Thoughts on Ukraine, and Russia, from Anne Applebaum and Andrew Stuttaford.
I think that the usually sharp Anne misses the point here, though (as Obama did with his idiotic comment about Greeks thinking that Greece was exceptional), about American exceptionalism:
In the United States, we dislike the word “nationalism” and so, hypocritically, we call it other things: “American exceptionalism,” for example, or a “belief in American greatness.” We also argue about it as if it were something rational — Mitt Romney wrote a book that put forth the “case for American greatness” — rather than acknowledging that nationalism is fundamentally emotional. In truth, you can’t really make “the case” for nationalism; you can only inculcate it, teach it to children, cultivate it at public events. If you do so, nationalism can in turn inspire you so that you try to improve your country, to help it live up to the image you want it to have.
A thousand times, no. American exceptionalism isn’t (just) a different phrase for American nationalism. What is exceptional about America (unlike England, or Greece) is that it isn’t about birthright, or race, or location, but about ideas. American exceptionalism is the idea that anyone can be an American, if they accept the premises of America: individual liberty, limited government, and truly liberal values (something that the Left has never had — they simply appropriated the word). That is why it was perfectly appropriate for a committee looking into American communists to be called one about “un-American activities.” Because Marxism is fundamentally un-American. It may be good, it may be bad (obviously, people know what my opinion is on that score) but it is not American.
Good explanation, Rand.
One thing the Left has a lock on is skill at twisting words and meanings. (I’m not saying the Right never tries, but the Left has a real and pervasive skill.)
I keep thinking neologisms need to be used, where you can -explicitly- state what the completely new word means. That is: where there are no other existing connotations.
But even simple things like proposing “Hey, we should all use ‘Jihadism’, because it is simultaneously self-identifying -and- doesn’t mention ‘Islam’” doesn’t gain traction.
Lefties don’t believe in truth so they play word games.
American exceptionalism isn’t just that anyone can become an American by accepting our ideals (how’s that working out?) it’s based on the bottom up fiction (because it’s not possible) of consent of the governed as opposed to the top down divine right of kings.
But however you define it, it’s uniquely American and didn’t exist before. You’d think a constitutional scholar would know that? Some seem to think melting pot means invasion and conversion by Islam with America not being an exception. Whatever happened to sedition? How about using religious buildings as arms depots?
[[[American exceptionalism is the idea that anyone can be an American, if they accept the premises of America: individual liberty, limited government, and truly liberal values (something that the Left has never had — they simply appropriated the word). ]]]
Does this include the 10 million “illegal” immigrates who came here looking for a better life and economic freedom?
No, not necessarily. They weren’t looking for economic freedom. They were just looking for work. If they vote, they’ll likely vote for less economic freedom, given the culture they come from.
They weren’t looking for economic freedom. They were just looking for work.
Couldn’t you say that about most of the immigrants who’ve come to the U.S. since the nation’s founding?
Yes, but they didn’t become citizens until they assimilated, which involves understanding what America is all about.
Given how much TV, entertainment, etc. goes out to the world you could well argue they ‘assimilated” before they even came here. Indeed that is what probably attracted them to America. Their only “crime” is ignoring a federal law that runs counter to both the intentions of the founding fathers and your definition of American exceptionalism.
Do you feel that is sufficient to deport them? Or is it time to simply repeal a law that runs counter to the spirit of the Constitution?
Given how much TV, entertainment, etc. goes out to the world you could well argue they ‘assimilated” before they even came here.
Nonsense. A lot of native-born watch that crap, and they aren’t even assimilated.
And your definition of assimilation is?
Matula underestimates the popularity and quality of other countries entertainment industries. Many countries have their own programming in their own languages and few rely on Americans exclusively for entertainment.
This isn’t the 80s when smuggling blue jeans into Russia was a thing. A lot has changed.
One of the differences between “legal” immigrants and “illegal” immigrants are the former are specifically asked about their desire and ability to be economically independent. Those who go through the lawful process with a desire not to be economically independent or capability to become such are deported back to their originating country.
I recently visited several central American countries and get this, they have the same sentiment about immigrants not wanting economic independence. They send those immigrants back to their home country. It’s not about race, as they will gladly accept North American gringos. They simply want those gringos to help the country and not being an unnecessary burden to it. It’s not a lack of compassion for the needy, rather than a priority of limited resources to help their own citizens overcome poverty prior to accepting other nations citizens.
