Posts Tagged ‘American Exceptionalism’

Calvin and the History of a Bad Idea

Wednesday, July 15th, 2009

Last week was the 500th anniversary of the birth of John Calvin, the Protestant Reformer who shaped modern Western society in countless ways.

Calvin’s influence is usually traced to his version of Christian piety that emphasized the virtues of work, which, as Max Weber argued, laid the foundation for the development of capitalism.

But as Damon Linker pointed out in the New Republic last week, Calvin also influenced America’s vision as a country of destiny.

Less widely acknowledged, though no less historically significant, is the profound impact of Calvinist assumptions on the formation of American patriotism — and in particular on the country’s sense of itself as an exceptional nation empowered by providence to bring democracy, liberty, and Christian redemption to the world. It is this persistent theological self-confidence (some would say over-confidence) that distinguishes American patriotism from expressions of communal feeling in any other modern nation — and that demonstrates our nation’s unexpected but nonetheless decisive debt to John Calvin.

Calvin believed that all events on earth are directly controlled by God and are a reflection of God’s providence.

Many of the radical Calvinists who resolved to leave England to establish colonies in the newly discovered continent of North America believed themselves to be reenacting the exodus of the Hebrews from bondage in ancient Egypt. Having freely joined in a covenant with God and resolved to build a purified church and holy city in the New World, the Puritans boarded their ships confident that the Lord would guide and protect them on their “errand into the wilderness.”

And thus is launched one of the truly despicable ideas that continues to afflict Americans.

Through the Revolutionary War, the years surrounding the ratification of the federal Constitution, and the early national period, pastors and presidents repeatedly praised the “great design of providence” that had led to the creation of a country dedicated to protecting and preserving political and religious liberty. Call it the consolidation of America’s Calvinist consensus. What were once the rather extreme theological convictions dominating a handful of rustic outposts on the edge of a wholly undeveloped continent were now the unifying and motivating ideology of a rapidly expanding and industrializing nation.

Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy outlook, including his proposal for a League of Nations that would make possible an era of global perpetual peace, grew out of his strong faith America’s providential role in the world. The World War II propaganda campaign frequently appealed to identical convictions. And politicians from both political parties regularly cast the Cold War as a quasi-eschatological conflict between forces of darkness and light — with God clearly standing on America’s side of the battle. Even Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic Party’s answer to the “anti-intellectualism” of Dwight D. Eisenhower, spoke unapologetically in 1952 about the “awesome mission” that “God has set for us,” which was nothing less than “the leadership of the free world.” In more recent years, the cadences of the Calvinist consensus could be heard in Ronald Reagan’s rhetorical evocations of America as a “city on a hill” and George W. Bush’s frequent assurances that history moves in a “visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of liberty.”

American exceptionalism is despicable because it encourages the idea that the United States must stamp out every evil on earth. The result is the authoritarian militarism and “perpetual war” that has become the official ideology of the Republican Party.

When stamping out evil becomes our historical destiny, violations of the law, suspensions of fundamental rights, and every accumulation of power seems justified.

It is inimical to the very idea of America.

American Exceptionalism and the Military Colossus

Monday, April 27th, 2009

Via Matt Yglesias, Chris Preble’s recent book, The Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free, contains an interesting hypothesis described in the subtitle. Having an excessively large military makes us less secure.

His reasoning is that the possession of vast military capacities gives us an inflated conception of our role in the world and encourages us to expand our strategic aims far beyond our capabilities, which causes us to make costly mistakes such as the war in Iraq. A smaller military would require more restraint, amore humble conception of what we can accomplish, and fewer mistakes caused by over-reaching.

Yglesias, in his commentary, points out how politically implausible this proposal is but nevertheless endorses Preble’s explanation of our military hubris:

I think this analysis is dead on. My prescription would not be quite as radical as Preble’s. I think the main flaw with it is that he doesn’t take his own analysis seriously enough—for a variety of reasons, it’s just not going to be the case that America suddenly decides to abandon its aspirations to play a global leadership role. Under the circumstances, I think it’s important to try to think of plausible ways for us to play that role in a constructive way rather than a self-defeating and destructive one, rather than just kind of saying from the sidelines that we should abandon the whole thing.

I am not convinced that drastically reducing the military would make us more safe. Radically reducing the size and capabilities of our military may create a variety of unpredictable strategic imbalances between, for instance, South Korea and North Korea, Japan and everyone (but especially China), Russia and Europe, etc.

It’s not obvious that a world in which a variety of regional powers engage in an arms race is more stable than the world we have.

It is a cliché that power hates a vacuum. Although, in the modern world, the U.S sometimes seems uniquely hegemonic and vainglorious when it comes to military adventure, surely other countries could match our pretensions if given the opportunity.

Preble is right that having a large military entails some built-in mechanisms that encourage a self-justifying ideology of military adventurism. But I think the main factor is not the size of the military but the traditions of American Exceptionalism that inform much of our foreign and domestic policy. [American Exceptionalism is the view that America is an exceptional country with a unique destiny to supply liberty, democracy, and an Xbox to every human being.)

After all, the doctrines of Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism were formulated and took root in the 19th Century, long before the two world wars gave birth to the modern military colossus, and Theodore Roosevelt,  despite a very small military, had no trouble ginning up justifications for mucking about in the affairs of other countries.

We might also give up the mistaken view, related to American Exceptionalism,  that the U.S. fights wars primarily with the intention of helping others rather than advancing its strategic interests, a belief that Yglesias criticizes in another post.

Yglesias is right that we should find a way to play a more constructive role in world affairs. But that will require being clear-headed about what we can do with the military. And that will require giving up the notion that only the U.S. can lead the world out of the wilderness.