I have my doubts about Sarah Palin as a potential presidential candidate, but you have to hand it to her. Her instincts are wonderfully diabolical. She’s trapped our friends on the left in a no-win debate on American exceptionalism.
Nothing drives liberals battier. Some of them are prone to revolt at the mere suggestion that the United States has any redeeming qualities.
Bill Maher’s outburst on the Larry King show a few years ago is a sample. “You know, this country is — I’ve said this before, I’m going to keep saying it — it’s a pitiful, helpless giant it’s a stupid country, with stupid people who don’t pay attention.”
Now, Maher is a comedian, a funny guy, and this really makes you smile, although he wasn’t trying to be funny. I imagine he thought that with this little outburst, he could show everyone exactly how smart he is. Memo to Mr. Maher: You succeeded!
Premium content for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
American exceptionalism usually isn’t much of an issue in politics, but President Barack Obama changed that his first year in office. During a visit to France, he mishandled a question from a reporter who asked whether the president subscribed to “the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world.”
The answer is now well known. Obama said he believes in American exceptionalism, “just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
As James Q. Wilson dryly noted in a Washington Post interview, Obama “did not understand how Americans feel about this.”
The idea is buried deeply in the national psyche and arises from the language of the Declaration of Independence — and from the notion that the settlers who came here, unlike colonists of other ages, were concerned less with aping the mother country than creating something better.
The French writer Alexis de Tocqueville, who journeyed here in the 1830s, conveyed something of this spirit in his “Democracy in America.”
Obama himself noted the link between the Declaration and the national character in his 2004 speech before the Democratic National Convention. Apparently, when he got the question in France, he forgot.
But let’s consider the other part of the reporter’s question — the suggestion that American exceptionalism implies some sort of warrant to run the world. Actually, it doesn’t, and I don’t think the people that Tocqueville met would have made any such assertion.
America was still new and hardly a great power. But if I recall correctly from my reading of the book some years ago, those Americans had a very clear understanding that they had something going that was indisputably better than Europe and the rest of the world.
The qualified-to-run-the-world idea didn’t arise from American exceptionalism, and it’s possible to argue the opposite. Prior to World War II, many Americans believed that far from trying to run the world, we shouldn’t get involved at all. We should hold ourselves apart.
Yet the isolationism that gripped the country in those years turned out to be a contributing cause of World War II. After the first World War, we retreated behind our ocean barriers, leaving the British and French — weakened by years of trench warfare — to supervise weak security arrangements that couldn’t cope with the rise of Hitler.
By the time we got involved, things were too far gone to fix without massive sacrifice and slaughter. We learned from our mistake. We were a great power, and everything done by a great power has consequences — including an irresponsible refusal to assert leadership. Better to influence events and try to head off trouble before it festers.
While American exceptionalism doesn’t necessarily “make us uniquely qualified to run the world,” Palin’s emphasis on this theme has prompted some commentators to assert their lefty bona fides with amusing articles exhorting readers to get with it: We’re really just another run-of-the-mill country. Headline on a recent Michael Kinsley piece in Politico: “U.S. is not greatest country ever.”
The genius of Palin’s strategy is that it also hints at the ambivalence many Democrats feel toward the use of military force.
This is a party, after all, that has all but barred the old Truman Democrats —strong-defense figures like Sam Nunn or Scoop Jackson — from its presidential primaries.
Now we have a president who not only makes people wonder if he’s ill at ease with one of the nation’s basic ideas, but makes noises as if he sincerely believes in the fairy tale of nuclear disarmament — and hires people who describe wars as “overseas contingency operations” or invent clanking euphemisms for terrorism like “man-caused disasters.”
Palin is plowing some very fertile political ground.