American Exemplarism Over American Exceptionalism

| filed under: Politics, Editorial

What makes American exemplarism different is that it demands that we care for more than just our credibility, pride, and saving face. It demands that we lead by example and not by decree.

American Exemplarism Over American Exceptionalism

(Originally published on November 13, 2013 on HuffPo) Thursday morning, Russian president Vladimir V. Putin wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times, “A Plea for Caution From Russia.” While the whole piece was interesting to read, I was taken by the following words:

… I would rather disagree with a case [president Obama] made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

America is not chosen, America is not innately better than anyone or anywhere else. We’re not immutably the “city on the hill.” We’re only as good as our last action, our latest decisions — as our character.

I am very anti- the concept of American exceptionalism — it suggest that we’re some sort of Elect; and like any version of predeterminism, there’s an assumption that no matter how many wrongs we commit it’s all in service of right.

I reject the concept of American exceptionalism as patently arrogant, hubristic, and color-blind: if we’re already exceptional, what do we have to work for? Where do we have to go from here? I won’t mention our chronic racism, classism, poverty, ignorance, sexism, intolerance, and rampant incarceration, drug-abuse, crime, and violence because in these we are not alone.

If you ask me, while we might surely be one of the richest, most powerful and militarized nations ever, is that enough? We may well be the oldest constitutional democracy on planet earth, as president Obama reminds in speech after speech, but what does that mean, really: being a democracy doesn’t innately reflect the character of the country.

Criminals can elect criminals, racists can elect racists, and lawmakers who are intolerant, corrupt, jaded, elitist, sexist, classist, or racist can surely push through or perpetuate intolerant, corrupt, jaded, elitist, sexist, classist, and racist laws. And, they have; and, we have.

I am more in favor of a theory that Mike Signer put forth in “A City on a Hill: Neoconservatism has failed. Realism compromises our identity. Why exemplarism is the right choice for a post-Bush foreign policy”:

Compassion Exemplarism would value both strength and international prestige equally, seeing them not as mutually exclusive but rather as mutually reinforcing. America’s economic, political, and military strength, when deployed wisely, enhances our prestige around the world; that prestige, in turn, allows us to expand our influence and power by engendering the willing followership of other countries.

What makes American exemplarism different is that it demands that we care for more than just our credibility, pride, and saving face. It demands that we lead by example and not by decree.

It demands that we stop and breathe when we hit international gridlock instead of pressing forward, sword unsheathed, beet-faced with indignant rage from the knowledge that we’re the Elect, we’re Freedom and Liberty manifest, God’s chosen (doesn’t everyone feel that, all the way down to high school football teams?), and because it’s right, right? “If not us, then who? If not now, then when?” Well, is it right? Need it be now? Right now? Alone?

Either way, no matter whether Secretary John Kerry’s gaff was a beautiful mistake that’ll put him in the dog house or well-choreographed political theatre, I am very happy that Russia risked their own personal credibility, strength, and prestige by rushing in after John Kerry answered in response to a question, “is there anything at this point that [Assad’s] government could do or offer that would stop an attack?” with:

“Sure. [Assad] could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that. But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously.”

And, as the impossible threatened to happen, as Russia took the bait on behalf of Syria, and the targeted cruise missile strikes aimed to teach president Bashar al-Assad a lesson dissolved into thin air, we do have a semblance of peace, at least for the time-being.

Should superpowers have glass jaws? Should just the threat of a bruised ego, lost credibility, or diminished prestige result in fisticuffs? Is America an enlightened democracy — calm, noble, thoughtful, rational, informed, intellectual, considered, lawful, and kind — or is America nothing more than a prison yard with an inmate code, a prison code?

I am an American and I believe that while America is surely hopeful, passionate, and terribly earnest, we’re also a little thinner-skinned than we need to be. A great nation should not have a glass jaw. In all our infinite power, might, influence, and strength, we should aspire not to be the jealous God of the Old Testament but a forgiving, loving, God — one who is willing to turn the other cheek, willing to hate the sin over the sinner, able to love well beyond the tribe and faith of his birth.

This is the sort of America I can support. One that is willing to collaborate, to seek consensus, to accept compromise — all while knowing that this doesn’t in any way diminish our true power, influence, credibility, or prestige but will, in fact, add to it in much the same way that the world came to our assist a dozen years ago after the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, and offered us love, goodwill, support, and condolences in its wake instead of taking, in concert, advantage of our pain, our loss, our vulnerability.

I already hear my friends calling me naïve and foolish. Why is that? Why am I so self-conscious, so self-censoring of my desire to embrace the world instead of shun it, to feel part of a global village instead of superior to it. The thing about being a City on a Hill is that it just very well may assume that there are unwashed masses — peasants, inferiors — living below our shining palace.

