 |
|
Add to My Group
|
August 24, 2008 at 08:43:20
by DC Rapier Page 1 of 2 page(s) 
|
|
 
|
Of all of the tenets of the secular pseudo-religion, Americanism, the principle dogma is that of American Exceptionalism. Put simply, the precept of ‘American Exceptionalism’ is the notion that the American people, the American way of life and the American form of Democracy are a result of holy providence and are of divine origin and inspiration. It is a most pernicious concept; one upon which most, if not all, of the other false creeds of Americanism are based and to which most if not all of America’s failings can be attributed. On August 20, 2008, Andrew Bacevich, a conservative historian, Boston University professor and retired colonel who spent twenty-three years serving in the US Army, appeared on ‘Democracy Now!’ to discuss his new book entitled “The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism.” He stated: “Well, this is not an idea that’s original with me. It’s clear that from the founding of the Anglo-American colonies, from the time that John Winthrop made his famous sermon and declared that 'we shall be as a city upon a hill,' a light to the world—it’s clear that, from the outset, there has been a strong sense among Americans that we are a special people with a providential mission.” A providential mission. This is precisely where this precept becomes dangerous.
Is America exceptional? Yes, most definitely; the Republic of the United States of America is exceptional. It was exceptional at its inception and it was founded by exceptional men. There is no rationally sustained argument which can negate that. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence are all exceptional documents, each with their own merit, historically, philosophically and in many ways besides.
The USA is exceptional, too, in the matter of freedom of speech and personal expression. Not only is this freedom at the core of the law of the land and boldly evident at the birth of the nation, but it has been internalized by all of its citizens for generations and occasionally even exercised by some.
America is exceptional for a whole slew of reasons. Only the most ardent ideologues would disagree in principle. It should be noted, however, that the term ‘exceptional’ does not exclude negative attributes or conditions. The canon of ‘Exceptionalism’, however, invariably connotes righteousness and imparts the odor of sanctity to all things American.
How America has shown itself by its actions to be exceptional but by no means righteous are many: exceptionally aggressive in foreign policy, exceptionally bellicose, exceptionally parochial, exceptionally arrogant and exceptionally reluctant to abolish slavery, to name a few examples. The point of this article, however, is not the failings of American policy but the debasement of America’s exceptionally high-minded principles by the sentimental attachment to the false doctrine of ‘American Exceptionalism.’
The danger of subscribing to the concept of ‘Exceptionalism’ is in the unthinking, unwitting belief that Americans and America have the sole, exclusive claim to being exceptional and thus according to the accepted precept, are righteous in all things. The danger of the widespread belief in such a notion by the citizens of a country should be obvious: it leads to chauvinistic, nationalistic policies such as ‘preventative war,’ ‘regime change’ and empire building.
Moreover, the danger of such self-centered, imperialistic policies is compounded and exacerbated dramatically by the attendant belief that these policies and all policies of the USA stem from ‘a providential mission.’ Citing ‘divine guidance’ to justify government policy nullifies rational debate and dissent, the foundation of democratic governance.
George W. Bush, a self-professed ‘man of God,’ has claimed not only that his presidency is a ‘divine mission’ but that he, himself, is guided by his faith, by his God. In June 2002, for example, he sermonized to West Point graduates, “We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name.” Bush and his administration have made it abundantly clear that they do not want to hear dissent or debate on the matters of his ‘mission.’ One need only recall Mr. Bush’s disdainful frat-boy flippancy when faced with criticism or Mr. Cheney’s rash and contemptuous disregard for the opinions of the vast majority of Americans on the matter of the occupation of Iraq to find verification for this assertion.
The resultant atmosphere of zealous, self-righteous piety smacks of the same sort of religious-based fundamentalism that is derided and anathematized when proclaimed by radical Islamists, to offer but one example. When supernatural power, other-worldly agents and mystic intuition are the basis on which governance is determined, the natural world of humanity and the means by which humans chart the course of their lives (such as logic, rational discourse, education, and empathy) are undermined and disregarded as superfluous. In the more extreme cases, disputation of the ‘providential mission’ and ‘divine guidance’ is condemned as blasphemy and subject to harsh punishment; often ostracism or death.
