Daily Archives: November 21, 2011

Exceptional for a Purpose

By John Stang

One of the dominant traits coming from the right over the last 20 years has been this idea of American as a nation like no other, given by God to the rest of the world.  The argument here is that the U.S. has a unique history that is different from rest of the world.  Usually, one hears claims such as: America never had colonies, everyone immigrated to the U.S. and there were not ethnic divisions, and the constitution was, itself, a miracle.  Admittedly, there are events in the history of the U.S. are are unique and the founding documents had were revolutionary.  But, this is not the whole story.  Christopher Hitchens takes on this “divinely inspired” myth about the U.S.:

Of course, with any Eden there must be a serpent and an original sin. In the American case at least, Thomas Paine knew quite clearly what it was. The vile stain of slavery was present at every point, just as the awful profitability of cotton, and the easy availability of unpaid human labor from the African trade, corrupted the ideals of the new republic from the very first. In the end, the reckoning for this historic crime led to a war in which much of the ill-gotten wealth was squandered. On the other hand, that same civil war led to the triumph of capitalism and the expansionist state, with the new republic soon becoming an empire in all but name in the Philippines, Cuba, Haiti, and Puerto Rico.

He adds:

Especially to the extent that it starts to look like a loyalty oath, I think that the underlying question here should be dismissed as rash or stupid or both. Is the United States “chosen by God and commissioned by history to be a model to the world”? Anybody claiming to have the answer to that question—as George W. Bush once seemed to do—would be a fool.For a start, what would be his sources of information? And how good a historian would he be? In the long view, very few of the survivors of the Roman Empire would have predicted that the inhabitants of the frozen and backward British Isles would be among the next builders of a global system, but so it proved. And there was no question that the British or English, especially the Protestant fundamentalist ones, believed that they had God on their side. In fact, I know of no European state that doesn’t have some kind of national myth to the same effect. The problem, as everybody knows, is that not all these myths can be simultaneously right.

Tearing down mythical history about the U.S. is not a hard thing to do.  The U.S. is like any other nation, it has a history in which some parts are good and some parts are ugly.  The job of a historian would be to objectively analyze each event and put it within the context of a timeframe.   The other way to interpret events is through the prism of a political paradigm.  If one is trying to rally a base of people who believe the U.S. should be and deserves the right to be the dominant power in the world, then pushing a narrative that emphasizes greatness and manifest destiny is the better way to go.

One other point to mention is that historical exceptionalism often trades off with foreign policy hubris and overcompensates for a slow fall.  If the U.S. public opinion considers itself above the rest, then it will be easy to believe that all decisions abroad are good ones, which is not always the case.  With a crumbling infrastructure, a frustrating political system, and an economy that is is shambles, maybe hiding behind a national mythology gives people hope that the future will be brighter tomorrow, and who doesn’t want that?

Leave a Comment

Filed under history

Should the Democrats Ditch Obama for Hillary in 2012?

By Luke Brinker

Whenever they want to criticize Republican economic policy, liberals (including myself) like to cite onetime Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett, whose critiques of tax cutting dogma have mounted in recent years. By pointing out that “even Reagan economist Bruce Bartlett” agrees with them, liberals create an appearance of agreement that goes beyond left and right. But although Bartlett has never signed on with the Democrats, he trains most of his economic commentary against the far right elements of the Republican Party. While I agree with much of the substance of what Bartlett writes, I must acknowledge that Bartlett has been persona non grata on the Republican right for years.

