[moki]

This is a great article that summarizes some of the differences (referred to by the Economist as "exceptionalism") between America and most other countries in the world.

from: http://www.economist.com/displaystor...7-046593d27b91

.....

America has not become “a more ordinary country”, either in foreign policy or in the domestic arena. Instead, this survey will argue that the attacks of 2001 have increased “American exceptionalism”—a phrase coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in the mid-19th century to describe America's profound differences from other nations. The features that the attacks brought to the surface were already there, but the Bush administration has amplified them. As a result, in the past two years the differences between America and other countries have become more pronounced.

Yet because America is not a homogeneous country—indeed, its heterogeneity is one of its most striking features—many of its people feel uneasy about manifestations of exceptionalism. Hence, as this survey will also argue, the revival and expansion of American exceptionalism will prove divisive at home. This division will define domestic politics for years to come.



From the outside, the best indication of American exceptionalism is military power. America spends more on defence than the next dozen countries combined. In the nearest approach to an explicit endorsement of exceptionalism in the public domain, the National Security Strategy of 2002 says America must ensure that its current military dominance—often described as the greatest since Rome's—is not even challenged, let alone surpassed.

In fact, military might is only a symptom of what makes America itself unusual. The country is exceptional in more profound ways. It is more strongly individualistic than Europe, more patriotic, more religious and culturally more conservative (see chart 1). Al-Qaeda's assaults stimulated two of these deeper characteristics. In the wake of the attacks, expressions of both love of country and love of God spiked. This did not necessarily mean Americans suddenly became more patriotic or religious. Rather, the spike was a reminder of what is important to them. It was like a bolt of lightning, briefly illuminating the landscape but not changing it.

The president seized on these manifestations of the American spirit. The day after he had defined America's enemies in his “axis of evil” speech, in January 2002, Mr Bush told an audience in Daytona Beach, Florida, about his country's “mission” in the world. “We're fighting for freedom, and civilisation and universal values.” That is one strand of American exceptionalism. America is the purest example of a nation founded upon universal values, such as democracy and human rights. It is a standard-bearer, an exemplar.

But the president went further, seeking to change America's culture and values in ways that would make the country still more distinctive. “We've got a great opportunity,” he said at Daytona. “As a result of evil, there's some amazing things that are taking place in America. People have begun to challenge the culture of the past that said, ‘If it feels good, do it'. This great nation has a chance to help change the culture.” He was appealing to old-fashioned virtues of personal responsibility, self-reliance and restraint, qualities associated with a strand of exceptionalism that says American values and institutions are different and America is exceptional in its essence, not just because it is a standard-bearer.



On this view, America is not exceptional because it is powerful; America is powerful because it is exceptional. And because what makes America different also keeps it rich and powerful, an administration that encourages American wealth and power will tend to encourage intrinsic exceptionalism. Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations dubs this impulse “American revivalism”. It is not an explicit ideology but a pattern of beliefs, attitudes and instincts.

The Bush administration displays “exceptionalist” characteristics to an unusual extent. It is more openly religious than any of its predecessors. Mr Bush has called Jesus his favourite philosopher. White House staff members arrange Bible study classes. The president's re-election team courts evangelical Protestant voters. The administration wants religious institutions to play a bigger role in social policy.

It also wears patriotism on its sleeve. That is not to say it is more patriotic than previous governments, but it flaunts this quality more openly, using images of the flag on every occasion and relishing America's military might to an unusual extent. More than any administration since Ronald Reagan's, this one is focused narrowly on America's national interest.



Related to this is a certain disdain for “old Europe” which goes beyond frustrations over policy. By education and background, this is an administration less influenced than usual by those bastions of transatlanticism, Ivy League universities. One-third of President Bush senior's first cabinet secretaries, and half of President Clinton's, had Ivy League degrees. But in the current cabinet the share is down to a quarter. For most members of this administration, who are mainly from the heartland and the American west (Texas especially), Europe seems far away. They have not studied there. They do not follow German novels or French films. Indeed, for many of them, Europe is in some ways unserious. Its armies are a joke. Its people work short hours. They wear sandals and make chocolate. Europe does not capture their imagination in the way that China, the Middle East and America itself do.

