American Exceptionalism

In 1831 a 25-year old French noblemen, Alexis de Tocqueville, came to this country and spent a year traveling it and observing its people, culture, and the working of everyday life. He later published his observations in two volumes entitled Democracy in America in an effort to explain the American experiment in self government to Europeans, especially the French.

As he journeyed about the country and mingled with Americans, what de Tocqueville saw up close was the world’s first functioning meritocracy – a society quite different than that of Europe, one without class structure, an entrenched church hierarchy, and the European low regard for commercial work. Unlike his countrymen, Americans, de Tocqueville observed, were more independent, less inclined to subject themselves to the control of others, more tolerant of insecurity, and untroubled by economic inequity due to their belief that hard work was the solution. Although democracy existed nowhere else in the world, it permeated every corner of our culture leading de Tocqueville to conclude that America was qualitatively different from all other countries.

“The position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional,” he wrote, “and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one.”

American exceptionalism, according to de Tocqueville, was the product of a society of immigrants who built a nation of laws and ideals like none other in the world. He attributed our exceptionalism to five qualities: liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire, which he collectively called “the American Creed.”

Liberty, he noted, was the first and most important element of the creed. The bequest of the Founders was a Constitution that strictly limited the role of government in American society by stating what it and its executives were forbidden to do. The negative tone of the Constitution underlined that its purpose was to protect the liberty of the people. Writing about the restrictions of the Constitution in Federalist 51, Madison stated, “… that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. For what is government … but a reflection of human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

A Pew Research poll two years ago surveyed 91,000 people in 50 countries. It revealed how exceptional Americans remain today. They are more proud of their national identity: 71% of Americans said they are "very proud" to be in America whereas 38% of the French and 21% of the Germans and the Japanese said they are proud to live in their countries. Americans are more individualistic: only a third of Americans believed success was beyond their control in contrast to two-thirds of the Germans and Italians. Sixty percent of Americans said they believe the value of hard work should be taught to their children versus one-third of the British and Italians and one-fifth of the Germans. Over half of the Americans believed economic competition stimulates people to work hard and develop new ideas while only one-third of French and Spanish agreed. Over three-fourths of Americans would like their views to spread throughout the world versus one-fourth of the French, Germans, and Italians, and one-third of the British.

Our political culture, de Tocqueville believed, derived from our religious heritage. Fleeing religious persecution in their native lands, the early settlers brought with them a form of Christian worship that was both "democratic and republican." Today 73% of Americans believe in God, compared with 27% of the French and 35% of the British. As a consequence, nearly half of all Americans attend churches or synagogues weekly, compared to 4% of the British, 5% of the French, and similar low percentages in most of Western Europe.

American exceptionalism, however, finds no friend in Barack Obama. Every expression of it has been under attack since his administration took office with the avowed purpose of fundamentally transforming this country. Asked last year if he believed in American exceptionalism, he answered "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." In other words, every nation is exceptional therefore no nation is.

It’s apparent that Obama equates American exceptionalism with American arrogance. While in France he said "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world...there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” For Obama the achievements of other countries are to be celebrated; those of his country aren’t. Rather than defend the honor of the nation he was chosen to lead, he focuses on its failings and misdeeds. His multiple apologies for American’s past transgressions against the world and his bowing to foreign dignitaries is a national embarrassment.

Obama has shown repeatedly that he is uncomfortable displaying American patriotism. He made a point of not wearing a flag pin on his lapel. He sometimes fails to salute the flag and stands casually when the national anthem is played. He has praised every religion except Christianity, which is the foundation of the Republic. He expurgated the word “terrorism” from governmental dialog.

The fundamental nature of government is changing on his watch. Obama has used recess appointments to fill key positions with individuals who are so controversial they likely would not pass Senate approval. The most recent, David Berwick, by-passed Senate confirmation when the Congress recessed for a short July 4 weekend break. Similarly, Obama has subverted Senate scrutiny of key appointees by calling them “czars” – unelected people who are accountable to no one but Obama. His administration employs more of them than any previous administration.

Spending will reach 44% of GDP this year – on par with the intrusiveness of European governments. Yet while Europe and the UK are trying to unwind their decades-long addiction to welfare programs, the American government is going the other way. The stimulus failed to bring down unemployment as it was sold to the American public. Therefore, unemployment benefits were extended to almost two years in a bill passed this week after having been stalled for seven weeks by Republicans who insisted that the benefits be paid for by spending offsets elsewhere. Predictably applications for jobless benefits jumped.

With the bailouts of the auto companies and financial institutions the line between private enterprise and government enterprise is blurring. There is reason to fear that “too big to fail” will become a slogan justifying more government interventions in the future, leading to more government interference in business. When government intrudes in business it always leaves a trail of new regulations, as it did in the recent hamstringing of the financial industry – euphemistically called “reform.”

In his fundamental transformation of America, Obama and his Democrat congressional allies forced through an unpopular “reform” of the healthcare system, bringing one-sixth of the economy under government sway. After asserting for almost a year that the individual mandate was not a tax increase, the Obama administration is now taking the position that it is a tax in order to defend its constitutionality against suits by 20 states and several private organizations.
Labor unions have crippled European productivity for decades while they have been on the decline in this country. Under Obama they are enjoying a resurgence. His card check scheme would make it easier to force people into unions by banishing secret elections. Obama’s recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board is a scandal. As former counsel to the SEIU, Obama’s favorite union, he is compelled to recuse himself from pleadings involving his former employer. He has refused to do so. In one such instance, a group of nurses refused to go on strike and resigned from the SEIU, which threatened to make trouble for the nurses if they didn’t toe the union line. Becker was one of the three judges who heard the case.

Obama’s two nominees to the Supreme Court are especially troubling. Both have a “Silly Putty” concept of a flexible Constitution that is contemptuous of the Founder’s design. Both believe international legal opinions should have a bearing on their decisions, which would “Europeanize” justice in this country independent of our Constitution if implemented. In this week’s hearings for Elena Kagan, she refused to answer Senator Tom Coburn’s question asking if she believed in the principle of natural rights contained in the Declaration of Independence. Her answer, “I don’t have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution,” is simply astonishing for a constitutional judge. As Coburn said, refusing to acknowledge natural or God-given rights removes the morality from her progressive moral certitude. Without natural law there would have been no Constitution. Without natural law, “progressives” would take us back to the 17th century, when rights emanated from the state or the king rather than the creator.

America is losing its exceptionalism under Obama.

This week’s polls have Obama’s job approval at all time lows. Rasmussen puts his disapproval at 56% of likely voters. Almost two-thirds – 62% -- believe the country is on the wrong track. And the approval rating of Congress is almost non-existent: only 11% believe it is doing a good job. These numbers aren’t likely to reverse course before the mid-term elections. Charlie Cook, Washington’s most reliable handicapper, says the Democrats will lose control of the House and lose six or seven seats in the Senate. If he is right, the country will have repudiated the agenda that Obama and his Democrat congress have pursued for two years.

Yet, at least three Democrat senators are talking about calling the lame duck Congress back into session in a last chance effort to pass radical legislation that they do not want to be answerable for in the November elections. If they do that and if Obama acquiesces to it, it will hijack the wishes of a democratic society and sully the integrity of a representative Congress – perhaps permanently.