Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

In my uni American history classes, all it meant was that we were lucky to get the best part of the continent, that there was a heck of a lot of iron ore, gold, and oil under the surface and we had the best constitution in the world. In short, nothing much was made of it. At all.

Then term started appearing here at Dave's a couple, three years ago, maybe four. I just took it to be a new, high falutin' version of nationalism, at first. Then I began to notice people using it more in terms of the old Manifest Destiny sense.

But Newt uses it in a way that is new to me. This evening I was watching Chris Hayes, and the Reverend Samuel Rodriguez said much the same thing as Newt: (the reference is at 16:00)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#45542229

�There is an idea, embedded within the evangelical community that's historic. The idea is that there is something called American Exceptionalism. Let me define that for you. It's the idea that [some name I can't quite catch...Mark Nuttal???] of the Reagan Adminstration alludes to frequently...God over man and man over government. That's the idea...that's the pecking order. When government grows, one of the two other elements must move out of the way. What we are concerned with, particularly in my community, is when we hear terms like 'government bail-out of the auto industry, the health care industry, Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, we have, government, perception versus reality, government take-over, government take-over...When that happens, what is sacrificed on the other end? That's our concern with big government.�

That was not at all clear to me, so I googled and came up with a piece in The Atlantic from November 22, '11.

�Gingrich's own personal definition has more to do with God and small government, which happen to be lodestars for conservatives. His starting point is the Declaration of Independence, which says the creator has endowed "all men" with "certain unalienable rights," including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "What makes American exceptionalism different is that we are the only people I know of in history to say power comes directly from God to each one of you. You are personally sovereign. So you're always a citizen, never a subject," Gingrich said at a South Carolina forum in September. That means, he added, that "no politician, no bureaucrat, no judge" can take those rights away.�

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/gingrichs-version-of-american-exceptionalism-could-insult-our-allies/248887/

I also looked at Andrew Sullivan today and ran across this link to an article from July this year:

Newt's theology of exceptionalism

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/07/faith-and-freedom

The reason American exceptionalism exists is one phrase�it's not because we're bigger, not because we're stronger�it's one phrase: "we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights". Now why does that matter so much? We are the only society in history which said the power comes from God to each one of you personally. You are personally sovereign. The centre of the American society is the citizen, not the government. Which is why Obamacare is profoundly unamerican. Because it centres power on the bureaucrats when in fact power should be centred in the patient and the doctor. I think ultimately the core question for 2012 is going to be very simple: Do you believe this is still a country where your rights come from from your creator and you are the centre of the society, and you loan power to government? Or do you believe in this Obama model, in which power is centred in government, and government defines what you're allowed to do. And from that everything else derives. Because you can only have a family-oriented society if you have sovereignty in the citizen. Otherwise we're all subordinate to bureaucrats.

Then another quote from Newt about a judge:

Somebody who is that anti-religious, that anti-prayer, that anti-God clearly does not represent America. How do you explain the Declaration of Independence? We're endowed by our what? According to him, there would be a blank word. So I think this is going to be a serious part of the 2012 campaign. Do you believe in the Declaration of Independence? Do you believe our rights come from our creator? If you do, what are you going to do about judges?

So I think my question is: When conservatives rail against Obama about not using the word 'exceptionalism', is there a dog whistle kind of thing going on that goes far beyond Newt?

And is he flirting around with the Posse Comitatus movement crowd and the Sovereign Citizens Movement crowd?

[pedrotaves]

i think you're right in noticing the dichotomy of american exceptionalism. originally, i think american exceptionalism was meant to refer to the idea that the U.S. was a unique manifestation of government. de tocqueville especially sticks with me as one of the people that gave this point of view--he marveled at the puritan culture and how he believed that it provided the basis for a society of equals (economically, educationally, etc.). in some people's minds, such an experiment had never taken place before. add to that the fact that no society had been blessed (by luck) with such great reserves of natural resources, and it's easy to see why some think that america did indeed begin as something special and, to borrow from seymour martin lipset, qualitatively different than anything before it.

i'm sure that some people have always interpreted america's status as the first society of its kind as a marker of superiority, but i don't think this view crept into public consciousness until reagan started with the whole "city on a hill" thing. it's something like "america was the first, and now we're the strongest. therefore, the qualities that make us american are superior to the qualities of other societies."

what makes us american? lipset (one of my favorite authors) defines americanism as 5 qualities: liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissez-faire. he says that this created a uniquely american ideology, which is the foundation for americans being exceptional. i'm not quite sure how it works though, because i see populism (a social aesthetic) and individualism (de-emphasizes society) as contradictory.

anyways, i think gingrich's understanding of american exceptionalism is just a furthering of what happened under reagan. they just give all the credit to a religious impetus behind america. obviously, it's stupid.

also, just to note: almost every country has a superiority complex, they just might not label it as a form of exceptionalism. i am reminded of this every time i have students tell me about their favorite foods or technologies. "we don't like american beef! why? korean beef is better! why? because it's korean!"