And just what is your evidence that the “illegal” immigrates that probably picked the veggies you are eating, or clean the chicken you are cooking because no one else wanted to are a “burden” on America? They wouldn’t be here if there wasn’t work from them.
Also this is about American exceptionalism. How could America be exceptional if it patterns its immigration laws after other nations – send me your rich, your skilled, your talented workers looking for a better deal isn’t written on that monument to American exceptionalism – the Statue of Liberty.
And just what is your evidence that the “illegal” immigrates that probably picked the veggies you are eating, or clean the chicken you are cooking because no one else wanted to are a “burden” on America?
Who are you arguing with? Who said they are a “burden” on America?
Rand,
I guess you didn’t read Leland’s post which is the one I replied to…
I think Rand read my post just fine. But go ahead Matula, you know you want to burn down your strawman. Go for it. I realize small pointless acts can bring joy to peoples lives, and I don’t want to distract from your joy. 🙂
if American Exceptionalism is principally about ideas, isnt’ Marxism just an idea?
Yes, it’s a stupid and disastrous idea.
Do you need someone to remind you to breathe?
Yes, Marxism is an idea, but it is not an idea forming the basis of any national identity. To the contrary, adherents of Marxism typically fancy themselves “citizens of the world” and beyond such atavistic things as nationalism and patriotism. When individual Marxists come to power in individual countries, there tends to be a certain amount of lip service paid to the idea that the old nation just taken over is now a revolutionary nation with Marxism part of its new definitional baggage, but that rarely lasts more than a few years at best. After that it’s always gulags, secret police, midnight disappearances, mass graves, socialist “self-criticism” sessions, re-education camps, engineered famines, liquidations of “class enemies”, giant posters, cults of personality built around the head man, mass rallies, shouted slogans, faint screams from the cellars of the Lubyanka, external subversion, external aggression, wars of “national liberation” fought by useful idiots cozened in other countries and the whole general commie sicky bag.
As capitalism is supposed to have replaced feudalism, so communism is supposed to replace capitalism. Problem is, it never has. Communism failed and was abandoned in Russia, China, Vietnam and nearly all the other places it was tried. The tyranny remains, to varying degrees, but the Marxism is gone. The only two places that still claim to hew to doctrinaire Marxism are Cuba and North Korea. In both places what has replaced capitalism is, effectively, a reversion to feudalism complete with royal families and a privileged, if ever-nervous, class of courtiers and palace schemers. What, at the end of the day, is really the difference between Kim Jong Un and Ramses II. Yet to many American college grads, this is all still mentally filed under “idealism.” So it goes.
American exceptionalism is the idea that anyone can be an American
By that definition, U.S. citizenship law was itself un-American for most of our history, from its origins in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which limited citizenship to “free white persons”, up to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which banned racial discrimination in naturalization.
What!? You can’t be serious. We all know that the government is perfection and to question otherwise is un-American and racist.
And don’t forget the current immigration laws that set quotas based on Immigration patterns in the late 19th Century instead of the needs of the modern world. Laws based on the work of Madison Grant who felt that they were necessary to protect the “great race”. Yes, we have a lot of work to do to achieve our ideals.
But doesn’t Mexico have the highest quota? Doesn’t seem very aryan nation or whatever you claim our immigration system is.
But the quota is still unrealistic for our largest trading partner, especially for guest workers, given the long history of migrate labor from Mexico working the ranches, farms and railroads of the western U.S. But in the 1960’s President Johnson, at the urging of the Labor Unions, end the Bracero Program that allowed them to enter legally, which is what created the basic problem with “illegal workers”.
I know you probably get your history from TV, but in the real west most of the cow hands on western ranches and trail drives were migrate workers from Mexico.
I am all for more people from Mexico and other countries being allowed to come here legally but not in favor of open borders. IIRC, over a million people from Mexico become American citizens every year.
What I dislike are arguments like yours that frame everything through the lens of a racist paradigm. Not being in favor of open borders is not racism.
We don’t primarily let in white people and discriminate against people who are not white.
You should stick to addressing what I actually say rather than imagining that I view history as a whites only club.
Mexico is not the USA’s largest trading partner. Canada is, by a huge margin.