Liberals’ “even Reagan economist Bruce Bartlett” trope mirrors words increasingly spoken on the right. When they want to criticize Barack Obama for his policies on health care, financial reform, taxing the rich, or any other number of core Democratic issues, conservatives love to cite “even Democratic pollsters Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen.” Caddell, who worked for Jimmy Carter, and Schoen, a onetime Clinton adviser, think the Democratic Party has drifted too far to the left under Obama, even though his signature achievements (health care, financial reform) are grounded in conservative ideas, much like his big legislative failure (cap-and-trade). Caddell and Schoen rarely oppose Obama’s policies on their actual merits; instead, they basically argue that because Republicans will demagogue Obama’s proposals as “class warfare,” the president should abandon them and “tack to the center.”  This, despite Obama’s support for pairing revenue enhancements with cuts in Medicare and Social Security as part of a deficit reduction strategy – perhaps the surest sign that this president is a bona fide centrist.

Anyway, Caddell and Schoen are out with an op-ed piece in today’s Wall Street Journal arguing that Democrats should dump Obama and nominate Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for president next year. Their argument goes that Obama is far from a sure thing to win re-election, and that the partisan squabbling necessary for him to secure another term would make successful governance all but impossible from 2013 to 2017. With Obama’s approval rating stuck in the mid-40s, Clinton seems to be the most logical choice:

Even though Mrs. Clinton has expressed no interest in running, and we have no information to suggest that she is running any sort of stealth campaign, it is clear that she commands majority support throughout the country. A CNN/ORC poll released in late September had Mrs. Clinton’s approval rating at an all-time high of 69%—even better than when she was the nation’s first lady. Meanwhile, a Time Magazine poll shows that Mrs. Clinton is favored over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by 17 points (55%-38%), and Texas Gov. Rick Perry by 26 points (58%-32%).

News flash! Apparently assuming a job that demands restraint from partisan politics works wonders for a public figure’s approval rating! Who’d uh thunk it? Of course, Caddell and Schoen are not only displaying an embarrassing ignorance of why Clinton’s approval rating is so much higher than her boss’s, they’re showing a pitiful amnesia. Remember way back to 2008, when Clinton’s negatives were sky-high and voters viewed Obama as a post-partisan unifier? Even “Obamacans” (Obama Republicans) emerged, seeing Obama as an inspiring alternative to the former first lady, who the media often depicted (unfairly, I’d argue) as a shrill partisan. Clinton’s approval numbers actually worsened as the campaign wore on and, despite Obama’s clear advantage, she persisted in her campaign for the Democratic nomination. Once Obama won the presidency and appointed her to an office above the partisan fray, her public image substantially improved.

Nobody needs to convince Hillary that running in 2012 is a bad idea. She clearly doesn’t want to do it. But let’s just pretend Hillary gave a 2012 bid a moment’s worth of thought. She’d surely realize that her near-70 percent approval rating is almost entirely a function of the fact that she hasn’t been engulfed in bitter disputes over “Obamacare,” the economic crisis, and the deficit. Once she became a candidate, she’d have to comment on those issues, and that means she’d have to alienate a huge chunk of the American public. Moreover, she’d know that all the liberal goodwill currently extended to her would prove transient. As Jonathan Chait argues in an excellent New York Magazine piece, liberals are inevitably disappointed with the performance of Democratic presidents, from liberal patron saint FDR right on down to Obama. Does anyone seriously believe Hillary, the Iraq War-supporting bete noire of liberals in 2008, would never once anger the Democratic Party’s liberal base?

Just for laughs, I’ll close with Caddell and Schoen’s final paragraph:

If President Obama is not willing to seize the moral high ground and step aside, then the two Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, must urge the president not to seek re-election—for the good of the party and most of all for the good of the country. And they must present the only clear alternative—Hillary Clinton.

 Yep, that’s how it works! Just like in the old days, cigar-chomping party bigwigs will ensure that “the only clear alternative,” Hillary Clinton, is nominated in 2012. Because nobody else – not Andrew Cuomo, not Mark Warner, not Martin O’Malley, not Kirsten Gillibrand, not Brian Schweitzer, not Deval Patrick, not anybody - is angling to be the next Democratic nominee. Brilliant!

(Photo credit: AP)

Leave a Comment

Filed under 2012 Election