One small fact that perhaps should steer us away from the apparent obsession with wanting to be considered the best in everything was that Hitler wanted this kind of recognition for Germany. Germany was to be the center of the world, in effect. After the Olympic Games in 1940, which were being held elsewhere, Hitler vowed that all the Olympic Games after that would be in Germany from that point onward. Germany would be the most powerful nation, the one that dictates to everyone else the way things would work.
Let me be clear about one thing here: I am NOT comparing the present day United States to Nazi Germany. I did not like George W. Bush, but I was also not a fan of comparing him to Hitler, much like I am not a fan of comparing Barack Obama to Hitler. Until they discriminate against a large segment of the population, and then proceed to exterminate them, as well as begin a global war, then such comparisons are unwarranted.
But what I am doing is warning Americans about one aspect of their collective thinking that they believe is unique to them, but is, in fact, a very typical reaction whenever any nation or empire reaches a certain level of power. This happened with numerous empires throughout history, including the French and British empires. It happened to Germany, as well as Japan, in the twentieth century, with fatal results for both, in many respects. Not only are those two countries not what they used to be back then, but they will never be that again.
For which we should be thankful, frankly.
It also happened to the Soviet Union. Remember that their coat of arms was a picture of the globe, with a very prominent hammer and sickle gloriously hovering (or stamped) above it? Well, the Soviet Union was another modern superpower, and they got so tied up with the race for influence with the other world's superpower at the time (that would be US), that they bankrupted themselves. They invaded Afghanistan, of course, and surely felt justified in so doing. They had their reasons, right? Much like we have our reasons for being there in the present day. But did either the Soviet Union or the United States truly accomplish what they set out to accomplish in Afghanistan, or did the invasions expose weaknesses in the seemingly impregnable empire? I leave the reader to come to their own conclusions on that question.
The weight of being "the greatest" is excessive and, if anything, has bogged down the United States in recent decades, if not outright served as an anchor to prevent it from getting anywhere. We have political gridlock perhaps the likes of which we have never seen before, as a bureaucratic monster in Washington just keeps growing and growing. Much of it has to do, directly or indirectly, with the question of America's "exceptionalism".
Think about it. It not only defines questions concerning our foreign policy approach. It also impacts numerous other realms of thinking as well. I might go so far as to say it defines the very political thinking that exists in present day America. Healthcare has been, and remains, a divisive issue, because many are against any change, since it brings us closer to "socialism" (some even outright hint at "communism") whenever there are any efforts at reforms to curb the excesses of the current healthcare system, and these same people will claim that America has it's own system that is different than the "European" model (mind you, each country in Europe takes a different approach to healthcare in it's own right). Thus, we are moving away from "American" values. For those who take such a stance, there is no question that the United States has the best, or greatest, healthcare system in the world. Even though it leaves tens of millions of people without health insurance. Even though it currently leaves tens of millions more with inadequate health insurance, even when they work full-time jobs, and in many cases, with multiple jobs.
This same argument of preserving America's uniqueness, or exceptionalism, is employed with another hot button issue in the present day: gun control. I already did a series on this (look back to my blog entries in December, in the immediate aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shootings). Even measures that seemed to work well in other countries following mass shootings there are not taken into consideration here in the United States, simply because they are not the United States. In other words, it's different. They don't understand us, don't understand our history. They don't understand why it could never work here.
The "exceptionalism" attitude also is employed for pretty much anything. We cannot reduce the exquisitely bloated military budget by a penny, because it would detract from American "exceptionalism". We cannot get rid of excessive tax breaks and incentives to the wealthiest individuals and corporations among us, because of the American "exceptionalism". Other countries tax their rich, but here in America, it is sustained by the need to feel that the "American Dream" is alive and well and still relevant, even though the facts do not seem to bear this out, as living standards for the rest of us who do not rank among the very wealthiest and most privileged has noticeably and undeniably dropped down a couple of notches, has it not? In other words, our high living standards, which used to be the envy of the world, are considerable less "exceptional" these days, although our collective boasting has increased, even greatly. Ironic, isn't it?
We cannot give more to our schools, or increase the minimum wage or benefits to common workers, because such actions are "socialist" practices, and thus, unAmerican. They are counter to what makes America "exceptional".
But in the meantime, citizens of those other free countries (that we once proudly hailed as allies and followers of our American "freedom", but now increasingly seem to be eying with suspicions) in western Europe, and Canada, and Australia and New Zealand, and Japan, and South Africa, all know what is going on here, and yet they choose not to follow the "exceptional" United States, preferring to keep intact the systems that they have put into place for their own countries. Translation: America is losing it's influence, and by extension, losing it's leadership position.
