Andrew Bacevich has an interesting
piece on the actual history of that founding moment of American exceptionalism and the ahistoric notions Gov. Palin declared as her "worldview"during the "debate" last week:
"...America is a nation of exceptionalism. And we are to be that shining city on a hill, as President Reagan so beautifully said, that we are a beacon of hope and that we are unapologetic here. We are not perfect as a nation. But together, we represent a perfect ideal. And that is democracy and tolerance and freedom and equal rights."
The Puritan John Winthrop would be surprised to learn that that's what he meant when landing in Boston Harbor and sermonizing ceremoniously before taking shore. Like most people in 1630, the passangers on the Arabella weren't concerned with democracy, tolerance, freedom, and especially not equal rights:
"It had little to do with values such as tolerance and equal rights, in which Winthrop had little interest. It had everything to do with forging a covenant with God, who had summoned the Puritans to create a Christian commonwealth."
Although, in light of many fundamentalist right-wing Americans' worldviews, the inadvertant invocation of our Puritan forefathers is certainly intriguing. I guess ironically----Reagan, Palin, and the other keepers of wisdom and truth might by their actions implicitly agree with Winthrop more than they actually know. How shocking.
To be fair----many politicians (though mainly conservatives) quite often and ignorantly invoke the idea of America as a "city upon a hill" in order to revitalize Reagan's vacuously moralistic vision for its indubitable political effects. But are there any costs for politicians like Palin et al. neglecting the true meaning, worldview, and vision of American exceptionalism as it was laid out by its Puritan father John Winthrop? The short answer, if we don't believe god exists (or, I'll add, is just indifferent), from an expert like Bacevich:
the concept of American Exceptionalism first articulated by Winthrop, employed with great political effect by Ronald Reagan, and now endorsed by Sarah Palin, is simply nonsense - a fairy tale that may once have had a certain utility, but that in our own day has become simply pernicious. To persist in this nonsense is to make it impossible either to see ourselves as we really are or to see the world as it actually is.
Yes indeed. But unlike Palin's notion of an "unapologetic" "beacon of hope," the Puritan theological understanding of a covenant with god meant at least that "to violate the terms" "was to invite catastrophe." Yes, for them there were dire consequences for their actions; and unlike modern America, they were allowed to say so. Should we not expect the same if we act out of hand? Is 17th Century science too far beyond, or behind us? For every action is there not an equal and opposite reaction? Not if you listen to the media that pounced on Reverend Wright's theological equivalent of divine blowback. Who, us? The man upstairs couldn't possibly damn us. To think so would be foolish. But hey, isn't that an important component of our historic notion of American exceptionalism: blind faith in our country's originality, righteousness, and sense of mission?
According to Palin's and others' useful myth of a myth, we should be "unapologetic" about our brand: the current misunderstood exceptionalism that dogmatically shouts, "Don't ever apologize for failing to live up to your own ideals!" Penitence for not properly respecting our very own laws is also not necessary; and even though this failure, the breaking of our secular compact, is not likely subject to divine punishment, it does have serious (and now world-wide) repercussions. One among the many of these forgettable little "imperfections,"* as she might think of them, with their parallel consequences----belligerently invading, destroying, and occupying a country with (as Winthrop noted about their own exceptional moment) the "eyes of all people...upon us"---- might, not surprisingly, create more enemies. And though we may claim those enemies threaten our freedom and even our survival, it is only because of how we decide to react that that even becomes rationally arguable.
Revoking an adherence to constitutionalism and our own collective sense of decency weakens us not just in a civic and pragmatic way, but also psychologically and morally. We can now allow others to torture for us, and compartamentalize the injustice of the state as something in which we are entirely innocent. Yet, in the face of a wrathful, vengeful god----not the mere godless "Evil Empire," or the popularly-labeled existential threat of islamic terrorism----our original "exceptionalists" would accept utter damnation by working even harder to become a better people, and by extension, commonwealth. Maybe a recognition of our own damnation is what we need?
And yet Puritans still humbly hoped to avoid the disasters of their day, trying not to incur god's wrath by "lov[ing] one another with a pure heart," "bear[ing] one another's burdens," "abridg[ing] ourselves of our superfluities" for "others' necessities," "mak[ing] others' conditions our own," "rejoic[ing] together, mourn[ing] together, labor[ing] and suffer[ing] together." (A fascinating paradox, to be sure, since there was no way to alter god's predetermined plan or the recipients of his grace). As a nation-state, our compact today is only profanely to ourselves, and to our own self-destructive delusions (Need we say imperial?). Not least of which is a certainty in our own righteousness, and a total disregard for even feigned humility. These delusions of our nation-state are the unflinching misunderstanding of a leadership that misunderstands what exceptionalism really means----and a population that would let them.