Wodun,
You claim that, yet you support a law that has a legal history of racism of the worst sort, one that the Fuhrer praised.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/17/books/17HITL.html
[[[In the “Second Book” Hitler praises the restrictive immigration policies of the United States. “Compared to old Europe, which had lost an infinite amount of its best blood through war and emigration, the American nation appears as a young, racially select people,” he wrote.
“By making an immigrant’s ability to set foot on American soil dependent on specific racial requirements on the one hand as well as a certain level of physical health of the individual himself, the bleeding of Europe of its best people has become regulated in a manner that is almost bound by law,” Hitler continued. He was speaking of the Immigration Act of 1924, which tightened immigration quotas.]]]
Actually, if you truly believe in Libertarian values, as you seem to claim, that you wouldn’t support any law that restricts human freedom and worst, the workings of free labor markets.
What is exceptional about America (unlike England, or Greece) is that it isn’t about birthright, or race, or location, but about ideas.
There are other countries in the world where there is, I think, less discrimination over race, class, culture and religion than in the US.
Without arguing whether or not that’s actually true, it just means that we don’t always live up to our ideals, not that we don’t have them.
Lots of those countries share those ideals.
I think it’s great that people can be patriotic, anyone in any country (or anyone supporting any sports team), and while I think it is sometimes only a hop skip and jump between patriotism and nationalism, I think there’s a huge difference in the substance. To me patriotism still means having respect for the people of other countries, cultures and supporting other teams, nationalism is when you’ve lost that, it’s when you’ve convinced yourself that you, your country are inherently superior, and when that belief leads to the ability rationalize taking actions that you’d see as indefensible if taken by others.
Really?
What other countries were founded on the fundamental principle of limited government?
Note, we seem to have lost it here, but that was the fundamental founding principle, and a key part of American exceptionalism.
What other countries were founded on the fundamental principle of limited government?
Actions count for more than historical words, and should we include only the good words from history, or should we look at the not so good things in history as well?
I said we didn’t live up to them always (and particularly lately).
I repeat the question. What other country even has them?
What other countries were founded on the fundamental principle of limited government?
Don’t know don’t care, as I’ve tried to explain, what’s actually practiced is what counts, otherwise you’re like a nation under dictatorship with the word “Democracy” in its name, not a democracy, a hypocrisy.
Here’s a list for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP
Maybe I misunderstand, when you say “exceptionalism” do you mean exceptional in not abiding to its founding principles?
No, I mean exceptional in having some.
Moreover, I mean in having some that value the individual and value limited government.
What other nation has that?
It looks like we could go round and round on this all day, you say “founding principles” I say “what’s actually practiced”, and in terms of what’s actually practiced I’d put several nations as being overall ahead of America in terms of individual freedom, less state intrusion and control in peoples lives, more economic freedom, less social stratification, less racism, similar or smaller government, etc.
The nations I have in mind being Australia, Canada and New Zealand, but many others also practice the principles you describe, which I think have more to do with free markets and the democratic process than ancient documents.
In other words, the Anglosphere.
It looks like we could go round and round on this all day, you say “founding principles” I say “what’s actually practiced”, and in terms of what’s actually practiced I’d put several nations as being overall ahead of America in terms of individual freedom, less state intrusion and control in peoples lives, more economic freedom, less social stratification, less racism, similar or smaller government, etc.
That may be a makeable case, but it’s hardly an obvious one. Your own cited source puts the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand in the same class when it comes to racism. Freedom House does the same when it comes to political and civil liberties. On economic freedoms and intrusive government control it is possible you have a point, especially given that we are now well into year six of the Obama Depression. Even the Heritage Foundation agrees with you. Thanks to the depredations of Obama’s lawless minions, the U.S. now ranks about 75 of 100 in economic freedom whereas Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all just a bit above 80. To the extent that Canada and Australia might be more economically free than the U.S. at this particular moment in time, that is due entirely to the U.S. still having a Transnational Progressive administration while Canada and Australia have – fortunately for both – kicked their prior Transnational Progressive regimes to the curb and installed Conservatives in their places. Not a good advert for what seems to be your preferred brand of politics I’d say.