Seriously, how else would you interpret it?
Don't believe me?
Let's look at the example of another issue where the United States has dragged it's feet, choosing to go in a different direction than the rest of the world, and mostly fueled, once again, by the argument of "exceptionalism": the environment. Here, more and more, anything goes. President Carter made a point of creating the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as an effort by a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, to protect regular people (that's you and me) from the proven excesses and abuses by powerful corporations. But the regulations that are already in place, which are of questionable effectiveness to begin with, seem constantly to not even be enforced. Many suggest that these environmental regulations be weakened even further, since, as the argument goes, it would choke off economical health and profitability. It would swamp corporations with too many regulations, too many costly adjustments, and perhaps in many cases, too high a cost for environmental clean up efforts (for messes that these same corporations are far too often responsible for).
Examine these arguments more closely, and once again, you have the roots of the "exceptionalism" argument firmly planted. It is fine for other countries to do whatever they think is best in terms of the environment. But as for the United States, which until quite recently was the largest polluter in the world (and even, by far, for decades and decades), the need to curb excesses simply does not apply. The American economy is too important, they say. It sounds like a reasonable argument, too, at least at first. In fact, if you accept their premise, then it seems completely logical. Throw in some conspiracy theories about "environmental wackos" and nut jobs, as well as stories about how much environmental advocates are supposedly raking in the dough, and then it becomes a no-brainer. We cannot follow these "crazies". American businesses deserve to thrive, so they can create "more jobs" for American workers. I cannot help but ask myself right now where all these new jobs are, even though lax enforcement of environmental regulations continues.
Americans cannot be bothered with trying to be more environmentally responsible. We need gas guzzling Hummers and other SUV's, and we apparently need, and apparently can afford the considerable expenses involved with, the wars in oil rich nations in order to keep the supply of oil running. I guess the convenient argument of keeping the price of gas in check went out the window as prices continued to skyrocket during the war in Iraq, even though the prices remained very low in Iraq itself, and even as the price around the world seemed to be lowering at the very same time as prices here at American pumps kept rising. Driving more fuel efficient cars always seems to be a backburner idea. It sounds like something we should be doing, but we keep puching it off to sometime "in the future". In the meantime, not surprisingly, we keep on going exactly as we were going before, as if all that we have learned should be scrapped and quickly forgotten, since they serve as an inconvenience.
But our practices were, and are, unsustainable. When you "deregulate", that is what happens. Deregulation is the wonderful sounding phrase that means, essentially, disarming government (which is represented by the people who vote the government in) in order to give more power to corporations (which are not elected by "We the people"), giving them more free reign to do pretty much as they want. How well did it work for the American people when banksters were given free reign to do as they please, without "government intrusion"? We had the housing crisis in 2008, and some are suggesting that the very same abuses and practices are continuing right to the present day. In other words, we have not learned any lessons, and we already know that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it, right? But who knows. Perhaps the corporations will put people before profits, and check themselves before they wreck themselves (and the country along with it). I mean, there are countless examples of this in history, right? RIGHT?!
The sole motivation of a corporation is to net profits. If that means producing more jobs, than fine. If that means laying thousands of workers off, then so be it. If that means dumping illegally, and paying for government representatives to lower environmental regulations, so that there is less "government intrusion" to such activities, then so be it. If that means putting people before profits, including allowing the health insurance corporations and the drug industry to keep raking in the billions and billions in profits, even at the expense of people who really need medical care or medication, but cannot afford it, then so be it. If that means pushing aggressively for overseas wars in order to net more profits for private corporations in "no bid contracts", then so be it. Right now, this approach has been the "shining city on the hill" example of "American exceptionalism" to the rest of the world. Can that even really be argued with any measure of legitimacy?
The results speak for themselves. The environmental policies for so much of the rest of the world has taken a different direction. Other countries are teaming up and moving ahead, with or without the United States. Some other countries, such as Iceland, are also trying to hold those banksters responsible who wrecked their economy, and this approach has been working favorable for them since. The rest of the world, in other words, is choosing to go in a different direction than the one that the United States continually advocates.
The results, in other words, is that the United States is losing it's trusted leadership position that it traditionally held in the post-war era. More and more, the motives for America's "exceptionalism" policies are being questioned and scrutinized, and yes, dismissed, throughout much of the rest of the world. We have dragged our feet for too long. Now, the rest of the world is going ahead without us, more and more.
