destruction".

As I recall, the war started when S. Hussein invaded his neighbor, literally raping and pillaging Kuwait, poised to invade Saudi Arabia, planning to capture and control a substantial percentage of the world's oil supply.

It was the timidity of Bush senior and partners which left the situation untenable over the long term. It was hoped that once contained and weakened the government would fall to internal revolution. Remember this was before 9-11.

Hussein encouraged the belief that he indeed had WMD's (again) presumably to discourage a coalition invasion not realizing (especially in the shadow of 9-11) that this had the opposite effect. Make no mistake. Hussein had made and used chemical weapons in the past and retained the capacity and will to do so in the future. If you believe inspections and sanctions would be sufficient to prevent this take a cold hard look at Iran.

Bush 1 should have asked Congress for a written declaration of war against the Hussein government and occupied the country from the start instead of giving it 3 years to prepare and consolidate.

That or stay out of the whole thing altogether, allow Hussein to wage a full blown war of occupation in the M.E. ultimately ending in Israel using nukes to prevent their own dissolution when he came knocking on their door.

I speculate here but it is my opinion as to the outcome had we been isolationists, unwilling to intervene.

 

[Jack21222]

As I recall, the war started when S. Hussein invaded his neighbor, literally raping and pillaging Kuwait, poised to invade Saudi Arabia, planning to capture and control a substantial percentage of the world's oil supply.

Lol, none of that happened. Kuwait was angle-drilling underneath of Iraq, and Iraq when to the United Nations to stop it. The UN shrugged its shoulders, to Iraq invaded Kuwait in retaliation. There was no plan to invade Saudi Arabia. No plan to "capture and control a substantial percentage of the world's oil supply." You should clean up your recollection.

More info: http://www.thefinertimes.com/War-in-The-Middle-East/gulf-war-overview-a-timeline.html

 

[ThomasT]

Repeatedly I heard the words "American Exceptionalism" from Republicans recently (Gingrich, Limbaugh, others). What do these words stand for? Do the "liberals" and President Obama do not believe in it?

Your question was pretty much answered in some early posts in this thread, imo. But since the thread has rambled on, as threads will do, here's my two cents:

Wrt certain commenters I think that the term is often meant to connote a certain moral superiority of American policies. Of course we know that American policies aren't necessarily morally superior. But America is nevertheless clearly exceptional in terms of its wealth, military power, and the social and political freedom and standard of living of its inhabitants ... all taken together.

The wealth and military power of America carries with it, in the view of some, the responsibility to enforce justice throughout the world. However, what's justice in one view is sometimes injustice in another view.

The empire building of European collectives, from Rome to England to America, has been, by any measure that I can think of, exceptional. Has it always proceeded according to what most of us would consider moral justice? No. Has it made the world a better place for a large proportion of the world's inhabitants? I want to answer yes to that, but, as far as I can tell, it's an open question.

 

[Jack21222]

Conquering countries, then rebuilding them and returning the countries to the people of those countries is a pretty exceptional thing for an "empire" to do.

In any case, here's what I believe: I believe that the US is primarily responsible for the unprecedented explosion of peace in the world over the past century or so due to a change in philosophy, specifically with respect to the conduct of war and building of empires in their aftermath. Near as I can tell, the idea of not building an empire with the spoils of war originated with Wilson's 14 points. His ideas led to the UN and to the dissolution of the old empires from the "age of empires" and hence an end to wars between major world powers.

Yes, America's military power allows us to force our will on the rest of the world. But in this context, "our will" is a world free from empires, aggressive wars and tyrants. And for that I think the world owes us at least a debt of gratitude that it was our will imposed on the world instead of the will of, say, the USSR or 1940 Germany or Japan.

Explosion of peace in the past century? World War 1, World War 2, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq 1, Iraq 2... Perhaps you meant after the world wars. Even then, the United States has been involved with several wars of aggression that they had no business participating in. Viet Nam and Korea come to mind. The latest war against Iraq was an aggressive war of choice.

Maybe Hussein was a tyrant, but it isn't just tyrants that we knock over. We overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and INSTITUTED a tyrant in Iran. You think they owe us a debt of gratitude?