Mr Bush's own family embodies the shift away from Euro-centrism. His grandfather was a senator from Connecticut, an internationalist and a scion of Brown Brothers Harriman, bluest of blue-blooded Wall Street investment banks. His father epitomised the transatlantic generation. Despite his Yale education, he himself is most at home on his Texas ranch.

Looked at this way, the Bush administration's policies are not only responses to specific problems, or to demands made by interest groups. They reflect a certain way of looking at America and the world. They embody American exceptionalism .

An interesting followup article: http://www.economist.com/displaystor...7-046593d27b91

...and another: http://www.economist.com/displaystor...7-046593d27b91

[Developer]

America is great. Good.

[moki]

Originally posted by Developer:
America is great. Good.

Nah, that isn't the thrust of the article. America isn't great, America is different. THAT is the thrust of the article.

Indeed, that last chart is very instructional, and quite true in my experience. When asked the question "Which is more important for government?" a bit over 30% of Americans answered "To guarantee no one is in need" while almost 60% responded "To provide freedom to pursue goals"

The is in stark contrast to most countries in Europe, where the polarity is reversed: more emphasis is place on "To guarantee no one is in need" than "To provide freedom to pursue goals"

It's very true that individual rights and individual freedoms are much more highly prized in the US, which explains a number of things, including the crime rate, gun laws, and the optimistic outlook most Americans have.

[eklipse]

All hail the neo-master-race!

[moki]

Originally posted by eklipse:
All hail the neo-master-race!

sigh. Try reading the article, it isn't jingoistic flag waving, it is explaining the differences between America and most other countries in the world.

Some of these differences are bad, some of them are good. Regardless, understanding the underlying reasons for these differences, and recognizing the differences at all is important, no?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
sigh. Try reading the article, it isn't jingoistic flag waving, it is explaining the differences between America and most other countries in the world.

Some of these differences are bad, some of them are good. Regardless, understanding the underlying reasons for these differences, and recognizing the differences at all is important, no?

I read the article thanks. Understanding and recognizing the differences is all well and good, but, the problem is, an awful lot of Americans will never accept (or even consider) that their society just might not be perfect - nor will they accept that just because they are happy with their lifestyle, it doesn't mean everyone else's is wrong and it doesn't mean America should reshape the rest of the world in it's image. The fact that so many are hostile towards such thought speaks volumes about their own insecurities.

Until you cure this mindset, all the analysis in the world will get you nowhere.

[moki]

Originally posted by eklipse:
I read the article thanks. Understanding and recognizing the differences is all well and good, but, the problem is, an awful lot of Americans will never accept (or even consider) that their society just might not be perfect - nor will they accept that just because they are happy with their lifestyle, it doesn't mean everyone else's is wrong and it doesn't mean America should reshape the rest of the world in it's image. The fact that so many are hostile towards such thought speaks volumes about their own insecurities.

Ah, but that's really a falsehood. A bit under half of the people in the US subscribe to the points of views that you espouse on a regular basis.

As the article points out, America itself is very divided in terms of policy and practice. There is no monolithic "American" thought or actions at all.

[Eagle_AS]

God Bless America!!!!

[Lerkfish]

on a related subject: remember this?

"If after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say ["You're right, we were wrong -- good job"] -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush."
-moki, 04/16/03

where do you stand vis a vis your own statement? A lot of people are using it in their sig, and it appears that back then, you set up parameters for approving of impeachment proceedings against Bush.
So, do you now support Bush's impeachment, or have you waffled in the other direction?

[theolein]

Andrew Welch: America is different!!! (and starts no less than two threads quoting the same article in the same paper in order to prove this while vigourously denying that he is on yet another patriotic bent).
Me: No shit, Sherlock. Are you seriously trying to claim that America is the only country that has something "different" or special about it? Perhaps you should close the company and go work for Rumsfeld's propaganda department. You'd be about as subtle and as effective.

[BRussell]

Yes, everyone knows we Americans are more religious and patriotic etc. than Europeans. And we produce more and have greater disparities between rich and poor. Is that "exceptional?" Some of it is good and some is bad, IMO. The use of the term "exceptionalism" makes differences sound like superiorities. I think there's a simple linear trade-off: If you don't mind lots more people being lots less well-off, you can have a quicker economy.

And I'm not sure any of that has anything to do with the last few years.