While an unwillingness to adhere to ‘Americanism’ and the tenet of ‘American Exceptionalism’ might not lead to immolation or decapitation, those journalists who have dared to question the ‘divine inspiration’ and wisdom of Mr. Bush’s ‘mission’ have most assuredly found themselves excommunicated and barred from the hallowed sanctum of the White House press room. Furthermore, citizens voicing their dissent by silently displaying placards or slogan-emblazoned T-shirts in the presence of administration officials have been arrested and sequestered. A careful examination of the public record will, most assuredly, provide many more examples of free speech being sacrificed at the altar of ‘Exceptionalism.'
The systematic ostracism of non-believers is clearly evidenced by the well-publicized “public demonstration zones” at the upcoming conventions of the two major political parties. These euphemistically named holding pens and detention centers for dissidents have been condemned by the ACLU and other Civil Rights organizations as a violation of the First Amendment Right to Free Speech. It is tragically ironic that one of America’s rightful claims to being exceptional is at risk because of the fearful over-reaction by those of the ‘Exceptionalism’ sect.
The tautological, circumlocutory argument of American Exceptionalism can be stated thusly: “We are on a providentially inspired mission and are guided by a ‘Higher Power’, therefore whatever our actions or policies, we cannot be in the wrong.”
Or as Elwood Blues put it, “We’re on a mission from God.”
1 | 2
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
impeach Bush, Cheney and Pelosi
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
http://lexisnexussolarplexus.blogspot.com/
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 10 comments |
|
Excellent and timely.
I've written of the very same thing myself: by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 24, 2008 at 8:49:54 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: ICC
Hi, Thanks for your comment. I'd like to read your article. BTW, I wrote to the ICC requesting that they begin an investigation into criminal proceedings against GW Bush and R. Cheney. I got no response - not that I expected one. Peace, by DC Rapier (28 articles, 73 quicklinks, 56 diaries, 114 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:37:12 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: ICC lacks jurisdiction over Bush and Cheney
From the ICC website "Once a State becomes a party to the Statute, it accepts the Court's jurisdiction with respect to crimes under the Statute. For the Court to exercise its jurisdiction, the territorial State (the State on whose territory the situation which is being investigated has taken or is taking place), or the State of nationality (the State whose nationality is possessed by the person who is being investigated) must be a party to the Statute." And this list of States that are party to the ICC shows the United States is not on it. There are some countries like Germany that have a legal notion of universal jurisdiction. They might (theoretically - the politics of detaining a former US President or Vice President are not insignificant) detain a war criminal under that jurisdiction however in the case of Bush and Cheney the German law might not apply because "the prosecution of crimes committed outside German jurisdiction is guided by the principle of subsidiarity, that is, only if prosecution by a court of the country where the crime was committed, or by an international court, is not possible." In the unlikely event that Bush or Cheney were detained in Germany they could point out, the German law shouldn't apply to them because of subsidiarity, in that, if they really were war criminals, they could have been tried in the United States under US law. And that they were not, and that they were not impeached (perhaps) they could offer as evidence that they were not war criminals. In any case, for a prosecutor to try to convict Bush or Cheney under the German law would create a significant political risk UNLESS they had the support of the then US President. This is because the US President has the discretion to use the United States Armed Forces to break a US national out of detention under the American Service-members' Protection Act (sometimes known as the Hague Invasion Act). IN PRACTICE THE ONLY LAWFUL WAY of getting accountability for Bush and Cheney would be via impeachment (which Pelosi has taken off the table) or via prosecution in the United States (which the next President could make impossible by use of the presidential pardon power) or via prosecution under a country with universal jurisdiction (which the next President could oppose by activating the Hague Invasion Act). American Exceptionalism has enabled the Bush administration to create an oasis of lawlessness for itself. Because the United States is a veto holding United Nations Security Council member the United Nations cannot pass a resolution against the United States unless the United States President (who appoints the ambassador to the United Nations) makes a mistake and lets such a resolution get passed. Bottom line: There are no lawful avenues to hold a US President or Vice President to account for war crimes if Americans are determined to give them a pass. The moral question I have been putting is : when there are NO lawful avenues to justice are unlawful ones acceptable or even morally required? Might terrorism and/or assassination actually be the more moral option? I think the answer has to be yes. There either is a rule of law (applying to all) or there is not. Human beings should not be expected even morally to have to endure tyranny practiced against them. The Bush administration have tried to replace the rule of law with the rule of men. And Pelosi wants only apparently to replace the particular man that rules. Pelosi and the democrats are effectively co conspirators with Bush and the republicans against the rule of law applying to all mankind. That is the real measure of American exceptionalism. That and that American progressives will not require of their Presidential candidates that they give a commitment NOT to pardon war criminals. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Sunday, Aug 24, 2008 at 11:51:56 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: ICC jurisdiction
Yes, you're quite right. The ICC has no jurisdiction. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) would however. My error. The question that should be asked is "Why hasn't the USA signed on to the ICC?" Probably for the same reason that the USA denies the jurisdiction and ruling of the ICJ whenever the court's rulings are not to the liking of the White House. Successive administrations of the USA - in contradiction to the opinion of the people of the United States - have considered themselves above the Law. The behavior of the current administration and its lackeys clearly illustrates that contempt, not only of the Laws of the United States but of international Law as well, whether or not the US are signatory. by DC Rapier (28 articles, 73 quicklinks, 56 diaries, 114 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:06:28 AM (0+)
|
|
Exceptional?
