A Problem with Elephants: American Exeptionalism and the Political Right
After coming across a group of (older generation) Europeans skinny-dipping in a semi-secluded national park pond, my friend thought to himself, “That is why I love Americans.”
From our sense of modesty, to the democratic experiment resulting in the U.S. Constitution, all of us have our reasons for feeling patriotic. We have much in the United States, both significant and less so, to be proud of. But as the truism goes “Pride goeth before the fall.”
In the case of the American political right, pride is being disguised as “American exceptionalism” — and the fall has already begun.
Some try to attribute the idea of “American exceptionalism” to Alexis de Tocqueville — though he never penned the phrase. The idiom was first created and used by neo-conservative pundits soon after WWII.
It is meant to invoke the idea that America is a blessed nation created by God and (here’s the rub) therefore privileged in what actions it can take around the world. Thus, because of our heritage and unique position in world history, we are above the law of nations.
The conservative-leaning Republican Party — and more particularly the neo-con wing of the party — is particularly susceptible to this so-called patriotic concept, which has infected the party with full force.
For example, this summer Matt Lewis, a conservative political Pundit on MSNBC attacked Barack Obama for saying this, and I quote: “Any world order that elevates one nation above another will fall flat.” In response Lewis stated:
“I think that goes against the idea of American exceptionalism…most Americans believe that America was gifted by God and is a blessed nation and therefore we are better.”
America is a blessed nation, freer and more prosperous than many others, but as a great Nazarene once said, “The first shall be last and the last shall be first.”
If Americans see themselves as “better” or above others then we run the risk of following after Alexander’s Greece and Ceasar’s Rome.
However, that is not to say that American ideals are not great. The idea of America, even the word itself, is synonymous with liberty and freedom.
But the ideal does not make the idealist better than others. To put one nation above any other does not put it under God.
At a recent Republican fundraiser Newt Gingrich said, “I am not a citizen of the world, I think the entire concept is intellectual nonsense and stunningly dangerous!”
This neo-con campaign to put nationality above humanity does not sit well, particularly with America’s younger generations. Like it or not, generations “X” and “Y” have been raised in an increasingly global world.
And though the phrase “global world” seems redundant to some, major international events like the fall of the Berlin Wall, Tienanman Square, the Iraq wars, Balkan wars, September 11th and major disasters like the Tsunami in Indonesia — to name just some — have forced these generations out of a national-centric worldview.
Combine that with the very-American ethic that “all men are created equal” and subsequently the concept of American exceptionalism clashes with the values of these generations.
Consequently, Republican leadership, like Gingrich, Hannity, and Limbaugh, are increasingly losing ground with people who have a world-centric point of view, especially the younger two generations. Even Ronald Reagan famously said, “I come to you not only as a citizen of America but as a citizen of the world”.
To boot, the voting patterns that are being developed now may count the Republican Party out of power for a long time. Some think the recent success of Democrats may be short-lived, but if you look at political trends over the history of the United States these head winds may last for some time.
Let’s look at this historically: After the Federalists (one of the original Political Parties in the U.S.) won the first three presidential elections with George Washington and John Adams, the Democrats won the next ten in a row from 1800 to 1840. Then, after twenty years of elections going back and forth, the Republicans (previously the Federalists and then the Whigs) won the subsequent 9 out of 12 presidential elections from 1860 to 1912.
Again after another period of elections going back and forth from Wilson to Hoover the Democrats began to win again, taking the next 8 out of 10 from 1932 to 1968. And again Republicans took hold of power from 1968 to 2008 taking then next 7 out of 10 presidential elections — and they may have been even more dominant if not for the scandals of Richard Nixon’s presidency.
Each of these party dominant periods shows that the ascendant party wins at least seventy percent of presidential elections for about forty to fifty years, a period of one to two generations being born. If Democrats have started a new trend in their favor, or if Republicans continue to alienate the younger populace, we will likely see the DNC in power for some time; voted in again and again by generation X and Y.
American exceptionalism — the kind that degenerates into arrogant nationalism and similar in practice to the Divine Right of Kings — is un-American and only creates enemies and mockers the world over. Its purpose is at best to justify whatever actions we want to take around the world, and at worst it is dishonoring our heritage and smacks of jingoism.