About social mobility, I’ve read claims by left-wing researchers that most of the EU is, allegedly, more socially mobile than the U.S. The methodology seems sketchy. The best rump measure of social mobility I can think of is probably the combined legal and illegal immigration rate and population, given that immigrants tend to exhibit higher levels of social mobility than the native-born populations in most countries. By that standard, the U.S. beats the pants off anyplace in Europe, especially France. Every frenchman with ambition seems to already be living and working in London or the U.S. these days. It is certainly possible that Canada, in particular, does better off its immigrants than the U.S. does but that would probably be attributable to Canada’s well-known policy of cherry-picking immigrants to exclude the sorts of poor and poorly-educated “wretched refuse” cited so approvingly by Mr. Matula above. I believe Australia follows, in general, a somewhat similar policy.
The nations I have in mind being Australia, Canada and New Zealand, but many others also practice the principles you describe, which I think have more to do with free markets and the democratic process than ancient documents.
Even in Canada and Australia, not all is skittles and beer. Neither country has anything resembling either the First or the Second Amendments as we have here in the U.S. Canada is just recovering from a multi-year-long assault on free speech engineered by Transnational Progressives via provincial-level institutions formerly known as Human Rights Tribunals, now happily defunct. Canadians still have very few gun rights compared to Americans. Australians have, in essence, none at all. Both the overall and gun crime situations have gotten worse since the draconian confiscations of a generation or so ago Down Undah. And of course I would be remiss in not noting that our very own Democrats are all hot to repeal our own First Amendment. Never underestimate the long-term utility of “ancient documents.”
If you think that, then you ought to be able to name at least one. Having lived and worked in a number of foreign countries, I don’t think that.
If you think that, then you ought to be able to name at least one.
This map will do for a start:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325502/Map-shows-worlds-racist-countries-answers-surprise-you.html
There’s a dozen countries there as the least racist, which do you think have more discrimination over race, class, culture and religion than in the US?
Why should I accept their analysis or definition of what is “racist”?
What’s that got to do with it?
My question was: “There’s a dozen countries there as the least racist, which do you think have more discrimination over race, class, culture and religion than in the US?”
It’s a starting point for Dick E, so he can point out why those other countries don’t live up to the principles as practiced in the US.
There are other countries in the world where there is, I think, less discrimination over race, class, culture and religion than in the US.
That may or may not be true, but the cited article doesn’t support your case. Quite the contrary. It places the U.S. and all of the other “new nations” I cited in a previous post here (Australia, Canada, New Zealand) except Israel as being with the U.S. and our mutual progenitor, the U.K., in occupying slots on the best dozen list.
Whether or not one chooses to believe that, it doesn’t look as though this is going to be the last word on the subject. Quite apart from a lack of ranking numbers within percentage range bands, numerous commenters and one WaPo reporter quoted in the piece speculate that the reason the U.S. and Australia, in particular, allegedly show up so well is that people in these places simply lie about their racial animus. This is – mostly – simply more of the crap the Left has been pitching to minorities for years to get them to vote the straight Democratic ticket. “White people all really hate you, you know. If it wasn’t for us looking out for you, they’d all chain you to an oar and make you slaves again.” For the American Left it must always be 1961 in Selma, Alabama or, even better, the Charleston, South Carolina docks in 1861 in America.
Truth to tell, I’m inclined to think there may be a bit of “Tom Bradley Effect” in these numbers, just nowhere near as much as the Left commonly assume. I don’t think it’s limited to strictly majority-white countries like the former British colonies either. Brazil likes to think of itself as a racially-tolerant place. Compared to a lot of other places, it is, but there is far greater racial stratification correlating with income in Brazil than there is in the U.S. and racial strife is hardly unheard of there. Maybe the top-rated countries in this survey are legitimately top-rated. But maybe the actual percentages of those harboring racial prejudice in these places is somewhat higher than reported. With little revealed about the methodology of the survey it’s hard to make more than very general judgements about its veracity.
I will say that, to the extent I can compare the relative rankings of various countries with which I have some personal familiarity, this survey doesn’t seem greatly out of line. Italy and (I think) Belgium and Netherlands show as grey (hard to pick out the really small countries on that map) which is in the third rank. When I worked in Belgium in the late 70’s, there were a lot of nightspots that were organized as private clubs. Me and other white co-workers never had any trouble getting into these places until we tried bringing our recently-arrived-from-Stateside black supervisor with us and were turned down cold. That was a surprise. Even in Amsterdam, at a South African expat bar we unknowingly wandered into when Apartheid has very much still in force in S.A., our black boss could get a drink. He got a lot of dubious looks too, but nobody ever overtly hassled him. The Belgians, though, were completely up-front and unblushing in their racism.