I'd attribute the lack of major wars between rich countries to the fact that with the increase in globalization, wars become too expensive for both sides. China and the US will never go to war (in my lifetime, anyway) not because of our "exceptionality," but because the US is one of the China's biggest trade partners. Too many goods and too much money flows between the two countries to make war palatable. The only wars that occur now are between major world powers such as the US and underdeveloped nations. But, this doesn't mean that we're in an explosion of peace, it just means that the wars are increasingly short and lopsided. There's still plenty of war, including aggressive war. Just look at our very recent history.

 

[Jack21222]

But America is nevertheless clearly exceptional in terms of its wealth, military power, and the social and political freedom and standard of living of its inhabitants ... all taken together.

Wealth: Depends on how you define it. GDP, yes, per capita GDP, no, we're around 7th.

Military Power: No question

Social freedom: Not even close. According to the UN, we rank 13th.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...an-freedom-political-human-development-report (Note: this article is outdated, but I cannot find any new data)

Standard of living: Again, we're not number 1 here either. According to the report sited here, we're 13th: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index

So, you'll need to define "exceptional" as "among the top 10" for your statement to work.

 

[ThomasT]

Wealth: Depends on how you define it. GDP, yes, per capita GDP, no, we're around 7th.

Military Power: No question

Social freedom: Not even close. According to the UN, we rank 13th.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...an-freedom-political-human-development-report (Note: this article is outdated, but I cannot find any new data)

Standard of living: Again, we're not number 1 here either. According to the report sited here, we're 13th: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index

So, you'll need to define "exceptional" as "among the top 10" for your statement to work.

Ok, then (if you want to be nitpicky ) consider it so defined.

But, come on, don't you agree that America is still the preeminent power in the world?

 

[daveb]

IMO - there used to be a saying - "America - love it or leave it" - perhaps we should bring it back?

I hope you are being sarcastic here, and not serious. It is precisely a love of America that causes people to criticize the policies and actions of the government. Otherwise, one could argue, "if you don't love the policies of the current administration, then you should just leave". It goes both ways.

 

[Decimator]

Repeatedly I heard the words "American Exceptionalism" from Republicans recently (Gingrich, Limbaugh, others). What do these words stand for? Do the "liberals" and President Obama do not believe in it?

Rush Limbaugh has transcripts on his website, so I quick looked up his own definition. Here's what he has to say:

RUSH: Really, the founding of this country is a miracle. You and I know it. What is American exceptionalism? Everybody has their own definition. I'll tell you what mine is. The rule for human beings since the creation of time, since the creation of the planet, the normal, standard operating procedure has been tyranny, dungeons, oppression, poverty. The vast majority of the people who have ever lived in the world have been imprisoned or dictated toward, lived under tyranny, been poor. It's been the standard. The exception to that has been the United States. The exception to what life was like for most every human being has been the United States of America. That's one definition of American exceptionalism. It's not that we're better than anybody else. This is what Obama and the Democrats don't like. They think we're saying we're better people. No, no, no, no. We're luckier. We have a country that was founded by brilliant people who understood that we are blessed by God.

(applause)

RUSH: The whole notion of hating the country, I know it exists, I know there are people out there who hate this country, don't like it. Intellectually it doesn't compute, and it saddens me to no end, but I know that they believe that this is a country that has stolen from every other country, that we have raped and pillaged and that we have conquered and that we have murdered and all this. No concept, no understanding, 'cause they're not taught of the wonderful things this country has done for the rest of the world, the standard of living that we brought to ourselves and people around the world. And at some point, you have to say, I'm not going to waste my time trying to persuade 'em anymore. I'm just going to try to see to it that those people remain few in number and can't win elections. Because it really comes down to that.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/11/29/rush_live_in_new_york_city

 

[ThomasT]

@ Decimator,

Thanks for reminding me why I don't bother to listen to anything that Rush Limbaugh has to say about anything.

 

[russ_watters]

Rush's definition is similar to what is on the wiki for the subject for one possible definition. While it is interesting food for thought, I find it a little useless and an oversimplification:

Sure, by our youth we never went through feudalism, but does that really say anything useful? And while we avoided some western growing pains, we couldn't avoid others, such as slavery.

 

[russ_watters]

@ Decimator,

Thanks for reminding me why I don't bother to listen to anything that Rush Limbaugh has to say about anything.

Er, did you read it? What was so bad about it?

 

[ThomasT]

Er, did you read it?

Yes.

What was so bad about it?

I don't think it's worth discussing. Rush has a certain view about things. A view that I consider, for the most part, to be overly simplistic and obviously biased, to a fault. I mean, would anybody call Rush Limbaugh an objective commenter?