All Americans, not just the neo-cons, must reject this thinking. We must take the advice of the proxy American founder, Charles de Montesquieu, who said,
“To become truly great, one has to stand with people, not above them.”
Image Credits: Senator Rudolf, Mike Jagendorf & Shizhao
********************
Adam Hailstone is a graduate of and Associate Mentor with George Wythe University. A popular speaker, Adam has lectured across the United States and Canada on topics from liberal arts to global politics.
He is a small business owner in Cedar City, Utah. He is a hiking, canyoneering and bungee jumping enthusiast and loves reading the great author Victor Hugo. He is married to a beautiful, talented and strong woman; the former Laura Jensen.
31 Responses to “A Problem with Elephants: American Exeptionalism and the Political Right”
Spot on, Adam. Thanks for the post
Comment made on August 7th, 2009 at 10:13 amThanks Mike!
Comment made on August 8th, 2009 at 7:34 amThought provoking Adam
Comment made on August 8th, 2009 at 10:24 amI am not world centric, and agree with those that say this is foolish. However, I do not buy into American exceptionalism either, the way it is usually used. America was clearly blessed with the opportunity for liberty like no other place ever has been, and in that way it is exceptional. Our exceptionalism is entirely based on our virtue, and that is lacking. I think that we do need to be Americans first, REAL Americans who love and fight for liberty.
Most world-centric people lean socialist, and our current worldwide organizations like the UN do not value liberty. I prefer the American ideals, and think that we need to restore the original ideals in America first, or how do we stand a chance of promoting them world wide? Enough–too much–work to do here.
Thanks for the thought provoking post.
Comment made on August 8th, 2009 at 12:57 pmDecent article. Not real developed but I’m sure there are restrictions on length. (Republicans from 68 to 2008? Check your info there.) I have a problem with the term neo-con and really with a lot of the labels that are thrown around as insults, in other words I don’t know of any supposed neo-cons who call themselves that. Same with liberals really, I think they prefer “progressive”. What is the point of your writing this? You must be young because I see it as fairly naive. Most idealists eventually end up as cynics. Be careful.
Comment made on August 8th, 2009 at 3:06 pm@Steve Barfuss: Read The Blue Sweater by Jacqueline Novogratz and you may change your mind regarding the “world-centric” perspective.
Comment made on August 8th, 2009 at 10:14 pmHmmm…I still don’t get what skinny dipping has to do with American Exceptionalism and Americans’ sense of modesty? The main ideas are sound and the citations good, but you lost me in the first two paragraphs. I was unable to follow the writer’s thread/progression until near the end. Transition sentences would have been very helpful here.
Comment made on August 9th, 2009 at 6:40 pmGW,
Comment made on August 9th, 2009 at 7:17 pmRead Commentary Magazine or the Weekly Standard and you will find plenty of people who call themselves Neo-Cons. It is not a label it is a name that Irving Kristol created to describe his political philosophy.
The reason I wrote the article is that I believe American Exeptionalism is not only a bad belief but is dangerous. Furthermore many of the ideas of the conservative right are being automatically discounted because most people see them as Nationalistic and approaching jingoism. The arrogance of American Exeptionalism is one of the reasons we have a situation where one party is in control of the federal government; one major political philosophy deciding the policy future of our nation.
The foriegn policy which is currently in place, I believe can be traced back to WWI. I wouldn’t say there is anything Neo about it. Kind of like the ideas of the current “Liberals” – basically failed ideas of the late 19th and early 20th century. So is the US to have a strictly defensive nature to its foriegn policy? Is protecting say, the flow of oil from the Middle East not a defensive strategy? Is the use of the US Navy to protect commerce not a legitimate use of force? Are thos Neo-Conistic traits?
Comment made on August 9th, 2009 at 7:38 pmYes I think the neo-cons would agree with that use of force.
Comment made on August 9th, 2009 at 8:17 pmI agree with your general thesis that people should not feel superior to other people on different geographical land masses simply because they were born on a particularly different geographical land mass. But, I also feel that the world might evolve to have a more free, peaceful, and prosperous reality if people were to drop the icons of nationality and patriotism altogether.
