The myth of american exceptionalism, political science homework help

User Generated

yyyylllll

Humanities

Description

Describe each side of the issue presented, and then tell who you agree with, and why. 

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Should Americans Believe in a Unique American "Mission"? by Miller 15 Selected, Edited, and with Issue Framing Material by: William J. Miller, Flagler College George McKenna, City College, City University of New York and Stanley Feingold, City College, City University of New York ISSUE Should Americans Believe in a Unique American “Mission”? YES: Wilfred M. McClay, from “The Founding of Nations,” First Things (March 2006) NO: Howard Zinn, from “The Power and the Glory: Myths of American Exceptionalism," Boston Review (Summer 2005) Learning Outcomes After reading this issue, you will be able to: • Explain the idea of American exceptionalism. • Explain the idea of America's myth. • Describe how America reminds itself of its past sins. Explain the significance of the term "city on a hill. • Describe what makes America unique compared to other nations. 1 ISSUE SUMMARY YES: Humanities Professor Wilfred M. McClay argues that America's “myth," its founding narrative, helps to sustain and hold together a diverse people. NO: Historian Howard Zinn is convinced that America's myth of “exceptionalism" has served as a justification for lawlessness, brutality, and imperialism. Take a dollar from your wallet and look at the back tinguished by some token of providential agency." Even . " Even of it. On the left side, above an unfinished pyramid with the most secular-minded founders thought of their nation a detached eye on top, are the words "Annuit Coeptis," in providential terms. Thomas Jefferson paid homage to Latin for "He has favored our endeavors." The "He" is God. the "Being who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from Since the time of the Puritans, Americans have their native land and planted them in a country flowing often thought of themselves collectively as a people with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has cov- whose endeavors are favored by God. "We shall be as a ered our infancy with His providence and our riper years city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us," said with his wisdom and power.” At the Constitutional Con- Puritan leader John Winthrop aboard the Arbella, the Puri- vention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin declared that tans' flagship, as it left for the New World in 1630. Later “God governs in the affairs of men,” adding: “And if a in that century another Puritan, the Rev. Samuel Dan- sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it forth, famously spoke of New England's divinely assigned probable that an empire cannot rise without his aid?" "errand into the wilderness." By the eighteenth century, Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centu- the role of New England had become the role of America: ries, this notion of America as "a people set apart" was a God had led his people to establish a new social order, perennial feature of American public discourse. Its most a light to the nations. "Your forefathers," John Jay told eloquent expression came in the speeches of Abraham New Yorkers in 1776, "came to America under the auspices Lincoln. Perhaps in deference to biblical literalists, Lin- of Divine Providence." For Patrick Henry, the American coln did not call Americans a "chosen people" (a name Revolution "was the grand operation, which seemed to be limited to the Jews in the Bible), but he came close: he said assigned by the Deity to the men of this age in our coun- Americans were God's "almost chosen people." In other try." In his First Inaugural Address, George Washington speeches, particularly in his Second Inaugural Address, saw an "invisible hand" directing the people of the United he stressed the role of Divine Providence in directing the sents as a double-edged sword. and trading with interest." Perhaps most pointedly, bin Laden directly states how America's perceived uniqueness not forget one of your major characteristics: your duality directly led to his targeting the country for attack: "Let us in both manners and values; your hypocrisy in manners and principles. All manners, principles and values have two scales: one for you and one for the others." This dual- ity is American uniqueness and exceptionalism and pre- Even more recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin invoking exceptionalism as a justification for unilaterally King, in his prophetic "I Have a Dream" speech identified publicly lambasted American President Barack Obama for chemical weapons against his own citizens. American citi- ceived slight. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair zens responded negatively and rallied against Putin's per- Robert Menendez (D-NJ) went as far as to say that Putin made him want to vomit. Yet was Putin incorrect in his disapproval of America's view of itself? After all this is no course of American history. Frederick Douglass, the black abolitionist leader, called the Second Inaugural “more like a sermon than a state paper. So it has gone, down through the nation's history. Herbert Croly, the influential Progressive writer in the early twentieth century, called on Americans to realize “the promise of American life." In 1936 Franklin Roosevelt told a newer generation of Americans that they had a “rendezvous with destiny.” John F. Kennedy proclaimed that “God's work must truly be our own." Martin Luther his dream with the God-given promises of America. Ron- ald Reagan, paraphrasing John Winthrop's speech of 1630, striking against Syria when Assad was accused of using saw America as a “shining city on a hill." All of inspire many worthy reforms, from the abolition of slav- ery in the 1860s to the landmark civil rights laws a century later. But is there a darker side to it? To its critics, American “exceptionalism" is a dangerous notion. They remind us that other nations, too, such as the ancient Romans, the longer World War II or the Cold War , in which the United States is fighting to protect a repressed group or save off Dutch, the Spanish, the British, and the Germans, have at various times boasted of themselves as an exceptional nuclear war. Since that time, battles in various countries and alleged bullying in diplomatic relationships have tar- people, and that this has led them down the path to chau- nished the American image abroad. Much like the gen- vinism, imperialism, and even genocide. To them, the eration of trophy children who struggle to accept Cs in invocation "God bless America" sounds like hubris, as if God is being asked to bless whatever it is that America college after being given trophies for the most basic level of participation throughout life, the United States is now decides to do. Such a spirit lay behind “Manifest Destiny, a slogan from the mid-nineteenth century that was used facing pushback on its own vision of itself for perhaps the to justify American expansion into territory claimed by first time in its existence. Mexico, and in the 1890s American imperialists justified By no means are Americans the first to view them- American expansion into Cuba and the Philippines in selves as exceptional. The Greeks and Romans both held nearly similar language. From Indian removal at home to themselves as being unique from the rest of the world. imperial adventures abroad, there have been few dark epi- At a time, British imperialism clearly demonstrated a ten- sodes in American history that have not found defenders dency to inflate internal assessments. During the height of ready to put them in terms of American exceptionalism. Marxist-Leninist ideology the Soviets spoke of becoming Yet America's perceived exceptionalism has not the new Rome. In all of these examples, exceptionalism always been viewed positively across the globe. If we think relied on two things: ideology and myth. Yet each of these back to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, many civilizations was ultimately forced to face the downside of the reasons cited by Osama bin Laden for his desire to of perceived exceptionalism and uniqueness. And now, it tear down the United States centered on perceived unique- appears Americans are being forced to do the same. While ness. In bin Laden's letter to America (delivered two September 11 appeared to be a wake-up call for a short months after the collapse of the World Trade Center), he period among the American public, our political actions first cites American aggression toward Muslims in Palestine and public persona has not necessarily continued to recog- to attack Muslims daily and continually causes economic and Somalia before noting that America tells other nations nize the fact that to many in the international community, hardship by exerting influence to lower oil prices. While the American mission reeks of unwarranted arrogance. In the selections that follow, humanities professor Wilfred M. McClay looks at the brighter side of American argues that most of the early argument centers on policy concerns, bin Laden then turns toward attacking American culture. providentialism, while historian Howard Zinn He calls on Americans to stop their “oppression, lies , what he calls “American exceptionalism" is a dangerous acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, brutality, and imperialism. immorality, and debauchery" and to "reject the immoral idea because it has served as a justification for lawlessness, Should Americans Believe in a Unique American Wilfred M. McClay YES The Founding of Nations of the United States Capitol building—the inside of the Did the United States really have a beginning that can dome which, in its external aspect, is arguably the sin- be called its “Founding"? Can any society, for that matter, gle most recognizable symbol of American democracy, be said to have a founding moment in its past that ought there is painted a fresco called "The Apotheosis of George to be regarded as a source of guidance and support? Washington." It is as if the Sistine Chapel were transposed Much of the intellectual culture of our time stands into an American key. The first president sits in glory, resolutely opposed to the idea of a founding as a unique flanked by the Goddess of Liberty and the winged figure moment in secular time that has a certain magisterial Fame sounding a victorious trumpet and holding aloft a authority over what comes after it. The cult of ancestors, palm frond. The thirteen female figures in a semi-circle in its many forms, is always one of the chief objects of around Washington represent the thirteen original states. modernity's deconstructive energies. Kant's famous com- On the outer ring stand six allegorical groups represent- mand, Sapere Aude—“Dare to Reason,” the battle cry of the ing classical images of agriculture, arts and