Historically, the US has defined and redefined its mission in the world based on lofty spiritual, moral and political maxims, starting with "Manifest Destiny," to fighting communism, to eventually serving as the defender of human rights and democracy around the world, using violence whenever necessary. In truth, "protecting human rights" or "restoring democracy" were mere pretenses often used to provide a moral cover that allows the US to reorder the world for the sake of expanding its market and ensuring its economic dominance.
The late American historian, Howard Zinn, explained in his essay entitled "The Power and the Glory," the functional meaning of American exceptionalism as such: "... that the United States alone has the right, whether by divine sanction or moral obligation, to bring civilization, or democracy, or liberty to the rest of the world, by violence if necessary ..."
Many examples and numerous violent images can be immediately summoned when Zinn's definition is translated into historical precedents. From the genocide of the Native Americans to the enslaving of millions of Africans, to the never-ending interventions in South America -- starting with the Monroe doctrine of 1823 -- all the way to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, American exceptionalism has always served the purpose of reinforcing the notion that America possesses a moral, divine right to do as it pleases for the betterment of humankind.
When former US President George W. Bush took it upon himself to "restore democracy" in Iraq as part of the US-championed "war on terror," his ultimatum to the United Nations reflected both American entitlement and its rooted sense of exceptionalism. "You are either with us or with the terrorists," he said on September 21, 2001. According to that maxim, the world was divided into categories of "moderates" and "extremists," "with us" or "against us," "Old Europe" and "New Europe," and so on. Despite the palpable irrationality -- let alone arrogance - of that logic, US "democratic" institutions and mainstream media cheered Bush on. The war president's ratings seemed to increase as his rhetoric and actions grew more violent.
But the orchestrated "popular consent" is finally breaking down, raising an unprecedented challenge to the notion of American exceptionalism, a banner under which America's ruling elites have long united. The more political chaos and societal division widen, the more the notion of exceptionalism will be exposed as bizarre, selfish, and unsustainable.
Surely, the storming of the US Congress will have global repercussions, not least among them the collective rejection of the outdated notion of American exceptionalism. But with that, there is also an opportunity: first for Americans to swap their "manufactured consent" with real dialogue; to salvage and, eventually, renew trust in their democratic institutions and second, for the world to challenge America's hegemonic discourse of fraudulent democracy and other self-serving fables.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