The market of human interactions has reached a technological level that easily transcends all political boundaries. Cheap, efficient communication channels allow for the development of worldwide communities that are custom tailored to their members. Attracting those that have common interests and goals, and ostracizing those that don’t.
One’s conscience (and actions that result from it) should not be guided by the mere happenstance that you were born in a particular place. Individuals have values, not pieces of land.
As bad of a problem as “American Exceptionalism” is, what might be termed “American Inclusionalism” is equally bad. To say that simply because I was born on the same side of an imaginary line as you were, that I am somehow on the same team as you, and that as a team member I am now obligated to pay for your healthcare, for your retirement, or your next car, and that you will take it out of my paycheck regardless of whether I feel you’ve earned it or not, is both ridiculous and violent. I live my life as an individual, regardless of where I choose to live, freely associating with those that freely associate with me, wherever they happen to be. I will never choose violence to get my way. I expect the same courtesy from all others.
If something’s rotten on the “inside”, it will eventually seep to the “outside” as well.
Comment made on August 9th, 2009 at 8:42 pmLove it Ryan!!! I also hope we can evolve to the point that we do not have nationalistic seperations but instead human loyalties. The sad thing is that even saying that many people will automatically think that you and I are socialists or liberals because many liberals have a world-centric point of view. It is sad that other people associate liberal thinking with a world-centric point of view.
Comment made on August 9th, 2009 at 9:23 pmI believe that free market thinking and being world-centric go hand in hand.
Also, I really liked your thought: “One’s conscience (and actions that result from it) should not be guided by the mere happenstance that you were born in a particular place. Individuals have values, not pieces of land.”
I could not agree with you more!
You can’t simply discount geography and actual physical approximation. We have to be a country, and we will always need to associate and work with those immediately around us (for most people). That is what I don’t understand about these “market state” ideas. It seems to me that we had better make sure that we have a piece of geography where we are still free to speak our minds from before we concern ourselves overly much about the rest of the world. If we lose that battle (the one in this country) then the larger battle will never be fought. I could be wrong, and Steve I have a zillion things to read but I will look for that one on audio.
I like the values of the free market, and don’t hold with the neocon’s views on American power projection, nor do I think that all the world centric people are statist or socialist. I would say that most of them are. I could be wrong. I like the vision of a world where free association simply happens, but that doesn’t seem to be where the world-centric ideas are taking us.
It seems to me that most of the world organizations are about positive rights, and care little about defending freedoms. Am I wrong? Or are these organizations irrelevant to your idea of world centric?
It is hard for me to see letting go of the idea of being an American first, when we seem to be the only government, even now, that has a chance of preserving freedom. Is that what you call nationalism? How do you suppose that the world gets to a state of freedom that you imagine without America staying free? I can’t see it.
Comment made on August 9th, 2009 at 10:12 pmAdam, I understand the context in which you criticize American exceptionalism, but there is an exceptionalism that I wholeheartedly buy into.
America has never been perfect, yet we have discovered and formalized certain truths far better than any other nation before us, e.g. constitutional government and all that entails (separations, checks, balances, limitations, legitimate foundation and authority, et al), rule of law, the government exists for the people and not the people for the government, free enterprise, the role of virtue in a republic, etc.
It’s clear that the Founder’s political philosophy was profoundly better than that of Hitler, Lenin, Chavez, Hussein, Caesar, etc.
In this sense, exceptionalism is relevant to geography only incidentally; it’s the principles and values that matter, not the longitude, latitude, and borders.
So while I agree with you that nationalistic arrogance is misguided and destructive, I’m leery of throwing out the baby with the bath water.
We need to recognize what we have. We need to call a spade a spade.
The key difference, however, between the context I speak of and the exceptionalism that is leading to empire, is that one is a call to serve and the other is an imperative to rule.
America does bear the burden — the responsibility — of preserving freedom globally. But it starts here. We must first turn inward, recognize where we have strayed from the freedom formula, right our own ship, clean up our own messes, then be a “city on a hill,” shining the light of freedom, offering our service when needed, using our power when appropriate.
