Criticism Against American Exceptionalism - Literature review Example

Critique of American exceptionalism American exceptionalism con s the belief held by American citizens that the United s is a unique state in light of past development that has taken place in contrast to other countries. Exceptionalism could easily be narrowed down into nationalism but its extremes are more concentrated and more expansive than that. The belief is a famous ideal that many American conservatives hold, although the enticement is not totally limited to the desired end. Various liberal politicians and historians have adopted certain facets of American exceptionalism, particularly, in the “end of ideology” and “vital center” perceptions that are popular among the liberals from America in the mid of the 20th century that followed the Second World War. American exceptionalism is a strong belief encompassed in neo-conservatism. From a historiographical point of view, it can be noted that one of the key features of American exceptionalism is its norm of glossing over what should be considered as “bad” history, for instance, segregation, its treatment of Native Americans, slavery, and the South of Jim Crow, and how it lays emphasis on mythologizing the Founding Fathers, George Washington, and the US constitution, the Wild West”, and how the united states involves itself in world wars. American exceptionalism may perceive the United States via the lens of a certain historical determinism for the US, which is very distinct from the wide historical norms in the other parts of the world (Ruggie 64). This belief may, for different reasons, perceive the United States as a nation that should not be a victim of practices like dictatorship and terrorism. The United States is actually expected to assume the role of an activist all over the world in the promotion of “freedom” or its state of “shining example”. This type of moral superiority that is presumptive, virtually, is not always and is never embraced by the other countries, and is mostly resented, specifically when the United States has a remarkable history of its engagement in the diplomacy of gunboat. The Americans’ belief in American exceptionalism is one among the reasons people from all over the world express their resentments or dislike for the USA. In the year 2012, Dave Dougherty and Larry Schweikart, the conservative historians from U.S, gave their perception about American exemptionalism. They argued out that it was founded upon four pillars which comprised of the sanctity accorded to private property, free-market capitalism, morality and virtues that are deeply-rooted in protestant Christianity and fourthly, the Common Law (Schweikart 42). The criticisms for the belief in American exceptionalism were aired very much in the late 20th century, as well as the early 21st century. The arguments given by the critics were mostly based on the inadequacy of societal morals and also the observation regarding America’s power declining through double standards. In the introductory remarks of his book, an editor known as Michael Ignatieff, who wrote the book known as “American Exceptionalism and Human Rights”, clearly cites that the emphasis of the topic he aired was fully based on scorn. He acknowledges the presence of three major facets that support American exemptionalism. These types comprise of exemptionalism, legal isolationism and double standards. Exemptionalism, as the first facet, implies that treaties should be given full support under the special conditions that the citizens from the United States are not supposed to commit to the treaties. The second facet, double standards, implies that the inhabitants of other countries faced stiff criticisms if they did not give much attention to the discoveries that bodies that are concerned with human rights, though the discoveries made by similar bodies in the United States are completely and totally disregarded. The third and last facet that Michael put forward is legal isolationism, which implies that the judges based in the United States have the notion of disregarding the jurisdictions put forward by other judges (Ignatieff 55). During the tenure of George W. Bush, the word was somehow distracted from its original context. The opponents as well as the proponents of American exceptionalsim started using it to describe the phenomenon wherein specific political interests perceive the United States to be an “exception” or to be “above” the law, and especially, the law that governs the nations. This occurrence is not concerned too much with the justification of the uniqueness of America asserts its exception to the law. The distraction brought the new term that has been causing ripples because its emphasis is unilateral and its original orientation differs somehow with the previous uses of the term. A great deal of the inhabitants who still used the term observing its original version, renowned as traditional American exceptionalism, the context in which still had the idea that America is almost an exceptional nation in comparison to the other nations, and also the feeling that the quality of America as a nation is somehow high than that of other countries