Anti-black racism isn’t much of a thing in Italy as there are practically no blacks living in Italy – or at least that was true in the late 70’s. It seems to be true most places in the world that tiny, not-numerous-enough-to-seem-threatening populations of “exotics” are not only tolerated, but often shown a certain affection. Just don’t get “uppity.” But Italians do have a North-South divide within the country that is, effectively, a form of racial prejudice. Roughly speaking, the dividing line seems to be somewhere between Naples and Rome. North of the line, the northerners consider you white. South of the line, the northerners consider you some other race entirely – especially Sicilians. The southerners reciprocate this lack of regard.
Germany shows up fairly well, being in the second rank. Most of Germany’s “race problem” is not entirely a race problem and it isn’t in any major way about blacks. Rather, Germany has a lot of immigrant gastarbeiter (guest worker) Turks – and now their descendants – who are notably swarthier and almost exclusively Muslim, unlike their native German neighbors. These folks now constitute a multi-generational lump of unassimilated, and, most probably, permanently unassimilable, people who are nonetheless, also unsuited to “going back” to Turkey – a country in which they mostly have never lived and in which they would be every bit as much fish out of water as they are in Germany. France, of course, has an even worse such problem with its ever more fractious Muslim immigrant populations and the greater size of its problem probably accounts for its position in the fourth rank of this survey.
I’ll confess to wondering about a few oddities that jump out at me in this survey. Sweden and Norway are with the U.S. and the rest of the Anglosphere in the first rank, while neighboring Finland is down in the third rank. I know that Finns are both ethnically and linguistically quite distinct from the rest of Scandinavia, but that different? One wishes to know more, but the article is too short to be forthcoming and comprehensive.
Bottom line? The U.S, certainly has race-related problems, but anyone who imagines that things here are in any way uniquely awful in this respect simply doesn’t get out and about very much. That includes a very large percentage of American blacks themselves, by the way. Blacks, as a class, are one of the least well-traveled demographics in the U.S. population. Notable exceptions seem to be black soldiers who have served hitches overseas. Having seen a bit of the rest of the world, black veterans seem less inclined to buy into the pervasive “America is the worst place for black people in the world” meme that the Left pushes so hard in its ceaseless efforts to keep blacks on the liberal plantation.
Thanks for that comment, the discussion though is whether or not America can claim to be “exceptional” which I interpret as meaning standing above and alone in its adhering to the principles and practices under discussion. I think such a claim is not true and perhaps a bit too self congratulatory.
I think we have slightly different working definitions of “exceptional.” I take it to mean standing out in many ways, among which are political, civil and economic liberties, but also in other areas of endeavor. By that standard, America is indeed exceptional. It has, for example, a population roughly six times that of the other three Anglosphere countries you believe to be clearly superior to the U.S. in many ways. America also leads the world in books published, box-office receipts of movies produced, patents obtained, technologies invented and developed and disruptive entrepreneurship, though the latter has, admittedly, seen better days.
I don’t doubt that the sense most Americans have about the exceptionalism of their country can grate on the sensibilities of non-Americans. But, as the saying goes, it’s not arrogance if you can back your brag. Another aspect of American exceptionalism that must be pointed out is that, while we’re eager to see others adopt, and do well with, all or part of “The American Way”, we have no enthusiasm for forcing others to our will – unlike certain other nations which any honest evaluation would find to have even higher opinions of themselves than the U.S. but with much less basis upon which to build. If you are unhappy that America is the most powerful and influential nation in the world – even after close to six years of the wretched Obama administration – do you really think you’d be happier if Russia or China occupied that position instead?
By the way, are you a self-hating Transnational Progressive American or just a left-wing citizen of some other country who is resentful of America because its continued existence screws so badly with your sense of the rightness of the universe? Me? I’m a proud Yank. I make no apologies.
the other three Anglosphere countries you believe to be clearly superior to the U.S. in many ways.