sciences, com- Enlightenment—always ends up being deployed against merce, war, mechanics, and seafaring. This figure of a arguments claiming traditional authority. deified Washington, painted significantly enough in the Foundings, in this view, are fairy tales that cannot year 1865, reflects a vision that appealed powerfully to be taken seriously-indeed, that it is dangerous to take the American public. But it is actually a rather disturbing seriously, since modern nation-states have used them as image, and it cries out for debunking. tools of cultural hegemony. One has a moral obligation to Still, debunking is a blunt instrument of limited peek behind the curtain, and one ought to have a strong value, despite the modern prejudice in its favor. To the presupposition about what one will find there. There is question “What is a man?” André Malraux once gave the a settled assumption in the West, particularly among the quintessential modern debunking answer: “A miserable educated, that every founding was in reality a blood- little pile of secrets." That answer is too true to dismiss- soaked moment, involving the enslavement or exploita- but not quite true enough to embrace. And it is, in its tion of some for the benefit of others. Foundational myths way, the exact opposite number to the saccharin image are merely attempts to prettify this horror. Our ancestors of a deified and perfected George Washington dwelling in were not the noble heroes of epic. They were the pri- the clouds atop the Capitol dome. Such a conflict between mal horde or the Oedipal usurpers, and their authority grand moral oversimplications impoverishes our thinking derived ultimately from their successful monopolization and sets us a false standard of greatness-one that is too of violence—and then their subsequent monopolization easily debunked and leaves us too easily defrauded. of the way the story would be told. When we speak of American national identity, one of The perfect expression of this view is Theodor the chief points at issue arises out of the tension between Adorno's dictum, “There is no monument of civilization creed and culture. This is a tension between, on the one that is not at the same time a monument of barbarism." hand, the idea of the United States as a nation built on Every achievement of culture involves an elaborate conceal- the foundation of self-evident, rational, and universally ment of the less-than-licit means that went into its mak- applicable propositions about human nature and human ing. Property is theft, in Proudhon's famous phrase, which society; and, on the other hand, the idea of the United means that legitimacy is nothing more than the preeminent States as a very unusual, historically specific and contin- force, and our systems of law are the ways that the stolen gent entity, underwritten by a long, intricately evolved, money is laundered and turned into Carnegie libraries and and very particular legacy of English law, language, and Vanderbilt universities and other carved Corinthian pillars customs, Greco-Roman cultural antecedents, and Judeo- of society. From this point of view, the credulous souls who Christian sacred texts and theological and moral teach- speak of the American founding are merely trying to retell a ings, without whose presences the nation's flourishing heroic myth about the Founding Fathers, a group of youth would not be possible. ful and idealistic patriarchs who somehow reached up into All this makes a profound tension, with much to the heavens and pulled down a Constitution for all time. be said for both sides. And the side one comes down on Admittedly, American filiopietism about the Found- will say a lot about one's stance on an immense number ing can get out of hand. On the ceiling of the rotunda of issues, such as immigration, education, citizenship, From First Things, March 2006, pp. 33–39. Copyright © 2006 by Institute on Religion and Public Life. Reprinted by permission. with their initiating vision. to adjust and renew themselves through a fresh encounter A constitutional republic like the United States is Yet any understanding of American identity that uniquely grounded in its foundational moment, its time of creation. And a founding is not merely the instant that the ball started rolling. Instead, it is a moment that presumes a certain authority over all the moments that will follow- and to speak of a founding is to presume that such moments in time are possible. It most closely resembles the moment that one takes an oath or makes a promise. One could even say that a constitutional founding is a kind of covenant, a meta-promise entered into with the understanding that it would chart progress or regress in our individual lives by cultural assimilation, multiculturalism, pluralism, the role of religion in public life, the prospects for democratizing the Middle East, and on and on. entirely excluded either creed or culture would be seri- ously deficient. Any view of American life that failed to acknowledge its powerful strains of universalism, ideal- ism, and crusading zeal would be describing a different country from the America that happens to exist. And any view of America as simply a bundle of abstract normative cal soil, including a multilingual, post-religious, or post- has a uniquely powerful claim on the future. It requires of us a willingness to be constantly looking back to our initi . national one, takes too much for granted and will be in for ating promises and goals, in