Still, the Puritans did believe they were exceptional because they were "the people of the New World" that "God had summoned..to serve as a model for all humankind." It was an unparalleled chance to found a commonwealth that would make the habitual practice of their noble commitments the laws of spiritual and physical preservation as much as a revolutionary inspiration to others. However, like our leaders today, their ideals could be hollowed out to do the rhetorical bidding of demogoguery, corruption, and power. Violence, authoritarianism, and hypocrisy resulted. But their compact with god, and the responsibility to the prospects of the New World still separated them from the others, making it worth the moral vigilance, making them----exceptional.
These parallels we are not immune from sharing. Apology? Maybe not, but a sober recognition and effectual redirection, yes. Being "unapologetic" denies that contrition is necessary for setting out on righteous errands.
Moreover, their exceptionalism wasn't inherent. It's demands had to be met continually, its principles upheld, else they revert and become like the unsaintly others (those outside of New England. Remember Cotton Mather pathetically lamenting that sad fact?).
By contrast, our historical manglers' exceptionalism is genetic, an inheritance that needs no proof, something presupposed. Much like Frost's grandolinquent pronouncement that the "land was ours before we were the land's," or John O'Sullivan's "manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence,"----the verdict on our committment to Palin's curious definition of "exceptionalism,""democracy and tolerance and freedom and equal rights," is in: We're committed, perfection reached, no work required----next case please. America's prosperity and power is proof that its one of the "elect" in this world, self-assured by its own perceived immortality. Even a simple and devout Puritan would feel threatened by the vulgarity of those who would presume, think, or believe they are inherently saved.
If a correct understanding of American exceptionalism teaches us anything, it is that whatever may be exceptional about our nation-state, it should be constantly reassessed, criticized, and measured by how well we live up to our own secular, civic mission, lest----as Winthrop says----"we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world."
If not the impetus for global hegemony that major powers must struggle to restrain, or the motives of sheer imperial vanity (a phrase coined by Gore Vidal to describe the Vietnam War), the idea that we are a select group on a "mission" "anointed" by god should give people some pause. That vestige of the true history of exceptionalism still remains in many of our leaders and their constituents despite their own ignorance of it (Just think: The certitude that it was our manifest destiny to spread across and "civilize" the continent----by removing and practicing genocide on others----is no less absurd than believing we can annihilate a violent political tactic----terrorism----through war).
Palin apparently is one of those people today who actually believes that god has a stake in our
international and
domestic endeavours instead of the more sober Puritan notion that we must set the most impossible of tasks for ourselves----trying to prove that we are worthy of god's grace. (On the Palin god speeches, I'll reluctantly admit that there is still some semantic wiggle-room in her statements because she did say "that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from god," and then retracks by clarifying that "that's what we have to [revealingly, she almost says "believe" here] make sure we're praying for, that there is a plan, and that that plan is god's plan." There is a kind of (in)genius fundamentalist subtext or subtle implication here. Which does her audience hear and actually understand? 1)Pray that our leaders sending our troops to Iraq is in some way god's plan. Easy enough: leaders--->invasion of Iraq--->sending more troops--->hopefully god's plan; or 2) That sending our troops to Iraq is "a task from god," or "god's plan": god's task--->leaders--->invasion of Iraq---> sending more troops--->god's plan. Hooray! Of the two, #1 is a horrible foreign policy aim, but #2 is sacrilegious jingoism).
Anyways, Bacevich's three possibilities regarding exceptionalism as a worldview: that god doesn't exist so it's all pernicious nonsense; "he" exists but Americans are not "his new Chosen People"; or that "he" exists and America has been chosen to be "his New Israel," in which case Winthrop's warning "demands urgent attention." It also begs a dire question and requires a serious answer from the Governor and other "believers committed to the concept of American exceptionalism": "have we kept the Lord's covenant? If not, perhaps the time has come to mend our ways before it's too late."
*Update: A day later, Sarah Palin did indeed use the word "imperfect" in describing how Barack Obama sees America: "Our opponent is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country."
An old Huffington Post story about Jimmy Carter came to mind the ot
