Daniel W. Drezner, Emeritus Professor, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (Tufts)
Henry Farrell, Professor, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins
As one with a passion in international relations, I cannot get enough of these two national experts.
I have always thought that persons like these two Professors should be at the top of national advisors on foreign relations to administrations of both parties.
We need to usher in an age of foreign policy equivalent to George Marshall, Dean Acheson, and George Kennan.
Daniel W. Drezner and Henry Farrell represent this kind of foreign policy expertise.
I wrote a piece that was published in the Philly Inquirer early in the Obama era about what it was like to be an American in Uganda in that time. "On the face of it, this is a good thing. It is proof to the world that in the U.S. everyone not only has a place at the table but even has a shot at sitting at the head. It is proof that American exceptionalism means more than exceptionally powerful or exceptionally rich. Long oppressed and despised minorities do not get voted into power in most other countries. Either they seize power, as did the Sunni in Iraq, or the Alawites in Syria, or they remain forever oppressed. We have proved we are different. Yes, we are exceptional."
First of all, oops. Second, opposing America exceptionalism has been absolutely core to the Trumpist platform from day one, and it cannot exist in any real way in a country he leads. The core of Trumpism is that there is no right and wrong, only winners and losers; therefore, all policy is about winning, and more specifically winning a zero sum game. In that context American exceptionalism can only exist to the extent that it is useful in securing benefits for us (which are by definition to the detriment of everyone else). In its own way, it's a completely realpolitik approach, save for the fact that it defines the interests of the country as the interest of the President. Of course, lots of countries work that way. And I'm not sure Trump would disagree with a single word I said above.
John Winthrop’s vision of America as a city on a hill was aspirational, something that we should work toward and strive to maintain. The modern construction of American exceptionalism is to take it for granted. I find it doubt that any further appeals to American exceptionalism will be offered in good faith.
There's that quote about fascism coming to the U.S. wrapped in an American flag. But I will argue that the alternate vision--e.g. the social democratic and "opportunity society" vision of the progressive and left flank of American politics also comes wrapped in those American "ideals", and that is a good thing. When I started supporting the Civil Rights Movement as a teenager back in the late 1950's and early 1960's, it was because I had suddenly discovered, to my outrage, that the U.S. wasn't living up to those ideals. Same with my subsequent opposition to the Vietnam war and my involvement in what was then called "Women's liberation." That sense that we aren't living up to our ideals has been the impetus of much activism, not just mine. I don't know about foreign relations, but I don't think Trump has wiped that out, at least not here at home.
I forget on whose Substack I read yesterday about actions being taken at the state level that reinforce authoritarianism by being the citizens to believe, more or less, that the crap they are experiencing and should expect to experience is necessary and deserved. The example given was Oklahoma, which had not a single district vote for Harris, and where conditions are actually awful on the subjects of health, education, and prosperity. Bizarrely, the most successful states are specifically called out by both the least successful states and Trump as warnings about how bad things could get if they don’t (put Bibles in schools, deport immigrants, eliminate health insurance, etc.). This seems like a similar effort to fully reconfigure our sense of who we are and what the government’s role should be in facilitating that definition of self. “We aren’t special, we have many problems, and we need to destroy the sources of those problems before we can possibly think about being inspirational or aspirational,” seems to be the mindset.
The post was too damned long for my peabrain to absorb. It did make me think about our economic Exceptionalism and our social "soft power". I think it was a frenchman who spoke of America's exceptional privilege by which he was noting how the worldwide use of our currency allows us to run deficits forever.. Our entertainment industry is a big part of our soft power, as is language. The common cultural threads between Europe and America makes both exceptional on the world stage. Lose NATO and that thread breaks. A world where, individually, Europe and America "Go It Alone" will be interesting.
I am totally down with this argument. American exceptionalism should always be seen as aspirational. But when aspirations become mere slogans, they cease to be aspirations (a nod to Goodhart’s Law about measures and targets). That is what Trump has done, to finish off that aspirational part of our exceptionalism. There’s also an echo of Euthyphro here: Are we exceptional because of what we do, or do we do what we do because we are exceptional? If it’s the latter, we use exceptionalism as an excuse to do what we damn well want, justifying Trumpist Will to Power, the acquisition and maintenance of raw power for its own sake.