Can’t there be other gleaming palaces? Can’t there be other shining cities on other hills? Isn’t there room enough in this globe for the two or more of us?

While I don’t necessarily trust the authenticity of the religious fervor in Putin’s words, let me again bring attention to the words themselves, “there are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”

Amen — well worth remembering and saying twice.

Glossary

American Exemplarism: A theory that suggests America should lead by example rather than by decree, valuing strength and international prestige as mutually reinforcing aspects.
American Exceptionalism: The belief that America is inherently different from other nations, often seen as superior due to its unique history, political system, and mission.
Neoconservatism: A political ideology characterized by an aggressive foreign policy, promoting democracy and American national interest in international affairs.
Realism (in foreign policy): A viewpoint in international relations that prioritizes national interest and security over ideological or moral considerations.
Gerris Corp: A digital PR firm mentioned in reference to the author's professional background.
Predeterminism: The belief that all events are predetermined and thus inevitable.
Hubris: Excessive pride or self-confidence.
Elect: In a religious context, it refers to individuals or groups chosen by God for salvation or a special purpose.

FAQ

What is the main argument against American Exceptionalism in the article? The article argues that American Exceptionalism is arrogant and ignores the nation's flaws, such as racism and classism, suggesting that America should work towards betterment rather than assuming inherent superiority.
How does American Exemplarism differ from Exceptionalism? Exemplarism advocates for America leading by example, balancing strength and prestige, and engaging in global affairs with humility and cooperation, contrary to the superiority and unilateral action implied in Exceptionalism.
What does the author think about America's role in the world? The author believes America should act as a cooperative and humble leader, embracing global collaboration and consensus rather than acting based on a sense of entitlement or superiority.
Is the author critical of America's current foreign policy? Yes, the author criticizes the aggressive and often unilateral nature of America's foreign policy, advocating for a more inclusive and exemplary approach.
What is the significance of referencing Russia's stance in the article? The article uses Russia's response to a potential U.S. military action to illustrate the need for America to reconsider its approach to international relations and adopt exemplarism.

Counter Argument

Defense of American Exceptionalism: One could argue that American Exceptionalism has been a driving force behind many positive global changes, including the promotion of democracy and human rights. The unique position of the U.S. allows it to take actions that smaller or less powerful nations cannot, often leading to beneficial outcomes for the international community.
Realpolitik Considerations: In the complex arena of international politics, ideals often clash with practicalities. The U.S.'s strong stance in some situations may be necessary to maintain global stability or to counterbalance other powerful nations.
Cultural and Historical Context: The belief in American Exceptionalism is deeply rooted in the nation's history and cultural narrative, providing a sense of unity and purpose. This belief can be a source of inspiration and motivation for positive change both domestically and internationally.

Analysis

The article "American Exemplarism Over American Exceptionalism" by Chris Abraham presents a critical view of the concept of American Exceptionalism, arguing that it fosters arrogance and complacency. Instead, Abraham advocates for American Exemplarism, a more humble approach to foreign policy that emphasizes leading by example and mutual respect in international relations. This viewpoint challenges the traditional narrative of American superiority and suggests that true leadership and influence come from cooperation and moral integrity rather than dominance and coercion. However, the counterpoint to this argument is the role of American Exceptionalism in shaping global democracy and human rights, and the practicalities of maintaining a balance of power in international affairs. The article thus opens up a significant debate on the nature of America's role in the world and the values that should guide its foreign policy.

Originally posted on Huffington Post by Chris Abraham on Sep 13, 2013, 02:33 PM EDT

The debate between American Exemplarism and American Exceptionalism touches on fundamental questions about America's role and identity in the world. Should the United States act as a moral beacon, leading by example and fostering global cooperation, or should it assert itself as uniquely privileged to take decisive action on the global stage? This article explores these questions by contrasting the assertive, unilateral nature of American Exceptionalism with the cooperative, example-driven ethos of American Exemplarism. With references to historical events and current foreign policy stances, the article aims to illustrate the benefits of adopting a more inclusive and globally engaged approach.

Historical Context of American Exceptionalism

American Exceptionalism has deep roots in the nation’s founding narratives and its historical self-image. From its early days, the United States was seen as a “city on a hill,” a symbol of freedom and democracy that other nations could aspire to emulate. This belief shaped foreign policy decisions throughout the 20th century, positioning America as a defender of democracy and a promoter of human rights. However, the concept also carried a sense of entitlement, leading the United States to sometimes act unilaterally under the assumption of its moral superiority.