 

[mheslep]

Lol, none of that happened. Kuwait was angle-drilling underneath of Iraq, and Iraq when to the United Nations to stop it. The UN shrugged its shoulders, to Iraq invaded Kuwait in retaliation. There was no plan to invade Saudi Arabia. No plan to "capture and control a substantial percentage of the world's oil supply." You should clean up your recollection.

More info: http://www.thefinertimes.com/War-in-The-Middle-East/gulf-war-overview-a-timeline.html

Cool make-money-at-home website (though it says nothing about Kuwait drilling under Iraq).
http://www.thefinertimes.com/write-for-us.html

We are always looking for talented writers to help grow The Finer Times.

Our current pay rates are from $6 to $15 per article depending on topic and word count.

We offer author profile pages as an additional bonus, your work will be visible to the web community and the possibility of your picking up more freelance writing is greatly enhanced.

 

[apeiron]

Cool make-money-at-home website (though it says nothing about Kuwait drilling under Iraq).

The story is widely reported...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait

The increasingly tense relations between Iraq and Kuwait were further aggravated when Iraq alleged that Kuwait was slant-drilling across the international border into Iraq's Rumaila field. The dispute over Rumaila field started in 1960 when an Arab League declaration marked the Iraq-Kuwait border 2 miles north of the southern-most tip of the Rumaila field.

The incident may of course have been the excuse Iraq was looking for.

But the general point about American exceptionalism here is that it is not some noble, religious, self-sacrificing deal. The US is an empire managing its world in a pragmatic fashion.

Just consider the other land grabs that no one ever talks about much...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_invasion_of_East_Timor#US_involvement

On the day before the invasion, U.S. President Gerald R. Ford and Kissinger met with Indonesian president Suharto. The United States had suffered a devastating setback in Vietnam, leaving Indonesia as the most important ally in the region. The US national interest "had to be on the side of Indonesia," Ford concluded.[63] According to declassified documents released by the National Security Archive (NSA) in December 2001, they gave a green light for the invasion. In response to Suharto saying, "We want your understanding if it was deemed necessary to take rapid or drastic action [in East Timor]," Ford replied, "We will understand and not press you on the issue. We understand the problem and the intentions you have." Kissinger similarly agreed, though he had fears that the use of US-made arms in the invasion would be exposed to public scrutiny, talking of their desire to "influence the reaction in America" so that "there would be less chance of people talking in an unauthorised way."[64] The US also hoped the invasion would be relatively swift and not involve protracted resistance. "It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly," Kissinger said to Suharto.

 

[mheslep]

But the general point about American exceptionalism here is that it is not some noble, religious, self-sacrificing deal. The US is an empire managing its world in a pragmatic fashion.

There has been no "general point" made, only an assertion of your opinion.

Just consider the other land grabs that no one ever talks about much...

Yet the US has no 'land' in Indonesia. Empires in any historical sense of the term do not pack up and go home, maintaining the same borders for years. The US is a powerful nation and has faults, but it is not an empire.

 

[Drakkith]

I don't think there's any real doubt about whether or not the U.S. is an empire of some sort.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_empire) Many people see it as an empire in the sense that while we no longer invade and take over land we do impose our will upon large parts of the world. The bigger question in my opinion is if you are ok with this. Unfortunately I don't know nearly enough about the details of history to really say either way. I wish it were as simple as "leave people alone and let them do what they want", but that is naive thinking in my opinion as everyone in the world is interconnected. I try to keep an open mind and see both sides, but that is difficult with so much biased 1 sided opinion out there. It's hard to sift through all the nonsense and find out what's really going on.

 

[mheslep]

I don't think there's any real doubt about whether or not the U.S. is an empire of some sort.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_empire) ...

Interesting - there is no wiki 'American Empire' article, it redirects to American Imperialism, which is correct term for what you describe.

 

[apeiron]

The US is a powerful nation and has faults, but it is not an empire.

How are you defining empire?

The wiki definition is:

An imperial political structure is established and maintained in two ways: (i) as a territorial empire of direct conquest and control with force (direct, physical action to compel the emperor’s goals), and (ii) as a coercive, hegemonic empire of indirect conquest and control with power (the perception that the emperor can physically enforce his desired goals). The former provides greater tribute and direct political control, yet limits further expansion because it absorbs military forces to fixed garrisons. The latter provides less tribute and indirect control, but avails military forces for further expansion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire

Empires in any historical sense of the term do not pack up and go home, maintaining the same borders for years..