My point is that (do I really have to say it again??) the US isn’t, overall, superior to those Anglosphere countries, not that they are “clearly superior to the U.S. in many ways.”
Obviously with a far larger population the US is going to produce more of this that and the other than them.
Some would point to America’s propensity to get involved in wars as a justification for anti-Americanism, but I think that, like the other aspects of being a large and powerful nation, this also to a large degree simply comes with the territory.
By the way, are you a self-hating Transnational Progressive American or just a left-wing citizen of some other country who is resentful of America because its continued existence screws so badly with your sense of the rightness of the universe?
I think that comment reflects more on you and your own chauvinism than on any conclusions you can draw about me from my comments in this thread.
I’m a Kiwi, and proud that NZ is one of the three countries you see as having similar ideals to the US, and who knows, maybe one day you guys might even catch up with us in terms of actually practicing those ideal. 😉
I think it says something that people are arguing over who is less racist. Isn’t it a good thing that neither of the home countries is considered racist?
Interesting reading the comments though.
Some would point to America’s propensity to get involved in wars as a justification for anti-Americanism, but I think that, like the other aspects of being a large and powerful nation, this also to a large degree simply comes with the territory.
Having figured this out puts you way ahead of many citizens of many small countries whose continued free existence comes courtesy of the “Pax Americana” that has obtained, with limited, regional exceptions, since WW2. Our “propensity” to get involved in wars is entirely due to the bad actors of the world understanding that their plans for conquest, pillage and rapine are contingent on dealing, in some way, with America first.
I asked the question about your citizenship because I was honestly curious. I have appreciably more regard for you knowing you’re a patriotic Kiwi and not some pissy little prep school pinko who, lamentably, gets to vote in my own country.
We’ll have to continue to disagree about the degree to which our respective nations reflect their ideals. I’ve acknowledged U.S. slippage on the economic liberty axis. One hopes the exit of Barack Obama from office will allow fairly prompt repair of that situation after the next presidential election. America has been through bad times before and bounced back. That’s one of the things that makes America exceptional.
I don’t take this view out of “chauvinism.” America has a lot of problems. I like to think I have a reasonably clear-eyed view of what these are. My list differs from that of people whose point of departure is a left-wing worldview because our metaphysics don’t match any more than do our politics. I remain optimistic that America will get through its current ill-fated infatuation with charismatic statism and come out stronger on the other side. If you don’t like the word “exceptional” perhaps you can simply acknowledge that America is the most “consequential” nation on the planet?
There is certainly an emotional component to patriotism/nationalism, but, in the case of America, there are also a lot of objectively rational bases for it too. As Rand points out, Americanism is an idea, not a determined-at-birth matter of being born in the right place to the right “stock.” America was the first nation to conceive citizenship as attitudinal and not as an immutable matter of blood and/or soil. Four other countries have since arisen which also embrace this idea to one degree or another: Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. Israel attaches the additional condition that one be Jewish. All of these countries have done well by embracing this pioneering American self-concept. All are modern, free, well-to-do republics. Israel has been so since its inception. The others, including America, have been so since, one way or another, they slipped beyond their original statuses as British colonies.
Another American exceptionalism is the notion of what constitutes a great nation. Since the invention of imperial nation states, many nations have assumed national greatness is measured by the number of unwilling subjects and the amount of conquered land a nation can rack up. This metric is still, as the clueless Obama is finding out, very much alive and well in the world, particularly in Russia and China, though there are numerous lesser would-be imperia elsewhere as well. Given how attractive America has been to immigrants, we’ve not only never had to march over our borders to acquire population, we have had millions sneaking in over and above legal limits. Small wonder one of our primary, if informal, metrics in our self-assessment as a great and exceptional nation is the degree to which others, born outside our borders, wish to join us here. This trend, illegal as well as legal, has largely waned and even receded in the wake of Obama’s disastrous mishandling of the national economy, but can be expected to become a problem once more when rational administration is restored in DC and Great Depression 2.0 finally ends.