We still hold a relatively prominent place of leadership in the world, for the moment. Yet, this is continually being compromised, and we cannot simply conveniently blame China for this. After all, they are doing what we are doing, and have long done: looking out and acting exclusively for their own benefit.
No, in truth, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We are making the same mistake that other "exceptional" powers, or empires, have made in the past. we have become too insular, too inward looking. We have now collectively reached a point (of arrogance, I would label it) where we are too arrogant to learn from the examples of anyone else in the world.
As that noted thinker and philosopher and tv personality, Dr. Phil might ask, "How's that working for you?"
It should be obvious by now, but I am personally not a believer in professed "exceptionalism". It may exist in the world, for individuals, and even for institutions, including countries. But these often are isolated to specific instances or realms. When people, institutions, or countries systematically proclaim themselves are "exceptional", our natural instinct should be to grow wary and skeptical. Truth be told, such "exceptionalist" proclamations are not unique at all in history. We see it in individuals, such as Louis XIV as "The Sun King", or Napoleon crowning himself emperor. We see it in other institutions, such as religions, where many different religions proclaim to be the "exception", and claim to have a monopoly on the truth. Usually, this means that you had better follow their example, or be forever condemned to the fires of hell, the old fire and brimstone approach of old, that people are increasingly turning away from. I would even suggest that corporations, in their own way, subscribe to their own notions of "exceptionalism". We all want to be viewed as exceptional, in some measure. But that does not justify going to all ends and losing touch with reality in order to pursue such grandiose notions. Wouldn't it be better and more responsible, to maintain some measure of humility and keep our feet planted solidly on this earth, which after all, is the only one that we've got?
Indeed, it is tempting to think so highly of ourselves, and many are those who yielded to such temptations. But the truth is, more often than not, it has resulted in unfavorable outcomes.
Also, we have to examine where these claims are coming from. When the leading voice of "exceptionalist" arguments are corporate sponsors with clear, vested interests in the political game, so that they can maximize profits, than again, I suggest that we should approach with caution. But it has never been difficult to get Americans to have their chests swell up with pride whenever there is any questions regarding patriotism, or what passes for it in America presently. What we take for patriotism, is actually nationalism, and that has more than a small, destructive element to it. It is not because our neighbors yield to this vanity, that it is right, or that we ourselves should yield to it. The more mindlessly some trends begin to form, and the more skepticism, and yes, even resistance, should grow. Unfortunately, here in America, that is deemed an unpatriotic approach to take.
The United States cannot be all things, at all times. Yet, too many Americans seem to think, and increasingly outright suggest, that we can be. Others have made this mistake before, and paid a steep price. Empires have been lost for such sentiments. It may have been the British Empire yesterday where the sun never set, but it is on American interests today that many Americans feel the sun is always shining. But it seems to me that the very divisiveness and incompatibility in the current American political climate might just suggest the first real hints of a fast approaching dusk on the horizon.
There has been a growing trend in the work towards the latter decades of the twentieth century, which was the most destructive century to date in world history. That trend has tended towards a growing global awareness, and increasingly, an emphasis on working together, on partnership. Admittedly, it has not always worked ideally, admittedly. Far from it, in fact. Yet, it is a trend that seems to be working itself out. Given enough time, it will work out many of the kinks and iron out the wrinkles, and begin to resemble a more purposeful and meaningful whole, if it is allowed to. But the emphasis on "exceptionalism" is in direct contradiction to this tendency. It is important to maintain cultural identity to some degree. But when it turns to supremacy, which is what the current "American exceptionalism" de facto means, then it becomes actively harmful and counterproductive.
In these last few decades, the United States has taken a turn towards a "purer" (that is to say, more extreme) version of capitalism, which is now more often termed "free market" or "free enterprise"(this might be an effort to steer away from the idealogue kinds of -ism's that have proven so detrimental in much of world history, a degree by separation, if you will). In so doing, we have followed the capitalist practices, and auctioned off more of our precious resources, as well as our freedoms and standard of living, to the highest bidder of the moment, favoring temporary profits over most lasting values.
The results? I think that they speak for themselves, and are increasingly obvious and undeniable (except possibly to "American exceptionalists").
Our leadership and good standing around the world is going, going....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/garyshapiro/2012/07/25/is-america-the-greatest-country-in-the-world/
No comments:
Post a Comment