Exceptionalism in a time of stress.

• Author: Wilson, Graham
• Position: The Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention - 2007: American Exceptionalism

The phrase "American exceptionalism" arouses strong feelings. For many Americans it encapsulates the best features of American life: political freedom, democracy, equality before the law, equality in social status, and equal economic opportunity. Not surprisingly, the phrase evokes patriotism and gratitude to ancestors who chose life in America over continuing to live in the "old country."

Critics of the United States and of American society are equally willing to talk of American exceptionalism, but do so with less positive purpose. "Exceptionalism," to America's critics, summarizes aspects of the United States like its large numbers of citizens without health insurance, the limited extent and low benefit levels of the American welfare state, its use of the death penalty, and its high levels of income inequality. Critics assert that America is certainly exceptional in the ranks of advanced democracies, but scarcely in a positive sense. Thank goodness, such critics might contend, that our ancestors never left Norway or Sweden for the United States. It has been particularly poignant to discuss American exceptionalism in the first decade of the twenty-first century. As Pew Research Foundation polls indicate, public opinion has shifted quite heavily against the United States, even in countries like Great Britain that have historically looked on the United States very positively. (1) This shift in opinion owes much to the impact on opinion overseas of such things as the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, the use of torture on terrorist suspects, and the misdeeds at Abu Ghraib, of which the infamous photographs were, sadly, but a limited aspect. Nor in the modern era is the negative view of exceptionalism confined to critics overseas. Some fifty years ago, Louis Hartz argued that the United States had been dominated by a consensus that privileged economic and political freedom.2 Illustrating that a free nation can never command uniform praise from its own citizens, contemporary American academics have argued that the American political tradition is characterized as much by hierarchies of race and gender as it is by equality and democracy. Racism, sexism, and intolerance are as American, they argue, as the First Amendment or contested elections. (3)

In the face of such emotionally charged disagreement about a simple phrase, social scientists may be tempted to abandon its usage. What is to be gained from using a phrase that generates more passion than precision? The answer is that the phrase draws attention to what is or should be a fundamental question about the politics and policies of any country: How do they compare with those of other countries, particularly those at comparable levels of economic development? "[W]hat should they know of England who only England know," (4) can be said for any country. The challenge for scholars is to try to separate the important analytical issues and concerns that underlie the arguments about exceptionalism from both the patriotic and anti-American fervor that it generates.

1. DIMENSIONS OF EXCEPTIONALISM

   The debate about American exceptionalism has been addressed by some of our most distinguished scholars (5) and has encompassed a variety of topics. For example, a well-known social scientist, Andrei Markovits, asks why there is no soccer (football) in the United States. (6) The example illustrates aspects of the exceptionalism debate well, although in a manner that Markovits did not intend. As anyone familiar with the United States knows, Markovits is wrong. Millions of Americans play soccer every week and Major League Soccer (MLS) appears to be successful. As is often the case in discussions of American exceptionalism, it is easy to exaggerate. The best contribution a social scientist can make, therefore, is to focus on questions susceptible to empirical inquiry. There are a limited number of such questions that collectively take us to the heart of the exceptionalism debate.

   First, is the United States unusually democratic in temperament? The exceptionalism case suggests that Americans are unusually wedded to democracy. This is, of course, a particularly difficult topic to discuss because, in our own age, democracy is almost unqualifiedly admired. (7) As Inglehart writes, "At this point in history, democracy has an overwhelmingly positive image throughout the world. This has not always been true." (8) In the past, the allegedly hyper-democratic aspects of American culture were grounds for criticism. Democracy in practice meant allowing a coarse, uneducated mob to control the affairs of the nation. Nineteenth-century writers such as Dickens who had considered themselves reformers at home found reason to be more conservative once they encountered the United States. (9) To this day, European left-wing criticism of American politics is influenced by an upper-class horror that figures like Sarah Palin can rapidly rise to prominence while possessing limited knowledge and defective syntax. Political scientists--including many American political scientists-writing on comparative political economy regularly express regret that the United States has not joined the ranks of neocorporatist countries in which labor union leaders, business executives, and the higher civil service steer the ship of state with limited input from elected politicians. (10)

   Second, Americans believe that they have a special commitment to civil rights and freedoms, that the rights and freedoms they enjoy are embedded not only in the Bill of Rights but in American hearts and minds. Is it true in reality? There is no doubting the frequency with which freedom is invoked as a special feature of American life in election campaign speeches. But beliefs are credible only if tested. It is less clear that during times of challenge (for example, during the Cold War and the so-called War on Terror) these ideals are always honored. The departures of Americans to Britain for political reasons during the McCarthy era, such as China expert Owen Lattimore and movie director Sam Wanamaker, led some to question the intensity of the American commitment to freedom. (11)

   Third, Americans believe in a more limited role for government than do the citizens of other countries. Self-reliance, initiative, and independence make Americans less supportive than others of government intervention in the economy and provision of a welfare state. On the other hand, it is a truism of American politics that many government programs are very popular; Social Security and Medicare are obvious (and costly) examples. Social Security, the largest governmental program, has been called the "third rail" of United States politics; implying that anyone who touches it is likely to die electorally. During the Great Crash of 2008, the Republican Administration of President George W. Bush took nine major banks and several financial institutions, such as insurance giant AIG, into government ownership. Opposition was limited to the far right (on principle) and far left (who worried about helping the plutocrats). Thus, one may ask whether Americans are really as wedded to individualism and self-reliance as has been supposed.

   Fourth, it is widely believed that government in the United States is smaller than in other advanced democracies. American governments control a comparatively smaller proportion of society's resources. Again, rhetoric, particularly from Republican candidates in recent elections, might lead one to suppose that the country is characterized by small government and self-reliance, even though those traditions are said to be threatened by a Democratic President and Congress. On the other hand, one might again note that one of President Bush's achievements was to create the prescription drug benefit for retired Americans, the most significant expansion of the American welfare state since the Great Society legislation of the 1960s. The example serves to warn us that rhetoric needs to be distinguished from reality. Government has grown dramatically in size and scope in the...