Rather than use a loaded phrase such as "the rise of American exceptionalism," why not just call it what it is - that the Bush administration has policies that much of the rest of the world doesn't like.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Eagle_AS:
God Bless America!!!!

...God knows they need it!!!

-s*

[boots]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The use of the term "exceptionalism" makes differences sound like superiorities. I think there's a simple linear trade-off: If you don't mind lots more people being lots less well-off, you can have a quicker economy.

Academic lingo doesn't often translate into vernacular. "exceptional" in the vernacular has come to mean special in a good way. Academically it does simply mean it is an exception to the norm. No value judgment is placed on the term.

But I agree that, on the street, this sound pretty arrogant.

[boots]

There is some interesting work that the University of Michigan is doing regarding world values, world economy, etc.

It's kind of a lot to wade through, but you can find some pretty interesting stuff at this site.

One of the most interesting graphs I've seen is (sorry for the size, I'm linking, not hosting):



It is interesting that of the countries that have a GNP per capita of >$15,000, the US is the only one that tends toward "traditional" rather than "Secular/Rational" authority, yet places us more toward "self-expression" as a value than "survival." We map about where I thought we would be on the X axis, but much lower than I thought we would on the Y axis.

The full article is here. I just thought this would add to the discussion about what makes the US different.

[version]

Moki at his best again, oh dear.

The only exceptional thing that is of worth here, is the American Gov. desire to bomb, and dictate to the rest of the world; to eat copious amounts of food, then scavenge the rest of the world for their resources to supply your own.

Why do you keep posting these things in here as though you are trying to portray yourself as some sort of equal-oportunities councilor?
Your agenda is so obvious.
P.s. How was the trip to London? Hope you caught sight of the biggest anti_bush demonstrations in the UK, wish you could have come up to Scotland and seen the effigies we burned of him.

He actually looked quiet human as a burning smouldering mound of sh!t.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'd suggest that there are more than 110,000 homeless people living in London storefronts.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'd suggest that there are more than 110,000 homeless people living in London storefronts.

Been to the SF Bay Area lately?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Been to the SF Bay Area lately?

They prolly host massive anti-Bush protests there, as well.


edited to add:

*SMACKDOWN*

because they do.

[nonhuman]

So are you saying that the homeless are the ones protesting Bush, or are you just spouting non-sequetors because you think they make you sound smart?

[Spliffdaddy]

With homeless people in every storefront after business hours - the citizens of London spend time protesting the actions of the president of a nation 3,000 miles away.

Gotta love it.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by boots:
Academic lingo doesn't often translate into vernacular. "exceptional" in the vernacular has come to mean special in a good way. Academically it does simply mean it is an exception to the norm. No value judgment is placed on the term.

But I agree that, on the street, this sound pretty arrogant.

But The Economist is not an academic journal. I mean, it's not People Magazine, but using academic lingo is not really an excuse, IMO. It just seems to me that they've intentionally used a term that connotes value in order to spin what is really a negative (that other countries are pissed at American foreign policy right now) into a positive (that we're "exceptional").

That is an interesting study you linked. I saw a survey recently (don't feel like looking for it now) that made a similar point but in a less sophisticated way - that even though the US is obviously a developed country, it is more similar to an underdeveloped country in its religious values.

I guess our similarity to third-world countries makes us "exceptional!"

[boots]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
With homeless people in every storefront after business hours - the citizens of London spend time protesting the actions of the president of a nation 3,000 miles away.

Gotta love it.

Yeah. It's not like what the US does affects other people in other countries.

[version]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
With homeless people in every storefront after business hours - the citizens of London spend time protesting the actions of the president of a nation 3,000 miles away.

Gotta love it.

Yeah, you gotta love those homeless, in virtually every major city in the UK. They seem to make the news quite a lot, looking good in their brand new clothes, must have been supplied by Al-Qaeeda, eh?

Up in Scotland it was great, brought the whole of Glasgow to a standstill, and the drivers were so understanding.

Buffalo raped Bush is on his way back to his yeehaw country with all the other redneck inbred shagpots that supprot him.

Your media doesn't seem to keen on his visit here either, Michael Jackson seems to be makingall the headlines just now, what a nation, certainly got their priorities right.

[nas t. ho]

Originally posted by boots:
yet places us more toward "self-expression" as a value than "survival."

i think it is one of the great misconceptions of our times that "self-expression" is viewed as the opposite of "survival".

i would would rather say it is the very essence of it.