Err...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

I guess by your definition there was no Soviet empire either?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Empire

But so you don't misunderstand my own opinion, I judge the US empire a good thing to the extent it is a stepping stone to planetary level governance - some integrated world system. And bad to the extent that the developing machinery gets hijacked for self-interested purposes - and really bad when it gets hijacked by irrational religious belief systems.

There is definitely a side to the US project that was exceptional (or what ever other flattering term you prefer) because it was based on good rational principles. Ones that balanced the natural forces of competition and co-operation that are basic to healthy human society.

Many still believe in these kinds of ideals, they just don't tend to be in positions of actual power.

Then there is the realpolitik of empire - the pragmatic self-interest to do with oil, trade, etc. I don't like it much, but at least it is understandable and predictable. Still rational in its more limited and local fashion.

It is the irrational faith-based approach to empire that I find most disturbing, the moral fundamentalist thinking that just creates a mess wherever it goes.

So to me, the claim of exceptionalism was about a more rational design for society - one based on an understanding the win-win that results from properly balancing the forces of competition and co-operation (or short term and long term thinking).

The UK empire spawned quite a number of such nations, born out of a common political philosophy. The US just happened to be by far the biggest in population and resources. So if you like, you could call it doubly exceptional. It has both rationality and scale.

Though while its scale seems secure (the US is unlikely to fracture into its separate states for a while yet), the rationality is what observers might now question.

 

[mheslep]

How are you defining empire?

The wiki definition is:

As I said, historically. Roman, Austrian, British, Byzantine, Soviet. I don't have much use for wiki on this, which for all anyone else knows you or I wrote. What's wrong with the dictionary?

Err...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

What is that supposed to indicate? The US has too many bases abroad, which adds credence to charge of imperialism? Ok, I agree. But those are hardly the 'land grabs' of an empire. Almost any of those nations* may ask the US to give up the base, and have at times. In several of those cases other UN or NATO nations, like the the Canadians and New Zealand, have military installations there too, but neither are those nations empires.

I guess by your definition there was no Soviet empire either?

As you know, the Soviets like all the other historical empires extended their borders around numerous other countries (Balkans, Ukraine, Georgia, all the middle asian 'stans', etc) and vanished them from the map of political independence. They did not establish a 'base' but occupied the entire country by force. They subjected their people to the empire's law and drafted those peoples into the empire's military. Once there, the empire did not hold popular elections, then freely choose to pack up and leave.

*Guantanamo Bay might be the exception.

 

[SixNein]

Which years are you referring to? Please explain.

I'm talking about the us history classes people have to take through grade/high school. The entire program is essentially an indoctrination of US ethnocentrism.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm talking about the us history classes people have to take through grade/high school. The entire program is essentially an indoctrination of US ethnocentrism.

Care to offer any kind of support?

 

[lostcauses10x]

I'm talking about the us history classes people have to take through grade/high school. The entire program is essentially an indoctrination of US ethnocentrism.

I can not argue this, yet it has been a long time ago that I whent through such. I doubt it has changed.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm talking about the us history classes people have to take through grade/high school. The entire program is essentially an indoctrination of US ethnocentrism.

That doesn't appear to have anything to do with your post or my request...

 

[Jack21222]

Cool make-money-at-home website (though it says nothing about Kuwait drilling under Iraq).
http://www.thefinertimes.com/write-for-us.html

As is pointed out in a later post, Kuwait's slant drilling underneath Iraq is a well-documented event. That you've never heard of it, and prefer to believe that Iraq was war-mongering for no reason whatsoever is a fault of yours, not mine.

 

[mheslep]

As is pointed out in a later post, Kuwait's slant drilling underneath Iraq is a well-documented event. That you've never heard of it, and prefer to believe that Iraq was war-mongering for no reason whatsoever is a fault of yours, not mine.

Then drop the strawman and document it with a primary source.

 

[Jack21222]

Then drop the strawman and document it with a primary source.

How about you do your own research into well-known history? I'm not your history teacher.

Here, since you can't be bothered to educate yourself, let me help. Is the New York Times a good enough source for you? Or do I need to build a time machine for you so you can witness the slant drilling first-hand?

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/23/opinion/23iht-edcool.t.html?pagewanted=all