We should feel blessed for our heritage, and this attitude should engender humility. We must understand that our exceptionalism in no way makes us better as a nation or as individuals; we’ve simply discovered truths available to anyone and any nation. In other words, we may have discovered higher political truths than other nations, but humanity is on an equal plane in terms of intrinsic worth.
So I say we are exceptional — but let’s put that in the proper context and use it to serve voluntarily, rather than rule by force.
Also, I think Steve Barfuss brings up a great point — that many “world-centric” thought leaders tend toward socialism.
But it takes a gross level of obtuseness to not recognize the impact your daily actions and habits have on citizens in Mexico and India. We eat produce grown and picked in Mexico. We wear shoes produced in Indonesia. We produce waste that affects China’s air and water.
On the level of commerce alone, we’re so interconnected that 21st Century leadership requires a global perspective. This is not to say that we don’t protect our own interests; only to recognize that our actions fundamentally and profoundly impact people across the world.
One of the pillars of social leadership is “oneness” (see our e-book), or the understanding that each individual is a cell in a larger body, the connection between our actions and their consequences for other people.
The more conscious Americans are of that truth, the more humble and just our “exceptionalism” will be.
Comment made on August 10th, 2009 at 4:21 amSteve Barfuss,
Comment made on August 10th, 2009 at 7:06 amYes world government organizations like the UN and the WTO are irrelevant to being world-centric. To be world-centric simply means that you do not favor one people over another. The life of one is not worth more than the life of another. That is how I think God looks at the world and I think all people should also. And knowing you, I think you would agree with that.
However, there is nothing wrong with loving your country. It is natural. In fact in the United States I love the mountains of Cedar City over the plains Missouri. But I do not believe that a Cedar City citizen is better than the people of Missouri. And I do not believe that an American person, by mere fact that they were born here, is more exceptional than any other person in the world.
Furthermore, please don’t read my comments to say that I do not think we should fight for liberty within the United States. I think that is exactly what we should be doing. I have spoken to crowds of thousands all over the United States, and said to them that if the American experiment fails, liberty may retract all over the world for hundreds of years.
We must fight for liberty here. But resting on the laurels of the past accomplishments of our founding fathers, and trying to convince the world that we can do as we please because we have accomplished so much is much of the reason that we are distrusted around the world and gives fodder to those who have agendas of hate against America and/or liberty.
Being world-centric does not mean that you are anti-liberty and freedom.
Adam is spot on in this article. Ethnocentrism, aka American Exceptionalism, is going to isolate America from the world community and leave us out to dry. It is important as a people to be humble and tolerant of others’ culture and ways of life. America is not a “blessed” nation anymore than any other. If there is a god, wouldn’t he love all his or her human creatures? Why just Americans? The idea that America is better than any other country is bogus, and is going to make a lot of enemies out of our neighbors. This being said, I would encourage people to go buy a world globe and study it. Study geography, physical and political, and learn about the numerous ways in which we are all connected in the world. The Earth is a fascinating place, and it’s all we have for the forseeable future. Why not learn about our neighbors and accept people for who they are? Our differences are what make life interesting. If we try to homogenize everyone in the world by “Americanizing” them, then we are stripping ourselves of everything that makes different places in the world so interesting. This is the very thing that makes world travel so intriguing and fascinating. So, take a step back and realize that it’s okay for others to believe in something different than you. You may learn interesting things from people if you take down the barriers.
Comment made on August 10th, 2009 at 7:49 amThanks Adam, and in that light, I do agree for the most part, though I still lack understanding of how a market state comes about given the reality of geography. I like Steve P’s voluntary exceptionalism, kind of like TJ’s natural aristocracy.
I guess I would say I am an American first so that the rest of the world can have the benefit of ideas that have been successful here, and that are true and needed in the rest of the world. Most people, the younger Americans, are world centric for the wrong reasons–its because they went to some university where they were told that America is evil or irrelevant. Not that America has always done good.
Comment made on August 10th, 2009 at 7:52 amSo I guess the challenge is to include the world in our thinking and action, while leading the usually well intentioned but mislead youth to understand the profound goodness of original American ideas. This has to be done without sounding like a jingoistic nationalist yahoo. Its kind of a fine line and an unusual position.