Military prowess is also part of traditional nationalism of the national-greatness-equals-conquest meme. The fist-shaking displays of tanks and missiles parading through Red Square in Moscow several times a year is sort of an apotheosis of the glorification of amoral force as a wellspring of alleged national greatness. The United States, while maintaining a large standing military, has always, in contrast, made the slogan of the Gadsden flag – “Don’t Tread on Me” – the core of its public military identity. Truth to tell, the U.S. has been so averse to even the appearance of “imperialism” that it has severely compromised its own national interests by conducting what wars if does undertake in too gingerly a fashion and turning actual power over to locals far too soon. This has been the signal mistake in both Iraq and Afghanistan where national administrations of completely unsuitable dacoits and opportunists were stood up even as the fighting proceeded. In contrast, the much more long-term successful campaigns of WW2 were so, in large measure because we did all the fighting up-front, conquered our enemies unambiguously, then took roughly a decade to run the former enemy nations under American military administration until suitable cadres of indigenous leaders emerged who could be trusted not to backslide into old, bad habits.
Then, of course, there’s the little matter that America, from even before the beginning of the republic, has been a fount of innovation and entrepreneurship with no precedent in human history. We have been, at worst, major co-inventors of the future since at least the time of Eli Whitney. Since WW2, we have pulled into an unquestionable lead in this regard and have maintained it for decades with no end in sight.
I find all these things, singly or in bunches, completely rational and objective reasons for my regard of America as the most exceptional nation in the history of humanity. Most Americans, with the significant exception of the American Progressive Left, of course, would broadly agree with me.
The sight of my nation’s flag cheers me. It seems to offend and even nauseate The Left. Not that they are lacking in patriotism, mind you, it’s just that the “patria” whose mention makes their black flabby little hearts go all fluttery tends to be some effete little European welfare state, usually Scandinavian. It sure ain’t America.
Sorry as an outsider for pointing this out, but being an American has at least one thing associated with birthright about it. The two most important jobs of all require the candidate to be a “native-born American citizen”. Which means being born in American territory. If that’s not a birthright issue, I don’t know what is.
Which means being born in American territory
Actually, the phrase in the Constitution is “natural-born citizen”. It’s usually interpreted to mean anyone who is a U.S. citizen by birth, as opposed to being a naturalized citizen. For example, Ted Cruz was born in Canada, but is a natural-born U.S. citizen because his mother was a U.S. citizen and the biological children of U.S. mothers are automatically U.S. citizens, no matter where they are born.
I don’t see any good reason why naturalized citizens (e.g. Henry Kissinger, Jennifer Granholm, Arnold Schwarzenegger, …) shouldn’t be able to run for President, so it’d be nice if we could drop that clause.
But yes, you are right, the ability to run for the U.S. presidency is a birthright issue. And U.S. citizenship itself is for the most part an accident of birth — the overwhelming majority of people who aren’t born U.S. citizens have no opportunity to become U.S. citizens.
“and U.S. citizenship itself is for the most part an accident of birth ”
Oh dear. Are you saying that some people born in America don’t deserve to be citizens? Or that families that have lived here for generations have no claim to American citizenship? Lucky you didn’t make that comment on a lefty blog…
“the overwhelming majority of people who aren’t born U.S. citizens have no opportunity to become U.S. citizens.”
Oh, the horror that other countries and cultures exist. What makes you think they want to be Americans?
America is exceptional.
Up until 1776, every country – every single one – had rulers and subjects. The United States was the exception to the rule. The first three words of the Declaration of Independence, “We the People”, is a slap in the face to every monarch and despot and dictator in history.
In America, for the first time in history, it was recognized that the authority of the government rests upon the consent of the governed. Americans elected representatives not rulers, and those elected served at the whim and pleasure of the People.
To the extent that countries like Australia, New Zealand, and my own Canada are as successful as they are is largely due to having the wildly successful United States as an exemplar. Without the USA the other countries would still be colonies of the British Empire.
Don’t ignore this document:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
In 1776 the US achieved “by the people” in one bound, but the ball was already rolling in the UK.
Interesting that the English House Of Commons was established in 1341, over 400 years before the US existed.
After a bit of reading up, it’s apparent that the American colonists weren’t after anything more than the rights of the common man in Britain.
Yes. And the British, to their ultimate cost, chose to be mulish and unreasonable. The rest is in the history books.
No, they were after more. They understood both the strengths and the limitations of the British government. There is a reason they didn’t go with a parliamentary system. They wanted more limitations on the governments power in order to better secure those rights. We’re on the verge right now of seeing if whether or not their experiment has finally failed.
Succinctly and splendidly put, sir!