Thank you for that explanation. For us poor benighted non Americans it is good to get an answer as to how the US could get everything so wrong. by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1750 comments [111 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 24, 2008 at 3:23:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Manifest Destinied Out
Americans have always viewed themselves as exceptions to the rule. The risk takers, the innovators, those who push the envelope past the sticky part. Even in the beginning this was fraught with errors and over time, these errors compounded like a bad check with insufficient funds that's used time and again. In the beginning, we chose the Native Americans as our enemy and performed every trick in the book to ethnically cleanse them from the land. When there were no more land in North America to conquer, we turned to European colonies and started Yellow Journalism to rid the continent of their lot. WWII became just the latest excuse for the US to lord over more of the world at their expense. The corporate elite saw this as their chance to force a US "Stamp of Approval" anywhere and everywhere it could. At the same time, they removed every possible link to world knowledge available to most Americans. The Iraq War is just the latest example of this dichotomy. Americans at home are told lies to start the war, lies to continue the war, and now more lies to end the war. And they are told that to question their news source is to become unAmerican. The world is finally getting tired of the relentless American slob, fat, dumb and happy, who ridicules others through ignorance while proclaiming his superiority. The slim strand which still couples the rest of the world to the US, the American Dollar, is hanging more and more like the Sword of Damocles over the head of the unsuspecting Gringo who still pounds his chest and naively suggests that even if the world were to gang up on the US, "We'd still kick their butt." We will soon withness the passing of the torch from a country that is overly french fried, obese and ignorant, to one that is more in tune with the rest of their species inhabiting the third clod from the Sun. And it will come none too soon. by John Little (43 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 180 comments [18 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 24, 2008 at 5:26:19 PM (0+)
|
|
I wouldn't say that the US gets everything wrong
Archie, I would say that many times the US put out convoluted and unpopular foreign policy where its intended purpose is to suppress the local people. With Somoza of Nicaragua, Pinochet of Chile, The Shah of Iran, Saddam of Iraq, and Marco's of the Philippines just to cite a few examples. by Stanimal (2 articles, 226 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 1254 comments [233 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 24, 2008 at 5:30:13 PM (0+)
|
|
Exceptionalism
Well, I knew that some hackles would be raised. As an American, I have come to learn a lot about the country I love by watching from a distance. The American people have been betrayed by its leaders - not only by those in the current administration but by those in many former administrations. One method of manipulation has been 'Americanism' whereby all serious criticism is deflected and dismissed by notions such as 'Exceptionalism'. More on that later. Peace, by DC Rapier (28 articles, 73 quicklinks, 56 diaries, 114 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 24, 2008 at 6:01:02 PM (0+)
|
|
American Exceptionalism vs Canute realism
"Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings. For there is none worthy of the name but God, whom heaven, earth and sea obey". So spoke King Canute the Great, the legend says, seated on his throne on the seashore, waves lapping round his feet. Canute had learned that his flattering courtiers claimed he was "So great, he could command the tides of the sea to go back". Now Canute was not only a religious man, but also a clever politician. He knew his limitations - even if his courtiers did not - so he had his throne carried to the seashore and sat on it as the tide came in, commanding the waves to advance no further. When they didn't, he had made his point that, though the deeds of kings might appear 'great' in the minds of men, they were as nothing in the face of God's power. By Barrie M. Rhodes of the Viking Network Apparently some leaders believe their own flattering courtiers. by kwalsh (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 275 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 24, 2008 at 7:20:34 PM (0+)
|
|
A most pernicious concept.............
Blow it right out of the water, together with the rest of that grand historical pile of mumbo jumbo and hocus pocus....... with this: by R. A. Landbeck (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 78 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:51:09 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