Excellent article! The definition I understand for a tyrant is a “king” that rules by whim, not by law. Your statement that some believe America is above the laws of the world because of our divine creation essentially puts us right into that category. Look at the way we’ve handled much of world relations and I think the shoe fits.
It also makes me ponder the future of our citizens. So many friends and acquaintences have questioned how in the world the people of Germany could allow the atrocities that occurred during WWII to happen, myself included. That thought process of putting one’s self above others leads to demonization. You hear it in the news today. How many of you have heard others refer to middle-easterners as “mop-heads” ? The name calling takes away from the humanization of these people and enables people to consider them as sub-human. Categorizing others as sub-human (or demonization) enables them to justify evil treatment.
It can happen here. Our pride does not allow us to think we could ever be guilty of such a crime; but it’s where we’re headed, and it’s a slippery slope! Thanks Adam for writing such thought-provoking stuff! I see the future under the situation you’re describing and it isn’t where we want to be. We as a nation need to wake up and do what is right! :0)
Comment made on August 10th, 2009 at 8:48 amAs you say, it’s not the American people that are exceptional. Rather it’s American ideas that are. As soon as we think that we ourselves are exceptional in some supposedly good way, we actually do become exceptional, but in a very negative way. What’s worse, non-Americans, who most assuredly are turned off by such hubris, are usually also then turned off by the ideas that we espouse.
This is the problem with American Empire. We cannot afford to force others to live the way we do. The only way we can expect to have exceptional ideas become the norm is to offer them to the nations of the world to choose if they want to. Persuasion usually works. Force never does.
SimpleUtahMormonPolitics.com
Comment made on August 10th, 2009 at 1:39 pmI am really enjoying everyone’s comments. Jamie, Becky and Frank have really added some clarity and depth to what I was trying to say. And thanks for that.
Comment made on August 10th, 2009 at 2:46 pmSteve Palmer,
Comment made on August 10th, 2009 at 3:09 pmWe can appreciate America, and rejoice in our heritage, but as Steve Barfuss said it is virtue that makes one exceptional and I believe we are lacking in that area nationally and individually.
Now I agree with most of what you are saying but where you lose me is where you say “we” are exceptional as opposed to ideas and/or accomplishments. I do not believe that individual Americans are exceptional merely because they were born here; just like I do not believe all Japanese are great Samurai. If a father is a great man, that does not make the son a great man.
I do believe that certain Americans are exceptional and I do believe that some things that are associated with our culture and government are exceptional.
However, if a man is great and has accomplished many wonderful things throughout his life, I do not think it would be wise for him to go around telling people how exceptional he is. It is the same with our nation. Telling people, even telling ourselves, that we are exceptional can only be bad and lead to worse things.
Good article. I think that America is exceptional in the idea of unalienable rights and founding of the constitution.
But what makes America exceptional is the fact that we dare to believe that all men are created equal, that we all have a right to life, liberty and to pursue after happiness, despite what world history showed in the past.
But however, this type of exceptional ism requires that we don’t put ourselves above any other group or people or conquer another. By saying we are better, the whole philosophy of equality is lost, and we are touting the same idea of despotism that the idea of liberty is against.
America’s ideals are great, but they require tolerant, respectful and a humble people for them to work.
Comment made on August 10th, 2009 at 4:02 pmI have been to many counties in the world and I haven’t experienced the “distrust” or hate that we so often hear about. Adam, where have you been that they hate or distrust America/Americans? Most all the citznes of other nations I have dealt with have positive feelings about America and Americans, even in Iraq and Iran. As declared at the inception of this country, ALL men are created equal, it doesn’t say all Amercans are created equal.
Comment made on August 10th, 2009 at 6:42 pmAdam,
Your article is thought provoking and it has caused me to think through some of my recent positions on U.S. foreign policy. What probably struck me most were your comments about the perceptions of Generations X and Y, regarding American conservatism—to the degree that the Republican Party can be called conservative. My belief in American exceptionalism, or it’s uniqueness in world history, comes from the principles on which it was originally founded—ideas such as “all men are created equal” or that they “are endowed … with… unalienable Rights” which include “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”, or that governments derive “their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed—not on what America is today, and certainly not on any notion of the special virtues of the American people. If the older generation of conservative Americans fail to win over the younger generation, because they (the older generation) seems arrogant, then we have a serious problem in preserving what truly makes us exceptional; our liberty. If this is what’s happening, then leading conservatives and “neo-cons” definitely need to pay attention to what younger Americans are thinking and what young conservatives like you are saying. The preservation of our liberty requires that the foundational principles of liberty’s preservation be fully embraced by each new generation. If we older conservatives loose the hearts of the rising generation, then we can never hope to win their minds.