globally and that it has a specific essential role to play in the making of world’s history, also admit the public international law is supposed to govern (Carl 101). The first criticism voiced against American excemptionalism is moral purity. Howard Zinn and Marilyn Young voiced it out; they asserted that America’s history had uncountable moral flaws. They observe that the history of America captures slavery, social welfare issues and civil rights issues and hence note that the history fails to be fit to become an exemplar of virtue. Zinn asserts that American exceptionalism fails to be of holistic origin since it was not benign, specifically when tackling issues concerning the Native Americans (Young 79). Further, American exceptionalism is mocked by Donald E. Pease by referring to it as a “myth” and a “state fantasy”, in his book, The New American Exceptionalism, written in 2009. Pease also observes that the state fantasies are unable altogether to hide the inconsistencies found in their mask and, therefore, the bad events like the revelations of the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib expose the incompetence of the government after the Katrina Hurricane, which are open loopholes of the exceptionalism myth. Reinhold Niebuhr, an American theologian, aired out his perception and criticisms regarding American exceptionalism and clearly stated that there was a general postulation that America offers its support as a nation to the good leads that result in moral corruption. He, however, credits the policies made regarding the nation’s Cold Wars. His position was for the liberal idea of the responsibility that gave the justification of other nations’ interference. The second criticism is concerned with the double standards ascribed to American exceptionalism. Historians from the United States like Thomas Bender held the view that attempts ought to need to be made to espouse the recent renewal of American exceptionalism, a problem he regards to have been acquired from the Cold War (Bender 86). Ted Dickson and Gary W. Reichard voiced their argument that the developments witnessed in America have always relied on the transactions it deals with the other nations for populations, cultural values and commodities. Roger Cohen questions exactly how exceptional America could be if every major problem it faces, ranging from terrorism through nuclear proliferation to the prices of gas needs joint action. Harold Koh helps make the distinction between double standards and the mentality of different labels, distinctive rights, and the ‘flying buttress’. The most destructive and dangerous form of the American exceptionalism is exhibited by the fourth face of double standards. The conclusion by Godfrey Hodgson asserts that the national myth of US exceptionalism is dangerous. Samantha Power also comments that America is no longer the shining example. He also adds that it may take long, to the extent of a generation or more, to retain the American exceptionalism. The third criticism is the pre-emptive declinism ascribed to American excptionalism. Herbert London gave the definition of pre-emptive declinism as the postmodern belief that there is no exceptional treatment that should be accorded to United States and it should not be given any role to playa governing role on the entire world’s stage, by virtue of history, different from that of other countries (Herbert 92). London credited the perception to Paul Krugman, among other people. The reason for the credit is that Paul had written his viewpoint in The New York Times, which intimated that it was always known that the reign of America as the greatest nation in the world would finally come to an end though some people thought that the downfall, if it took place, would be something tragic and grand. With regard to Real Clear Politics, the declarations that were made concerning the declining power of America had been common in the media that used English language. Flora Lewis, in 1988, noted that there was some truth in the talks concerning the decline of U.S in relation to the fact that the U.S was unable to give commands at all levels or make payments of their bill. The notion of the special qualities of the American nation held by its inhabitants has far reaching effects and, therefore, it would be wise if it were expunged as a paradigm. Work cited Carl, John D. Think Social Problems. Boston: Pearson, 2011. Print. Bender, Thomas. Rethinking American History in a Global Age. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. Print. Herbert, George, and Alexander B. Grosart. The Poetical Works of George Herbert. London: G. Bell and Sons, 2002. Print. Ignatieff, Michael. American Exceptionalism and Human Rights. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2005. Ruggie, John G. American Exceptionalism, Exemptionalism and Global Governance. Cambridge, Mass: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 2004 Schweikart, Larry, and Dave Dougherty. A Patriots History of the Modern World. New York: Sentinel, 2012. Print.. Young, Marilyn B. The Rhetoric of Empire: American China Policy, 1895-1901. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2009. Print. Read More