much the same way that we a rude awakening. reference to a master list of resolutions. Republicanism means self-government, and so republican liberty does not mean living without restraint. It means, rather, living in accordance with a law that you The antagonism of creed and culture is better understood have dictated to yourself. Hence the especially strong need not as a statement of alternatives but as an antinomy, one of those perpetual oppositions that can never be resolved. of republics to recur to their founding principles and their In fact, the two halves of the opposition often reinforce founding narratives, is a never-ending process of self- each other. The creed needs the support of the culture—and adjustment. There should be a constant interplay between the culture, in turn, is imbued with respect for the creed. founding ideals and current realities, a tennis ball bounc- For the creed to be successful, it must be able to presume ing back and forth between the two. the presence of all kinds of cultural inducements—toward And for that to happen, there needs to be two things civility, restraint, deferred gratification, nonviolence, in place. First, founding principles must be sufficiently loyalty, procedural fairness, impersonal neutrality, com- fixed to give us genuine guidance, to teach us something. passion, respect for elders, and the like. These traits are Of course, we celebrate the fact that our Constitution was not magically called into being by the mere invocation created with a built-in openness to amendment. But the of the Declaration of Independence. Nor are they sustain- fact that such ideals are open to amendment is perhaps able for long without the support of strong and deeply the least valuable thing about them. A founding, like a rooted social and cultural institutions that are devoted to promise or a vow, means nothing if its chief glory is its the formation of character, most notably the traditional adaptability. The analogy of a successful marriage, which family and traditional religious institutions. But by the is also, in a sense, a res publica that must periodically recur same token, the American culture is unimaginable apart to first principles, and whose flourishing from the influence of the American creed: from the sense depends upon of pride and moral responsibility Americans derive from the ability to distinguish first principles from passing cir- being, as Walter Berns has argued, a carrier of universal cumstances, is actually a fairly good guide to these things. values—a vanguard people. a sophisticated understanding of the past's particularities Second, there needs to be a sense of connection to the past, a reflex for looking backward, and cultivating that ought Forcing a choice between creed and culture is not the way to be one of the chief uses of the formal study of history. to resolve the problem of cultural restoration. Clearly both Unfortunately, the fostering of a vital sense of connection can plausibly claim a place in the American Founding. to the past is not one of the goals of historical study as it is What seems more urgent is the repair of some background now taught and practiced in this country. The meticulous assumptions about our relation to the past. It is a natural contextualization of past events and ideas, arising out of enough impulse to look back in times of turbulence and uncertainty. And it is especially natural, even obligatory, and discontinuities with the present, is one of the great for a republican form of government to do so, since repub- achievements of modern historiography. But we need to -. philosophers from Aristotle on have insisted that repub- past completely unavailable to us, separated from us by ar lics must periodically recur to their first principles, in order impassable chasm of contextual difference. recognize that this achievement comes at a high cost when it emphasizes the pastness of the past-when it makes the In the case of the American Founding, a century-long darkness of life's many perils and unanswerable questions assault has taken place among historians, and the sense of by providing us with what Plato called a “likely story." To be sure, there are good things to be said of a criti- connection is even more tenuous. The standard scholarly cal approach to history, and there are myths aplenty that accounts insist this heated series of eighteenth-century debates—among flawed, unheroic, and self-interested richly deserve to be punctured. I am glad, for example, that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Washington, white men-offers nothing to which we should grant any D.C., in the Kennedy years had very little in common with abiding authority. That was then, and this is now. the legendary Camelot, aside from the ubiquity of adulter- The insistence on the pastness of the past imprisons us in the present. It makes our present antiseptically cut ous liaisons in both places. That kind of ground-clearing is important, and we are better off without that kind of off from anything that might really nourish, surprise, or propagandistic myth. We might even be better off with- challenge it. It erodes our sense of being part of a common enterprise with humankind. An emphasis on scholarly out the Apotheosis of George Washington sitting atop the precision has dovetailed effortlessly with what might be Capitol dome. called the debunking imperative, which generally aims to But ground-clearing by itself is not enough. And to discredit