Comment made on August 10th, 2009 at 8:38 pmJoining the discussion late. been on vaca… First of all, Thank you for making the effort to put this group together and for distributing your article.
It is almost comical how well this argument fits into the kondratiev cycle. You are such a nomad: seeking to find the middle (or central) answers to the ferocious dichotomies that the Baby boomers left us. And, as a nomad myself, I cannot but acquiesce to your conclusions within the sphere of the arguement itself. (especially your calling the Noe-commies out on their hypocrisies)… I guess we could explore some larger, or smaller, or more specific spheres that would incorporate all avenues of diplomacy, patriotic value, and human rights, but in short, I believe it is true that America is doing a lot of damage cruising the world while pressing its dissimulated advantage under the guise of a destructive democratic principle, while the homeland is suffering from the deliberate sabotage (and apathetic remission) of the very thing we think to spread. Freedom
Comment made on August 15th, 2009 at 6:27 pmXacobeo,
Comment made on August 15th, 2009 at 9:14 pmRight on man! In the name of nomadic tendencies, I wonder if we can describe a free world view in a language that satisfies the dichotomies that the Baby Boomers have left us; namely secular-humanism, capitalism, fundamentalists, while not degenerating into a type of individualism that rips apart the human bonds of family, community and beliefs.
It is easy to describe what is wrong with the world and simply find with the middle, but if we are to lead out to a new foundation, we need to find the language of real freedom that can satisfy the secular-humanists, capitalists and fundamentalists.
Anyway, thoughts?
That is a tall Order Adam… Though I think that if there is a worthy pursuit in today’s politics, it is that very one. My hope therein is dim however. I have had a day to think it over (or a life time) And I can’t stop going back to the idea that no matter how one defines freedom, or quantifies liberty, it will cyclically fail when the social bonds of Stoicism-Judeo-Christian-Patriarchal ethic is set at naught by secularists. Ron Paul will not save America because he wont save us from our pathetic addiction to media entertainment or our status insecurities, just as Harry Reid will not save us from our “incapacity to be a benevolent populous” (liberally speaking) … I fear that the language that has the power to be universally cohesive is just as universally condemning, -or- it is too vague and rhetorical to be of great worth in a practical application.
I’m sure you have experienced a similar dilemma.
In fact, I think that was the quandary you meant to examine in the first place… sorry for being redundant.
I wont give up on the idea of finding an avenue for philosophical/social cohesion, but… my ideas are only plausible after a crisis; not directly preceding one. and Patriarchy was not my idea.
next thought— you can take a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink… but you can salt his hay…
how do we do it? can we access the “nation” at all? has the day of the essay died -or- will the federalists papers be reborn? will the poet or the linguist or the Rock Star be the force of national freedom? Could a president stand and say “We have called by different names, men of the same cause. We are all “Democrats” we are all “Republicans”" …(not blooty likely)…?
does Bipartisanship only mean illegal bailouts?
How about a load of really nasty rhetoric!
keep up the good work Adam.
Comment made on August 18th, 2009 at 9:36 pmThanks Adam!