From a multi-decade experience living in the States, it has always been my contention that celebration or frequent citing of "American exceptionalism" was in the service of domestic propaganda, as a justification and selling point for foreign adventurism to which there was initially lacking public support, but after being clothed in the "exceptionalism" vestment, eventually the public came round.
And even today, we have the corollary dictum of the "rules-based international order", used most often as a cudgel to beat Russia or China over the head, while all the time ignoring flagrant rules-breaking by America and its allies themselves.
Call it what you will, it all comes down to imperialism, in one guise or another..."soft power", "spheres of influence", the "Monroe Doctrine", etc. American power asserted itself globally in WWII, then came into its own in the Cold War era, where "exceptionalism" proved to be a winning totem vs the horrors of Stalinism and Maoism; now, decades removed from that period, and in a multipolar world, small wonder that "exceptions to exceptionalism" has a constituency, both at home and abroad. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi and all that.
Trump may be the best proponent of American exceptionalism there is, in a backhanded sort of way. Critics say America is too flawed to be exceptional. It has rarely, if ever, lived up its highest ideals. Trump thinks America is flawed because America is too exceptional. It was at its best when it was actively hostile to its stated values. American ideals the "exceptionalists" espouse are for suckers, chumps and losers. America was great, and can be great again and again, provided we give up all that high-minded chin music and take care of business.
The worse Trump thinks we are, the closer we are to achieving our ideals.
We may live in silos where left talks to left and right talks to right, but I believe the rejection of American Exceptionalism from many on the Left made it easier for Trump to do his ugly things. They helped create the miasma from which Trump emerged.
That said, American ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence have a lot of power, and a lefty who embraces them might get us past this era. My crystal ball has been repurposed for use at the bowling alley
Great and cautionary piece. Thanks. I said this to someone who was in the Newsroom. Given all of our imperfections and considering all the countries that are in some measure better than the United States, where would those countries be without the existence of the United States? For example, the Finns have arguably the best schools in the world, but what language would they be speaking in those schools without the US? Without the sea lanes protected for decades at little to no charge, what would the global standard of living be and by extension childhood survival, literacy, escaping poverty, etc.?
Daniel W. Drezner, Emeritus Professor, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (Tufts)
Henry Farrell, Professor, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins
As one with a passion in international relations, I cannot get enough of these two national experts.
I have always thought that persons like these two Professors should be at the top of national advisors on foreign relations to administrations of both parties.
We need to usher in an age of foreign policy equivalent to George Marshall, Dean Acheson, and George Kennan.
Daniel W. Drezner and Henry Farrell represent this kind of foreign policy expertise.
I’m pretty cynical about America, but I found this strangely comforting. Thanks for writing this.
I wrote a piece that was published in the Philly Inquirer early in the Obama era about what it was like to be an American in Uganda in that time. "On the face of it, this is a good thing. It is proof to the world that in the U.S. everyone not only has a place at the table but even has a shot at sitting at the head. It is proof that American exceptionalism means more than exceptionally powerful or exceptionally rich. Long oppressed and despised minorities do not get voted into power in most other countries. Either they seize power, as did the Sunni in Iraq, or the Alawites in Syria, or they remain forever oppressed. We have proved we are different. Yes, we are exceptional."
First of all, oops. Second, opposing America exceptionalism has been absolutely core to the Trumpist platform from day one, and it cannot exist in any real way in a country he leads. The core of Trumpism is that there is no right and wrong, only winners and losers; therefore, all policy is about winning, and more specifically winning a zero sum game. In that context American exceptionalism can only exist to the extent that it is useful in securing benefits for us (which are by definition to the detriment of everyone else). In its own way, it's a completely realpolitik approach, save for the fact that it defines the interests of the country as the interest of the President. Of course, lots of countries work that way. And I'm not sure Trump would disagree with a single word I said above.
John Winthrop’s vision of America as a city on a hill was aspirational, something that we should work toward and strive to maintain. The modern construction of American exceptionalism is to take it for granted. I find it doubt that any further appeals to American exceptionalism will be offered in good faith.
