Big Beautiful Dreamer
ridiculously contented
In recent weeks, we had a lively discussion about the term American exceptionalism and what it means. I was lucky to catch the last ten minutes of an interview with David Brooks, a conservative columnist, on the radio earlier today. Here's some of what he said:
American exceptionalism is characterized by the belief that for America to enjoy the fullest measure of its greatness, it must be measured in a win/lose scenario. That is: we can be proud of our country only if in expressing that view, we do so comparatively, so that it's clear that no other country is as great.
That's what I object to when I hear about American exceptionalism. I'd rather say (as I believe): America is great in so very many ways, and has behaved exceptionally (in a good way) many times throughout our history. Other countries are also great, and other countries have on many occasions behaved exceptionally in a good way. It doesn't diminish my love of America and its freedoms and helpful actions to acknowledge that other people love their countries. It's not a finite quantity.
Brooks also pointed out that throughout American history, those who spoke of a "shining city on a hill" did so in a way 180 degrees from what Ronald Reagan meant when he spoke about America being a shining city on a hill.
Reagan meant that we were a country to which all other countries looked up. That we were so great in so many areas that all other countries aspired to be us (or at least to take us to the prom).
Until that time, however, political and religious leaders described a "shining city on a hill" as a jeremiad, a warning: We are better than this; others are watching us; we need to get our act together and behave like we Are Somebody.
World War II correspondent Ernie Pile wrote of how American decision-makers were "humbled" by having used the bomb; that we were not thinking about how much bigger and how invincible we now were, but how much responsibility we now bore. "May we be worthy of this peace," he wrote.
That's my food for thought.
American exceptionalism is characterized by the belief that for America to enjoy the fullest measure of its greatness, it must be measured in a win/lose scenario. That is: we can be proud of our country only if in expressing that view, we do so comparatively, so that it's clear that no other country is as great.
That's what I object to when I hear about American exceptionalism. I'd rather say (as I believe): America is great in so very many ways, and has behaved exceptionally (in a good way) many times throughout our history. Other countries are also great, and other countries have on many occasions behaved exceptionally in a good way. It doesn't diminish my love of America and its freedoms and helpful actions to acknowledge that other people love their countries. It's not a finite quantity.
Brooks also pointed out that throughout American history, those who spoke of a "shining city on a hill" did so in a way 180 degrees from what Ronald Reagan meant when he spoke about America being a shining city on a hill.
Reagan meant that we were a country to which all other countries looked up. That we were so great in so many areas that all other countries aspired to be us (or at least to take us to the prom).
Until that time, however, political and religious leaders described a "shining city on a hill" as a jeremiad, a warning: We are better than this; others are watching us; we need to get our act together and behave like we Are Somebody.
World War II correspondent Ernie Pile wrote of how American decision-makers were "humbled" by having used the bomb; that we were not thinking about how much bigger and how invincible we now were, but how much responsibility we now bore. "May we be worthy of this peace," he wrote.
That's my food for thought.