[boots]

Originally posted by nas t. ho:
i think it is one of the great misconceptions of our times that "self-expression" is viewed as the opposite of "survival".

i would would rather say it is the very essence of it.

If you have to struggle more just to survive, the odds are that getting the next meal (or clean drinking water) is a higher priority than freedom of the press.

Don't read too much more into the dichotomy.

[Spliffdaddy]

Scotland held a anti-Bush protest?

Thank goodness for internet discussion forums - or the world may never have known.

It brought Glasgow to a standstill?

oh, my word.

So, are you seeking an aid package from the US?

[version]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Scotland held a anti-Bush protest?

Thank goodness for internet discussion forums - or the world may never have known.

It brought Glasgow to a standstill?

oh, my word.

So, are you seeking an aid package from the US?

As if, Scotland, the land that virtually every american loves to proclaim they come from, and we are swarmed with you guys every year wearing your check shorts, white shirts and a pentax camera strapped round your necks as though it was a bomb.

Maybe i na few thousand years you might have even a modicum of the history that we have, that's if the good ol' US of Ass is still around.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by version:
As if, Scotland, the land that virtually every american loves to proclaim they come from, and we are swarmed with you guys every year wearing your check shorts, white shirts and a pentax camera strapped round your necks as though it was a bomb.

Maybe i na few thousand years you might have even a modicum of the history that we have, that's if the good ol' US of Ass is still around.

Version, I would like to remind you that your beef is with Spliffdaddy, not the entire U.S.A of which I am a citizen as well.

I see what you're trying to say, but realize that many people in the U.S. are protesting as well.

[thunderous_funker]

Two articles in which some writer in the Economist demonstrates he doesn't really understand Tocquerville's "exceptional America" at all.

Nearly every aspect of America that Tocquerville desscribed as "exceptional" is now long forgotten. The vigorous political dissent, the unprecedented diversity of thought and expression in the political sphere, the intensity of our Revolutionary Ideals, and the degree to which everyday Americans concerned themselves with the affairs of state.

In fact, the only quality of Tocquerville's America that seems to have significantly expanded is our religious medievalism.

Even 200 years after the early Americans fled Europe in rebellion against the Enlightenment's impact on Christianity, Divine Command Theory, Bible Literalism, and Fundamentalism are perhaps stronger than ever. And most tragically, the vigorous efforts of our Founding Fathers to insulate our government from the corruptive influence of such ideas seems to have reached an all time low point in the current administration.

[Shaddim]

What's kinda comical is that if it weren't for my visits to MacNN, I wouldn't even know people are protesting in those parts of the world. In fact, I've not watched the news or read a paper in probably 2 weeks. I guess I don't feel so bombarded by all the negative bullshit spewing out of every media outlet. All the sensationalism spread by all the different groups is just too much and my close friends and I have decided to just ignore it for a while and see if it makes a difference. Gotta tell ya, I feel better than I used to and I'm sure that's part of it.

Sure we sit and jaw about all this stuff, but it doesn't make any difference. It doesn't change the course of human events. Really, this is just for entertainment... hell, we do it mostly to hear ourselves talk, we're not changing anyone else's views. At least not views that they've actually thought out. Do we do it just to raise "awareness"? Heh, people aren't even aware of what's going on in their homes, communities, and minds much less what's happening 20K KM away. So, I suppose we do this to earn points towards the internet debating championship? I look around sometimes and just see all this as silly and pointless.

Oh well, I guess it beats watching WWE.

[petehammer]

MacNStein,

I see some of your points and agree that sometimes tuning out is far better than being transfixed. Turning off the TV and going out and living your life is better than being a news junkie.

At the same time, we (by that I mean people against the war which may not include you) cannot become indifferent or complacent with the situation. A high school teacher once said indifference is worse than hate, because with hatred you're at least paying attention and caring about the subject.

Indifference to what is going on in the middle east will is the root of American ignorance toward the subject. People simply don't care and yes, it is important.

So while I agree stepping back is certainly healthy, ignoring the situation and not making an effort to change it is not.

[daimoni]

.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Dude. Don't waste your time on Version. He's a troll from WAY back.

So's Spliffdaddy. Let's put them in a circular room and tell them to pee in the corner!