Case Studies in American Exceptionalism

American Exceptionalism has influenced various international interventions, such as the Iraq War, where the U.S. aimed to bring democracy to the Middle East. Proponents argue that such actions exemplify America’s unique responsibility to act as a force for good in the world. Critics, however, contend that these interventions often resulted in unintended consequences, questioning whether America's unilateral approach truly benefits global stability or merely asserts dominance.

The Rise of American Exemplarism

American Exemplarism emerged as a response to the criticisms of Exceptionalism, advocating for a foreign policy based on collaboration, mutual respect, and leading by example. This approach suggests that America's strength lies not in enforcing its values but in embodying them. Exemplarism calls for humility and recognizes the sovereignty and unique contexts of other nations, advocating for America to build influence through cooperative partnerships rather than unilateral actions.

American Exemplarism in Action

American Exemplarism can be seen in moments of U.S. foreign policy that prioritize diplomacy over force. For example, the post-World War II Marshall Plan helped rebuild war-torn Europe through economic assistance rather than military dominance. More recently, multilateral agreements on climate change and public health demonstrate how America can lead collaboratively, gaining influence and prestige through example rather than coercion.

Global Reactions to American Exceptionalism

Other nations often view American Exceptionalism with a mix of admiration and skepticism. While America’s democratic ideals are respected, its unilateral actions can breed resentment and accusations of hypocrisy. The emphasis on Exemplarism could improve America’s global standing by fostering goodwill and reducing perceptions of arrogance. It positions the U.S. as a partner rather than an enforcer, potentially leading to stronger alliances and more effective global governance.

Conclusion

The contrast between American Exemplarism and American Exceptionalism raises important questions about America’s future in global affairs. Exemplarism encourages the U.S. to be a compassionate leader that values humility and partnership, while Exceptionalism champions America’s unique role as a dominant force for democracy. As the world becomes more interconnected, the appeal of Exemplarism may grow, promising a path toward a more harmonious and cooperative global community. Ultimately, the choice between these paths reflects how America sees itself and its responsibilities toward the rest of the world.

The Code of "Democracy" as U.S. Hegemony

The concept of "democracy" as promoted by the United States often feels less like the altruistic spread of freedom and more like a tool for reinforcing U.S. hegemony and expanding imperial influence globally. When leaders and media proclaim the U.S. as a "dominant force for democracy," it can sound less like an offer of shared freedoms and more like a calculated move to consolidate control over other nations, forcing them into alignment with American interests under the guise of democratic values.

This "democratic programming" frequently seems to carry an implicit expectation: adopt the structures and policies the U.S. prescribes or face potential economic, political, or even military consequences. In this context, democracy becomes a double-edged sword—a "gift" with a hidden price tag. The influence often requires recipient nations to forfeit parts of their own sovereignty, adopt U.S.-favored economic models, or allow U.S. interests to guide their domestic policies.

For many countries, U.S.-led democracy promotion can feel less like the expansion of rights and liberties and more like a mandate to submit to American global dominance. It underscores how democratic ideals, when paired with military and economic intervention, can become a form of soft power and, at times, a means of control. The freedom America purports to extend to the world is thus intertwined with expectations of compliance—a system that maintains U.S. influence under the banner of spreading liberty.

Exporting Democracy Within: America’s New Frontier

In the era of Trump, it seems as though America has turned its longstanding practice of "exporting democracy" inward, focusing its machinery of influence and control not on foreign nations but on its own population. With rising populist sentiments and an increasingly divided populace, the United States finds itself grappling with forces it once sought to shape or suppress abroad. Now, the intelligence and statecraft traditionally reserved for expanding U.S. interests overseas appear to be tools in a domestic battle to maintain control and coherence within American borders.

Historically, American institutions like the CIA, State Department, and other agencies have been instrumental in promoting "democracy" abroad—often through covert operations, influence campaigns, and strategic alliances. These efforts frequently centered on cultivating compliance with U.S. interests, steering political landscapes, and containing populist movements that might disrupt a favorable status quo. Today, with a growing populist movement at home and a shift in public trust toward alternative narratives, these tools seem increasingly repurposed to influence and manage America's own citizens.

In this domestic theater, surveillance, media manipulation, and information control—tactics once used to undermine or sway governments abroad—find new purpose in suppressing internal dissent, directing public opinion, and reinforcing narratives aligned with institutional power. America’s own “democracy export” has returned home, but rather than a gift, it appears as a means to contain, pacify, and steer its divided society.

The same mechanisms of control that have defined America's imperial influence now reflect an internal struggle: the need to enforce unity and compliance at home, using strategies crafted in foreign policy to maintain a grip on an increasingly polarized domestic landscape. This inversion of "exporting democracy" underscores a profound irony, as America employs its imperial playbook not to promote freedom, but to navigate its own existential tensions—an empire consolidating control over itself.

Personal tools