American exceptionalism: Is there a moral high ground?
The following are excerpts from a running discussion among American foreign policy experts in response to Anne-Marie Slaughter's "Reviving America's ideals" (Views, May 18).
With the best will in the world, I don't understand how Anne-Marie Slaughter can believe that an America that would "walk humbly with God" has anything to do with the America of today - an America that is as arrogant as it is complacent. Adherence to the idea of American exceptionalism is simply incompatible with a constructive role for the United States. And yet Slaughter's entire argument, for all its talk of the need for humility, is a reiteration of this "exceptionalist" conception. David Rieff, Author and contributor to The New York Times Magazine
I would add that without some commitment to demilitarization of American foreign policy, all talk of American values and humility will seem disingenuous. Richard Falk,Professor of international law, Princeton University
The 21st century demands U.S. leadership in crafting a balanced, secure and sustainable multipolar system. If we Americans cling to notions of unipolar dominance, the country is certain to fail. On the other hand, if in a manner true to our values, we Americans reach out to forge a global partnership to advance social inclusion, greater economic equity and planetary sustainability, we will serve both global and American interests. Stephen Heintz,President, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Philanthropy for an Interdependent World
Of course, international law already embraces the values Anne-Marie Slaughter, Richard Falk and Stephen Heintz emphasize. International law is the right vehicle to advance these values for a rule-of-law-based nation like the United States. A foreign policy that includes a recommitment to the means and ends of international law would pay enormous dividends for our nation and our world. Mary Ellen O'Connell, Robert and Marion Short Chair in Law, Notre Dame Law School
I'm disgusted with the American political discourse at the moment. We have not even begun the process of acknowledging just how much damage, pain and destruction we Americans have caused with our foreign policy. Americans, still infused with the hubris of exceptionalism, as David Rieff notes, are not psychologically capable of having this moment of honesty. And right now we cannot begin the process of accountability. Without accountability, it will be impossible for America to lead with responsibility and humility. Michael Barnett, Professor of Political Science, University of Minnesota
I agree with Barnett. What came to mind while reading his words about accountability were the days I sat watching the Truth & Reconciliation Commission hearings in South Africa.
Perhaps we should hold hearings on the damage caused by the U.S. government both abroad and at home. I'd suggest starting the hearings on Pennsylvania Avenue, focusing first on the attorney general's office and then moving down to the White House. Cait Clarke, Washington Director, Public Interest Law Opportunities, Equal Justice Works
It's correct to assume that if one remains ignorant to the effects of U.S. actions, more humility may not be helpful. It's correct that there is more than a little hypocrisy or irony in the relationship between U.S. values and what the United States is doing in Iraq.
But a truth commission, wholesale renunciation of U.S. policies, or other strategies along these lines, would be turned into political footballs that would surely bounce in a conservative direction - just as Vietnam did a generation ago.
Whatever we pundits may wish, most Americans remain firmly convinced of the absolute superiority of America's political system. Majorities here in the United States believe other democracies would be better off if they adopted American-style institutions.
But the truth is: We are truly exceptional! With few exceptions, other established democracies neither want our political, social or economic institutions, nor wish to export their own to other countries. But we need to treat current U.S. public opinion as a constraint, at least in the medium term. Therefore it is quite reasonable to propose a strategy of reinterpreting U.S. values in a way that implies humbler policies. Rather than convincing Americans that our values are hypocritical or venal, shouldn't we seek to convince them that such values have been misinterpreted abroad? Andrew Moravcsik, Professor of politics, Princeton University
Surely the issue should be whether Slaughter is right historically, and thus that the values she mentions are really the "core" American ones. I doubt this is the case, and I still think her formulation represents the exceptionalist fantasy of America held by Americans.
Imagine you replaced American values with Italian values or Ukrainian values or Japanese values. Would the notion of essential virtue cohere?
Then imagine you're a non-American reading that Americans insist on the exceptional quality of their own political tradition. You are doubtless right to say that what Slaughter proposes is more politically effective than what follows from the position I take. But is that really what policy intellectuals are supposed to be doing?
Again, what if it's not true that there is an admirable, essential core of American values to which we have strayed and to wish we could return?
What if the United States is a country like all others, neither superior nor inferior in its values and whose most important leaders have been a moral mixed bag (think of Woodrow Wilson on race)?
Shifting public-policy discourse based on a self-loving account of America is bound to fail, in my view. Why do we Americans have to keep saying we're morally exceptional? David Rieff
I think David Rieff misses the real point. I take the fact that Americans possess distinctive views on politics to be pretty uncontroversial. Rieff is right: This is not because they believe in liberty, humility, faith per se. These are, of course, human values.
The distinctiveness lies in particular American ways of refining, expressing, understanding, balancing and institutionalizing those values. Yes, the Japanese, Ukrainians and others have their own distinctive ways of doing this.
This is fundamental. Indeed, international order can be legitimated only by a bottom-up system in which each country interprets the meaning of such values, to a substantial extent, within its own political discourse. Thus, speaking to Americans qua Americans, deferring a bit to their self-image, is not simply tactically expedient. It is the only reasonable position when arguing for humility. Andrew Moravcsik
Distinctive views, yes. Superior ones, no. Slaughter takes one strand in U.S. history and turns it into the essential one. This troubles me as it is finally a species of positivism. Thus, Wilson, the idealistic believer in self-determination, is the real or valuable Wilson, whereas Wilson, the worst president Black America had to endure since the Civil War, is an atavism.
But the past is not a menu. When all is said and done my problem with Slaughter's argument is that it is Whig history, "great tradition" history. I suppose the idea that the more virtuous America was once dominant rings false with me, as a matter of history. David Rieff
The most important point is that I am not an American exceptionalist. The values I am talking about - liberty, democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, humility and faith - are not just American values; America was founded on the idea that they are universal values. But we must look to how other countries are defining and implementing those values. That is what universal values must mean.
America doesn't not have any kind of a lock on those values, although we have had distinctively American ways of interpreting them, for better or for worse. For example: The American definition of equality is much more about equality of opportunity than equality of outcomes.
Americans understand our identity is based on common values rather than a shared ethnic, national or religious heritage. That means any attempt to move away from a value-based foreign policy will fail over the long term. Anne-Marie Slaughter
I read Slaughter's article while lecturing on human rights in Tehran and found it very powerful. Having spent the past five days talking with Iranians ranging from clerics to dissidents, it seems the value-based foreign policy Slaughter describes would make an enormous difference here.
The reformers, pragmatists and dissidents want to love America. I have been greeted with broad smiles and warm welcomes. Yet, they struggle to understand us and what we stand for. The values-based policy would resonate with the dissidents who are allied with our cause but disheartened by the lack of clarity and values in our actions.
Such a policy would make far more sense to the pragmatic elements of the government who are struggling to understand what we Americans actually are seeking to achieve. Just as we may question the rationality of their policies, they can't find reason in ours because our policies lack a core value. Slaughter's suggestions are a very useful starting point for achieving our longer-term goals here in Iran. William Burke-White, Assistant professor of law, University of Pennsylvania Law School
No comments:
Post a Comment