There's that quote about fascism coming to the U.S. wrapped in an American flag. But I will argue that the alternate vision--e.g. the social democratic and "opportunity society" vision of the progressive and left flank of American politics also comes wrapped in those American "ideals", and that is a good thing. When I started supporting the Civil Rights Movement as a teenager back in the late 1950's and early 1960's, it was because I had suddenly discovered, to my outrage, that the U.S. wasn't living up to those ideals. Same with my subsequent opposition to the Vietnam war and my involvement in what was then called "Women's liberation." That sense that we aren't living up to our ideals has been the impetus of much activism, not just mine. I don't know about foreign relations, but I don't think Trump has wiped that out, at least not here at home.
I forget on whose Substack I read yesterday about actions being taken at the state level that reinforce authoritarianism by being the citizens to believe, more or less, that the crap they are experiencing and should expect to experience is necessary and deserved. The example given was Oklahoma, which had not a single district vote for Harris, and where conditions are actually awful on the subjects of health, education, and prosperity. Bizarrely, the most successful states are specifically called out by both the least successful states and Trump as warnings about how bad things could get if they don’t (put Bibles in schools, deport immigrants, eliminate health insurance, etc.). This seems like a similar effort to fully reconfigure our sense of who we are and what the government’s role should be in facilitating that definition of self. “We aren’t special, we have many problems, and we need to destroy the sources of those problems before we can possibly think about being inspirational or aspirational,” seems to be the mindset.
The post was too damned long for my peabrain to absorb. It did make me think about our economic Exceptionalism and our social "soft power". I think it was a frenchman who spoke of America's exceptional privilege by which he was noting how the worldwide use of our currency allows us to run deficits forever.. Our entertainment industry is a big part of our soft power, as is language. The common cultural threads between Europe and America makes both exceptional on the world stage. Lose NATO and that thread breaks. A world where, individually, Europe and America "Go It Alone" will be interesting.
"whether America is the greatest country on the planet." The rest of the world is voting with their feet. Everyone wants in.
I am totally down with this argument. American exceptionalism should always be seen as aspirational. But when aspirations become mere slogans, they cease to be aspirations (a nod to Goodhart’s Law about measures and targets). That is what Trump has done, to finish off that aspirational part of our exceptionalism. There’s also an echo of Euthyphro here: Are we exceptional because of what we do, or do we do what we do because we are exceptional? If it’s the latter, we use exceptionalism as an excuse to do what we damn well want, justifying Trumpist Will to Power, the acquisition and maintenance of raw power for its own sake.
From a multi-decade experience living in the States, it has always been my contention that celebration or frequent citing of "American exceptionalism" was in the service of domestic propaganda, as a justification and selling point for foreign adventurism to which there was initially lacking public support, but after being clothed in the "exceptionalism" vestment, eventually the public came round.
And even today, we have the corollary dictum of the "rules-based international order", used most often as a cudgel to beat Russia or China over the head, while all the time ignoring flagrant rules-breaking by America and its allies themselves.
Call it what you will, it all comes down to imperialism, in one guise or another..."soft power", "spheres of influence", the "Monroe Doctrine", etc. American power asserted itself globally in WWII, then came into its own in the Cold War era, where "exceptionalism" proved to be a winning totem vs the horrors of Stalinism and Maoism; now, decades removed from that period, and in a multipolar world, small wonder that "exceptions to exceptionalism" has a constituency, both at home and abroad. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi and all that.
Trump may be the best proponent of American exceptionalism there is, in a backhanded sort of way. Critics say America is too flawed to be exceptional. It has rarely, if ever, lived up its highest ideals. Trump thinks America is flawed because America is too exceptional. It was at its best when it was actively hostile to its stated values. American ideals the "exceptionalists" espouse are for suckers, chumps and losers. America was great, and can be great again and again, provided we give up all that high-minded chin music and take care of business.
The worse Trump thinks we are, the closer we are to achieving our ideals.
We may live in silos where left talks to left and right talks to right, but I believe the rejection of American Exceptionalism from many on the Left made it easier for Trump to do his ugly things. They helped create the miasma from which Trump emerged.
That said, American ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence have a lot of power, and a lefty who embraces them might get us past this era. My crystal ball has been repurposed for use at the bowling alley
Great and cautionary piece. Thanks. I said this to someone who was in the Newsroom. Given all of our imperfections and considering all the countries that are in some measure better than the United States, where would those countries be without the existence of the United States? For example, the Finns have arguably the best schools in the world, but what language would they be speaking in those schools without the US? Without the sea lanes protected for decades at little to no charge, what would the global standard of living be and by extension childhood survival, literacy, escaping poverty, etc.?