American Exceptionalism Reconsidered

U.S. Foreign Policy, Human Rights, and World Order

David P. Forsythe, Patrice C. McMahon

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317352365
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Civics & Citizenship
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Is the US really exceptional in terms of its willingness to take universal human rights seriously? According to the rhetoric of American political leaders, the United States has a unique and lasting commitment to human rights principles and to a liberal world order centered on rule of law and human dignity. But when push comes to shove—most recently in Libya and Syria--the United States failed to stop atrocities and dithered as disorder spread in both places. This book takes on the myths surrounding US foreign policy and the future of world order. Weighing impulses toward parochial nationalism against the ideal of cosmopolitan internationalism, the authors posit that what may be emerging is a new brand of American globalism, or a foreign policy that gives primacy to national self-interest but does so with considerable interest in and genuine attention to universal human rights and a willingness to suffer and pay for those outside its borders—at least on occasion. The occasions of exception—such as Libya and Syria—provide case studies for critical analysis and allow the authors to look to emerging dominant powers, especially China, for indicators of new challenges to the commitment to universal human rights and humanitarian affairs in the context of the ongoing clash between liberalism and realism.

The book is guided by four central questions: 1) What is the relationship between cosmopolitan international standards and narrow national self-interest in US policy on human rights and humanitarian affairs? 2) What is the role of American public opinion and does it play any significant role in shaping US policy in this dialectical clash? 3) Beyond public opinion, what other factors account for the shifting interplay of liberal and realist inclinations in Washington policy making? 4) In the 21st century and as global power shifts, what are the current views and policies of other countries when it comes to the application of human rights and humanitarian affairs?

1

CITY ON A HILL?

American Exceptionalism Past and Present¹

The idea of American exceptionalism, or the notion that the United States is not only qualitatively different from other states but it is morally superior, has long animated the speeches of U.S. politicians. Recently, a number of challenges both domestic and international has put this unlikely theory to the test, and the notion of American exceptionalism has clearly come up short.

Domestically, economists lament the shrinking of the middle class while sociologists document the costs of one’s race in America. Upward mobility is now greater in some European states. Embarrassingly, U.S. incarceration rates are compared to some of the most undemocratic states in the world.

Internationally, its exceptional status—as champion of liberal democracy and human rights—is similarly eroding when the record is closely examined. True, the U.S. eventually intervened in Libya to help overthrow Muammar Gaddafi’s dictatorship in 2011, but it did so reluctantly and only with the prodding of its allies. But it failed to follow up as tribalism engulfed the area. We know well that American intervention in Iraq (2003) led to a bungled occupation that went terribly awry. Now the Middle East faces the prospect of prolonged instability and even sometimes genocide. At the same time, a repressive Iran has been strengthened. And at least until this point, the United States has not acted decisively as President Assad in Syria has presided over more than five years of violence and an estimated death toll of over 250,000. Objectively speaking then, the end of American exceptionalism is already upon us—especially with regard to defense of human rights and humanitarian law. Particularly concerning autocracy and atrocities in the Middle East, the Obama administration reflects more fatalism than a determination that American policy can make things better.²

We will back up our bold claim—that the United States and its citizenry act largely as would any other country—with facts from U.S. foreign policy and throw in some domestic affairs to drive the point home. To be clear and as we stated in the previous chapter, we do not contend that U.S. foreign policy comprises an unrelenting string of negatives, but we do assert that U.S. foreign policy on human rights and humanitarian affairs—which is our main preoccupation—is mostly a matter of lofty cosmopolitan rhetoric that is then matched much of the time by parochial nationalistic behavior. Occasionally, American policy features acts of what can be considered cosmopolitanism, centered on the broader benefit for others, but its behavior, we contend, is better understood as globalism, because like many other liberal states it acts on behalf of others only when international and domestic conditions are ripe and when American power is not questioned.

On balance, the good may outweigh the bad, but our main point is that American attitudes and behavior of late are not that unusual and the United States has never been that exceptional—in the past or the present. Most other states and great powers in particular tend to see themselves in a positive light on the question of doing “good” for others while objective facts point to a more modest evaluation. Case in point, Russia’s President Putin maintains that his country’s involvement in Ukraine is noble, providing much needed humanitarian aid to Ukrainians and saving the country from a series of pro-Western but highly corrupt regimes. Most others in the world see Russia’s behavior differently, as predatory and self-interested, based above all on a quest for domination of states in its “near abroad.”

This chapter explains the origins of the myth of American exceptionalism and the reality. We then use public opinion to see if continuing claims to American exceptionalism actually resonate with public and elite opinion when confronting international questions today. We conclude by examining how appeals to American greatness shape contemporary foreign policy debates. In light of ongoing debates about America’s declining position in the world, it is imperative that we examine the historical record for evidence of the inconsistency—if not complete fallacy—of the notion of American exceptionalism.

The Making of the Myth and its Critique

American exceptionalism has a long history in political rhetoric that predates the U.S. position as a world power. Indeed, this idea has had a central place in America’s identity and understanding of itself since the country’s founding. Sometimes called Manifest Destiny or Providential Nationalism, it is the basic notion that America is special, morally superior to others, and chosen by God to fulfill a progressive role on earth. It has taken on particular names in particular times. If one starts with Governor John Winthrop in Massachusetts and his Puritanical sermons in the 1630s, it was America as a “city on a hill,” a beacon to others everywhere—and useful to sustain morale during harsh times, which included taking Indian land necessary for economic pursuits and killing many of them. For Thomas Jefferson, it was America as an “Empire of Liberty” and the “Almost Chosen,” which was useful to rationalize the Louisiana Purchase via Executive action and westward expansion at the expense of still other Indians. For several later presidents, it was America as leader of the “Free World,” and this idea was used to rationalize competition with the Soviet Union. All the while, the United States aligned itself with various dictators such as Salazar, Tito, Somoza, Mobutu, Mao, Ceausescu, etc. Only some of these American allies were communist, but all of them presided over decidedly unfree societies.

Recent trends—such as those during the Cold War—were summarized concisely by the historian Walter A. McDougall:

Most of all, the idea of an America set apart by Providence and endowed with a special mission to reform (not to say redeem) the whole human race dovetailed perfectly with the political rhetoric needed to rally Americans to lead the Free World in what amounted to a holy war against “godless Communism.”³

Never mind that some of our dictatorial de facto partners like Tito (Yugoslavia) and Ceausescu (Romania) were communist.

Most realists, including most American realists, have never believed ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Endorsment
• Half Title
• Series Information
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of contents
• List of tables
• Preface
• Introduction: The Quest for a Liberalized Realism?
• 1 City on a Hill? American Exceptionalism Past and Present
• 2 Promoting Democracy after the Cold War: Mission Contained
• 3 Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
• 4 U.S. Detention and Interrogation Policies after 9/11/2001: A Tortured Evolution
• 5 American Exceptionalism Reined In: The U.S. Supreme Court, Corporations, and the Kiobel Case
• 6 Hard Times for Human Rights: The Role of Aspiring Powers
• Conclusion: Liberalized Realism in Today’s World
• Index