For another take on American Exceptionalism see http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_with_Bill_Whittle/Bill_Maher%2C_Barack_Obama_and_the_Truth_About_American_Exceptionalism/2378/
Comment made on October 31st, 2009 at 9:04 amWake up people. This IS the greatest nation on earth and has been for a long time (it was blessed by God to be such as long as we are a covenant people). Our Founding Fathers established this republic experiment through inspiration and it has proved to be the most successful experiment in history. However, it is floundering due to the Progressive movement that began in this country at the turn of the last century. It is not the D’s or the R’s, though the Progressives have found the most succes with the D’s… until last night when Scott Brown upset the Progressives plans to be able to go forward with their Globalist plans… healthcare, world banking, global environment control, global gun control, etc., which are all threats to the American principles and ideals that are America. You will see that now the Progressives will move to the R’s and try to force them to come to the dark side in order to pass their world centric agenda. America is the greatest nation in the world and the system that made us great is free to copy at any time. This nation has done more good for more people world-wide than any other nation in history… sometimes at the ultimate price of our citizens blood. Don’t believe the hype that our Constituion is a living evolving document and that it needs to conform to European ideals or any other nations system of government… we figured that one out in the 1770′s folks. It is true our republic is sick because we have allowed elitists in Washington to corrupt it, but those days are over… they have shaken the soul of “We The People” and the freedom express is rolling! Fix what is broken, return to the founding ideals and principles and this great nation will become that shining city on the hill and the rest of the world will look to us once again as that beacon of freedom that God promised. One World Order or Globalism is nothing more than a power grab by dictators, tyrants, and terrorists in order to control those that they despise the most… We The People. If you really want to know about the Constitution, start with The 5000 Year Leap” by Cleon Skousen. I for one am an American and am blessed to have been born here. I will do everything possible to keep this country free so that others around the world will have an example to follow and a friend in times of need. While the Global-Centrist idea sounds all warm and fuzzy on the outside… it will never sway the Stalin’s, Hussein’s, Mao’s, Chavez’s, (insert your own favorite dictator) of the world in a thousand lifetimes. Those who think it can have not studied the history of the world and are doomed to repeat it. Good luck with that!
Comment made on January 21st, 2010 at 4:13 amWow Freedom Warrior… That was a nice regurgitation of platitudes that we all probably agree with. Now what do we do? Actually do? That is the point of the article. How about a course of action that does not solidify the World powers you mentioned. American exceptionalism DOES solidify the one world domination we fear: through manufacturing of prescribed enemies, Creating world wide antagonism to our supposed “judeo Christian ethic”, and spreading our unsolicited police actions across the world has only created more “Constitutions” that allow for the world dominating powers (UN, WMF, NATO etc) to hold austerity over the sovereignty of the nations we conquer. Unconstitutional wars do not spread the freedom of our constitutional theories. “Whim” is what they call it. Are we so “exceptional” that we should subject the whole of our world to the whims of our electies– ?
We know the principles you are deliberating and they are good. (beyond the repeating of neo-con talk radio.) We all admire your enthusiasm, but it put you out of context with the article. Mr Hailstone was speaking of the “ism”. He was not implying that America has no exceptional qualities. so Now what?
Comment made on January 21st, 2010 at 11:13 amXacobeo, I can only speak from my own experiences… I have personally visited 23 countries throughout the world. With the exception of Moldova, I was treated well as an American. I take exception to the implication that we have “Conquered” any nation. We have always left the countries better than we found them and have never “claimed” any land. However, we have asked for sacred ground to bury our dead. Those nations that are antagonized by our ethic, are driven by their religious beliefs and would be regardless of our activities, good or bad. I do not share your belief that we are participating in an unconstitutional war, but we can agree to disagree. You asked me what we can do? We can start by doing the only thing that we can do as citizens… hold every politician accountable and vote them out if they are unwilling to represent “We The People”. We all seem to inherently know what the problems (and solutions) are… because of our “Ethics”, we know what is right and what is wrong… we just have to not be afraid to speak up and act boldly! (more neo-con talk radio suggestions). As for Mr. Hailstones context – I do not believe we are necessarily exercising exceptionalism as a nation just because their are those that resent what we have and what we are able to do. (I never hear of other nations complaining about illegal aliens crashing their borders dying to get in.) If we are so bad why don’t they stay home and why don’t those that are here go back???? We cannot make everyone the same… there will always be those that are exceptional and those that are jealous of them… I hope we are always the former. As for me and what I am doing, I am using every resource available to research and support those that are willing to go to Washington and risk losing their souls to rescue our republic from those that are hell-bent on destroying it. Until Washington is fixed, we cannot even begin to hope that we can fix the rest of the world… because that is from where the resources flow… like it or not.
Comment made on January 21st, 2010 at 3:22 pmLeave a Comment