any use of the past to justify or support some- think otherwise is to mistake an ancillary activity for the thing in the present, and is therefore one of the few main thing itself—as if agriculture were nothing more gestures likely to win universal approbation among histo- than the application of insecticides and weedkillers. rians. It is professionally safest to be a critic and extremely History as debunking is ultimately an empty and fruit- dangerous to be too affirmative. less undertaking, which fails to address the reasons we Scholarly responsibility thus seems to demand the humans try to narrate and understand our pasts. It fails deconstruction of the American Founding into its con- to take into account the ways in which a nation's morale, stituent elements, thereby divesting it of any claim to cohesion, and strength derive from a sense of connec- unity or any heroic or mythic dimensions, deserving of tion to its past. And it fails to acknowledge how much a our admiration or reverence. There was no coherence to healthy sense of the future—including the economic and what they did, and looking backward to divine what they cultural preconditions for a critical historiography to ply meant by what they were doing makes no sense. its trade-depends on a mythic sense of the nation. The The Founders and Framers, after all, fought among human need to encompass life within the framework of themselves. They produced a document that was a com- myth is not merely a longing for pleasing illusion. Myths promise, that waffled on important issues, that remains reflect a fundamental human need for a larger shape to hopelessly bound to the eighteenth century and inad- our collective aspirations. And it is an illusion to think equate to our contemporary problems, etc. And so-in that we can so ignore that need, and so cauterize our souls, much the same manner as the source criticism of the that we will never again be troubled by it. Bible, which challenges the authority of Scripture by Indeed, the debunking imperative operates on understanding the text as a compilation of haphazardly the basis of its own myth. It presumes the existence of generated redactions—the Constitution is seen as a con- a solid and orderly substratum, a rock-solid reality lying catenation of disparate elements, a mere political deal just beneath the illusory surfaces, waiting to be revealed meant to be superseded by other political deals, and withal in all its direct and unfeigned honesty when the facades an instrument of the powerful. The last thing in the world and artifices and false divisions are all stripped away. There you would want to do is treat it as a document with any is a remarkable complacency and naiveté about such a intrinsic moral authority. Every text is merely a pretext. view. The near-universal presumption that the demise of This is the kind of explanation one has learned to expect the nation-state and the rise of international governance from the historical guild. would be very good things has everything, except a shred of evidence, to support it. And as for the debunking of bourgeois morality that still passes for sophistication in some quarters and has been the stock-in-trade of Western intellectuals for almost two centuries now—well, this has In this connection, it is amusing to see the extent to which always been a form of moral free-riding, like the radical historians, who are pleased to regard the Constitution as posturing of adolescents who always know they can call a hopelessly outdated relic of a bygone era, are themselves Mom when they get into trouble. still crude nineteenth-century positivists at heart. They still pride themselves on their ability to puncture myths, relying on a shallow positivistic understanding of a myth as a more or less organized form of falsehood, rather than seeing myth as a structure of meaning, a manner of giving One residue of the debunking heritage is the curious a manageable shape to the cosmos, and to one's own expe- assumption that narratives of foundings are mere fairy rience of the world, a shape that expresses cultural ideals tales-prettified, antiseptic flights of fancy, or wish- and shared sentiments, and that guides us through the fulfillment fantasies, telling of superlative heroes and
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hello today, Here is the complete paper. Thank you

Running Head: AMERICAN MISSION

1

American Mission
Name
Professor Name
Unit
Date

AMERICAN MISSION

2

Introduction
Wilfred M. McClay and Howard Zinn each has their own perspective based on the
question “Should Americans believe in a unique American Mission?” We see McClay agreeing
with it and tend to offer what is considered as the most conservative and the rightist answer to
this question. Zinn, on the other hand, opposes him in a liberal and leftist point of this questions
view. We see both of them coming up with what turns out to be a very strong argument over this
issue and also a very strong argument that is seen against the opposing view.

Wilfred M. McClay
McClay answer to, “Should Americans believe in a unique American Mission?” is
“YES”. We see that he greatly believes that Americans are supposed to believe in the unique
American mission, because he sees America as and will still remain to be the world’s greatest
and the most strongest nation for t...


Anonymous
I was having a hard time with this subject, and this was a great help.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags