Following the State of the Union (SOTU), there was a discussion on CNN about American Exceptionalism, what it is, and whether President Obama adhered to the idea. Aside from thinking that it's use (referred to in both Republican responses) was some sort of sinister conservative code-speak, the commentators reflected that Obama surely believed in American exceptionalism because he is our president. Hardly an in-depth or compelling analysis.
American exceptionalism has several aspects, one of which is heard in the comments of both Obama and Newt Gingrich (who couldn't be ideologically more different) who find it's seed in the words of the Declaration of Independence which states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Obama also pointed out during the SOTU that in no place on earth but America could his story have been completed as it was and that no one in the hall would trade their position with that of any other nation of the world. Both true statements but they only grasp one part of American exceptionalism, the fruit of it if you will.
The idea has been alluded to by both Thomas Paine and Alexis de Toqueville. The American Founding undeniably forged a nation quite different in both perspective and governance from it's European counterparts. What it is that has allowed America to accomplish what it has and to invoke the above attitudes among it's people? The answer is found in what lies between the endowment of rights from our Creator and the maintenance of those rights in our unique form of self-government.
America is the first nation on earth to form a government based on the premise that rights are endowed from God, the belief that sovereignty belongs to the people (not to some hereditary ruling class), and which is able to protect those rights in the presence of the flawed human natures of which it [the government] is itself constructed. Never before (or since) has this three prong task been undertaken so successfully. It is this effort and America's understanding of it that sets her apart. This is American Exceptionalism.
Consider that various groups and individuals from all over the globe who often war against each other in their native areas come to America and live in peace on the same block without the caste system or a police state to enforce order as in many other parts of the world. Applaud the upward mobility that President Obama spoke about the allows any one of us to enjoy success based on our hard work and accomplishment independent of our birth circumstances or heritage. Consider the serious problems stemming from the lack of immigrant assimilation which are seen all over Europe and in many parts of the world but which America has largely avoided. Consider that even following Sept 11, there were remarkably few incidents of violence against Islamic-Americans. These results point to the two precepts that underscore American exceptionalism - that of equality under the law and checks and balances on government power.
Laws that are clearly written and understood by all parties, that are not reinterpreted to shift political power (either for or against), and are respected by all. Frederic Bastiat said (in 1850) that law is to be the protection against plunder, not it's legal instrument. Checks and balances exist between the three branches of government and between the federal and state jurisdictions in order to resist concentrations of power.
Consider the attached chart. On the left is shown pictorially what American Exceptionalism consists of and how it was constructed. Each level is dependent upon the successful attainment of those levels below it. It is the role of the rule of law to guard the items below it and encourage the items above it. When this principle (and Bastiat's guidance) are set aside the model on the right is adopted. Many of the modern progressive left prefer it out of a misguided and erroneous view of what public philanthropy can accomplish. Their goal is equality of outcomes more than equality of opportunity. Such advocates fail to grasp that without equal treatment under the law, the lofty goals of protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property rights) cannot be achieved. Thus the identical claims of Newt Gingrich and President Obama toward these goals are different in that the the former advocates policies that support their attainment while the latter does not.
Consider a Jan 19, 2011 speech by Van Jones, a former "green jobs" czar within the White House (and perhaps current advisor) when he stated that social justice is achieved only when you can randomly exchange lives with anyone else and still have the same good life. He implied outright that such equal outcomes are necessary for a just society. Such a blatant embrace of obvious Communist values begs the question of why was this man and his world-view a close advisor to and held in high regard by the Obama administration? Who else in the administration agrees with Jones? Does the President?
In a speech on America on Oct 20, 2010 the President omitted (for the second time in a month) the mention of a Creator when he said, "[W]hat makes this place [America] special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' "
Thus while President Obama clearly understands the political value of claiming adherence to American exceptionalism at least to domestic audiences (though apparently still unwilling to make a similar statement to foreign listeners), his grasp of the concept based on his own words, his policies, and choice of advisors seems short of the mark. Of even greater danger is that too many other Americans likewise fail to understand the important concept of American Exceptionalism. Without a rebirth of such an understanding we will cease to be exceptional.
Links :
http://johnkingusa.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/27/the-exceptionalism-attack/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/van-jones-communism-definition-of-social-justice/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-misquotes-declaration-independence-again_511412.html
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 116
You may be put upon by amount written, but the substance is there.
The President anothers, want things to be the "new normal" where the voters are about what can be done for them rather than what they can do for themselves.
It is as if the success, the taxpayers and how they acquired their succcess, are forgotten and all the attention is on the financially failed.
As an example we never hear about the responsbilities of the students it always condemning the taxpayers for not giving enough, it is about the teachers who don;t teach effectively, the school systems that don't spend enough, and of late it is even about the parents who don't come to school enough because they have to work. Until it is about the students being resopsible for learning then nothing will change and things will only get worse.
The President has for two years along with the vast majoirty of the media berated and belittles the business community, said how everyone that is indebt are the victims of those businesses, how the political system is corrupted by them. Ignoring individual and governemnt bad choices.
Our history is about freedom of choice and the living with the conseqeunces of those choices. We have rewarded success, that success is why we live so well. The "new normal" that the President and the media such as CNN want is take from the successful (ignoring the rule of law) and giving to the failures (rule of man).
They want give everyone a life like the rich (equal outcome) without the responsibility for earning it (equal opportuinty).
If you wonder about the morality, just look at how the actions fo Congressman Rangel and others are handled.
It may be longer than what you want to read then just use the chart and it tells the whole story.
Thomas Paine said ""Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it."
Your unwillingness to expend the effort (because you deem it too long) to approach, must less understand, the basis of American exceptionalism is what Paine was referring to. Thankfully, you can just look at the diagram as Duane wisely pointed out.
Thanks jj!
Excellent job, Ken.
Truthes are seldom as conside as we would like. As best I can tell when it involves people we are working in the area of grays, somehwere between black and white.
Why the constant insults? I make a case that many (especially the president and the media) wrap themselves in the flag so to speak as regards "liberty" but haven got the slightest idea how to keep and extend it. It takes effort, which apparently you are unwilling to acknowledge much less expend. Tossing insults is far easier.
And a word of advice - don't trifle with grandmas.
How many people do you know of who have the "truth" that is right for every situation as a scientific law is?
People have too many things affecting them to have the black and white answers, whther it is left or right, the government or the individual citizen, whether, a company management or a union, private opinion or the media talking heads, Democrat or Republican.
Freedom ain't free, it takes effort as Thomas Paine said (see above). The Constitution is not the parts we like but it is law. The reading of it (to which I assume you refer) included ONLY the parts that are law today (not the historic parts that have been amended). Recall the amendment that was made to correct the Prohibition amendment. Mistakes happen in any human system. I contend that the direct election of Senators (17th amendment) is such a mistake but it is the way we do it until it is changed.
Why is Scalia teaching the basics of the Constitution to Congressman a " clear" separation of powers violation? Is the President talking to only the Congressional Democrats BEFORE a controversial vote a similar problem? You got nothing but hot air.
ROFL! Loved this.
Guy,
Just came upon this, must of missed it when posted. It has a statement so wrong however that a response is warranted.
As for the framer's intent, I get that you progressives (who believe no one is or ever was smarter than you including the framers) must rewrite, re-interpret, and reinvent the Constitution for your own nefarious purposes BUT They (the framers) did want to limit government. Some quick examples:
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” - James Madison
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America“ -- James Madison
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated” - Thomas Jefferson
“If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for it's advancement, where is the elimination to carrying into execution whatever can be affected by money?”
– Senator William Drayton SC (1828)
Even Barack "he who thinks himself King" Obama said in a 2001 radio interview when he spoke of the (in his view the flawed) Constitution:
"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
On balance, I am pleased that you agree that constitutional knowledge should be a prerequisite to holding federal office, though you'll probably reconsider when you realize that such a standard would effectively eliminate the majority of current democratic lawmakers.
And as for your discomfort at Scalia giving a Constitution lesson, you're just being silly. Would you also object to having the fire inspector come over and teach a business about fire safety and regulation?
tame: What a lousy first impression you've given me, Ronald Horvath.
tame: Spoken like a true underdogma! :)
tame: Ken, your personal bias interferes with your scholarship, which suggests that your personal bias is the reason for your scholarship.
tame's criticism makes no since. It would be like saying that Bill Cowher can't demonstrate a weakness in the Green Bay Packers' methods because he is biased to want the Steelers to win the SuperBowl.
Although Copernicus was motivated to show the elegance of God's creation no atheistic astronomer therefore dismisses his argument that the earth revolves around the sun on that basis alone.
Similarly, you should try and demonstrate why my conclusions are wrong. We get that you don't like them but you have failed to even offer a refutation.
PS I don't dislike your conclusions at all. I was treating you as an equal, which, in my view, is the highest form of respect. I see that you are incapable of treating me with the same regard.
Been there, seen that, done that already, about the land stuff. Read below. But you probably won't get it, either.
tame: On paper, it does.
I'm trying to say exactly what I did say (umpteen times now), Guy. America is the only nations' government to found its' Constitution, its' country, its' government, its' citizens, on the principle that God gives each individual certain unalienable rights.
How can one person work so hard to misstate something so simple? You're merely proving your limited and biased thinking. No more. It's clear you have an aversion to God ... so be it. That doesn't change a thing when we discuss America's Forefathers founding of this country.
Fren W. Feb 1, 2011, 9:52am EST
Guy, "Are you actually trying to say that all the other nations ... ."
I'm trying to say exactly what I did say (umpteen times now), Guy. America is the only nations' government to found its' Constitution, its' country, its' government, its' citizens, on the principle that God gives each individual certain unalienable rights.
How can one person work so hard to misstate something so simple? You're merely proving your limited and biased thinking. No more. It's clear you have an aversion to God ... so be it. That doesn't change a thing when we discuss America's Forefathers founding of this country.
And while you and the rest of your motley crew of self righteous Xtians might think you own the word creator you do not.
Creator doesnt imply the Christiand god.
tame: Ken, Do you have a response to this allegation?
tame: Yes...Perhaps this describes a lot of would-be Constitutionalists.
No one said that, Lori. "Creator" certainly does imply "God" to those who believe in God, including those of Jewish faith. No one said "Creator" or "God" was limited to their belief. To reach for that conclusion is unreasonably far-reaching. "God" and "Creator" also make concise language of countless American founding documents using the word "Lord." That should all be understood. No one's claiming ownership. To suggest otherwise demonstrates a lack of objectivity.
You're right Fren "Creator" of the world is considered "God" by "believers", with no specifictiy as to "which" god! That is, unless Jefferson and the other Founders had in mind a "movie creator"... L O L!
Which part of "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." remains unclear? The principles of Declaration of Independence are clearly a part of the American experiment in self-government as evidenced by the numerous times they have been quoted by Americans of every stripe and generation (and they are self-evident"!). Neither gravity nor Newton's second law are specifically written into American law either but if someone sold you a flying carpet or a perpetual motion machine you'd cry foul because those devices claim to violate these principles. You should look upon life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness similarly.
Guy,
So what if there are religions that worship cows and/or fire hydrants? That has nothing to do with American exceptionalism. See "self-evident" above.
And the others who are "devout" of which you speak, to what or whom are they devoted? If it is not an external standard (outside themselves) it is arbitrary and likely to buckle to the pressures of failed human nature.
I've heard several media pundits comment about how the President's speech was "flat". Guess they figured out he didn't understand the true meaning of our American Exceptionalism!
Thanks. That Obama and major media don't get it is bad enough, but even worse is that so few citizens make the effort to get it. Hopefully that is changing.
tame: You wouldn't dare believe otherwise.
tame: Like your grammar, this reflects poorly upon you, not the President.
That is not what I see.
I see it as American values.
A chicken in every pot or the house with the white picketed fence.
But could we get back on the subject.
Marx may have placed his saying in infamy for his own purposes, as so many wanting to impose their will over others do, but the root is about as American as it gets. The difference is man's free will, i.e., not grudgingly or out of necessity.
What's missing here is the discussion of a free capitalist society versus socialism. And that's a very important discussion when it comes to this citation.
Our free American society - with personal liberty to make anything of oneself or to make nothing of oneself - is capitalism. Socialism, on the other hand, imposes that no one has that personal liberty, but, rather, whatever someone has worked and labored for themself belongs equally to everyone else whether they worked for it or not. And typically, though rarely acknowledged, the bulk of any money goes to greed-mongering dictators anyway, the "people" rarely get it.
The idea that everyone has a chicken in their pot or a house with a white picket fence is wonderful in encouraging people to use their God given talents to their fullest potential. Under Socialism there is little if any motivation to innovate and labor, encouraging instead the idea that someone else's innovations and labors will take care of you regardless, so why bother.
Socialism is not The American Way. Americans are by nature, of their own free will, very generous with abundance. Even on our meager income I give as I can to worthy causes.
A person's free will is the epitome of giving. It is inherently wrong to take from those unwilling to give, that's called stealing. Another inherent 'wrong' in forcing people to relinquish rewards of their labors is, it merely encourages undesirable attributes like laziness and underperformance. There's nothing good about that.
My point is that a good life for all is not a "Communist" idea as said by Ken but an American idea,value.
It also states that Obama and Gingrich are opposites when they are quite similar. In both cases, they are controlled largely by big money interests. There has been no attempt at meaningful change from either Gingrich nor Obama during their times of greatest influence. In other words, they are two different masks of the same powers that be.
Choosing one or the other is folly. Change the basic system to something better.
As best I can tell we all need a starting point to work on a problem. What has proven most effective, the more complex the problem is to have different starting points to better frame the problem and to work back and forth from to come up with a most effective solution.
What is your starting point?
There are actually only two ways it can go. Either we continually work (and such effort is by it's nature unceasing) to understand the nature of our unique government, have the law protect and seek life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for citizens; or else we take the easy path, forget all that freedom stuff, allow the law to prescribe government plunder as normal and protected, to vilify/prosecute anybody that disagrees and follow the failing EU model downward to our demise.
DuaneB,
My starting point here is that our Constitution cannot be used to implement a EU style (or worse a communist Style "share the wealth" , "equal outcomes" ) governance without amendment or deception. The progressive left is using the second strategy because they know the American public wouldn't allow the first. Our general lack of citizen understanding about the history and meaning of such phrases as "rule of law", enumerated powers, Federalism, and American exceptionalism only makes their task easier.
Since the American people have never worked to understand the nature of how we are governed and have never had the law protect and seek life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for citizens, I can't say we have very good odds of that happening now. In fact, I would say the odds were about 100% that we won't even try. Do you have some reason to think that our suffering and poverty and so forth will make us any more wise?
Yes, go and reread some of the comments of Alexis de Toqueville. He was quite complimentary about the American people, their insight, and knowledge. It can and must be restored.
"The power of America is in the idea of America. The American spirit. American exceptionalism. Its founding principles. The founding documents. The philosophical foundation upon which your power was earned. That is why America has become the most powerful nation in world history in the historical blink of an eye."
"American exceptionalism requires exceptional Americans. In 1773, in Boston Harbor, a handful of exceptional Americans gave birth to this nation with America’s first Tea Party."
"A new Tea Party is rising up to keep the American spirit alive. Unlike the revolutionaries in Boston Harbor, today’s Tea Party Patriots are not seeking to replace a system that has failed to secure your liberties. They are seeking to preserve a system that has secured your liberties far better than any other in world history—before it is destroyed by Underdogmatists who oppose the founding principles that made America great."
"Tea Party Patriots are rising up to preserve the American spirit, which is the foundation of the United States, the foundation of its greatness, and the foundation of its well-earned power."
Why can I see no evidence of this in my reading of history? Did we not have slavery and discriminate against minorities (religious, national, political, social and racial)? Did we not conquer others and impose our will upon the former residents of those territories? When was this wondrous time when the Constitution and the Law protected all citizens from illegal and unconstitutional abuse and oppression? Please let me know what was that golden age?
About what "imposing of our will" do you speak? If you refer to overcoming slavery and discrimination, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Else, what?
That "golden age" is throughout history's unfolding, Larry. The ideal would be to keep perfecting it rather than backsliding in it. History is a state of perpetual motion. If you're wanting an entire era of perfection without motion, you're not going to find that.
Yes, it seems to me that we have improved. But (there's always a "but") we still have discrimination and we still are quite willing to ignore the law and the Constitution.
The "imposing our will" referred to the Mexican and Indian residents of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California (as they are now known) whom we ruled "by right of military conquest." They were not offered any choice as to whether to become a part of the U.S. and were forced to obey our laws.
I strongly favor perfecting our culture/society/nation/people. I am doing what I can along those lines. Please read my novel "Invisible Hand" (see my profile, it's free reading) to see what I would like us to do.
If you refer to everyday discriminations, I find the very Christianity that founded US to be one of the worst abused today. But I expect US, the people, to do what we know is right to fix that. Likewise in other areas where government - for its' own political gain - has morphed an unethical hold. Anytime government gets involved, it's more about them and their power than the peoples'. It's up to US to keep the balance and that is bound to be a never-ending struggle.
Americans pay tremendously today and have for years in righting the Indian wrong. That, to me, was one of the darkest measures in our history. Apparently the Indians are satisfied with our recompense now, else they shouldn't be accepting astonomical taxpayers' dollars, sanctioned land and government benefits granted to them and their tribes as a result. What Indiands did to some Early American founders was no pretty picture, either.
As for Mexico, I believe we fought fair wars winning those territories? That is how land was gained in the 1800s. Regardless, it's impractical to try to reclaim today what ancestors on both sides, almost 200-years ago now, fought to claim as rightfully their own. And, again, we have over-generously over-compensated.
I could go on and on with this subject, but suffice it to say American ingenuity, labors and investments settled that land in outstandingly better and free-er form than Mexico sought for its' own people in that same time. That's why they want it back so badly almost 200-years after the fact.
If Mexican immigrants fought as hard against their own corrupt, persecuting government as they do in boasting of fighting Americans today, they could well be on their way to that very success. Yet how much of Mexico border land remains barren, just begging to be made whole?
Sadly racial discrimination still exists. Naturally it goes both ways though those with power are more likely to do harm by their discrimination than those without. But there's discrimination on all sorts of bases. Things are far better than they were when I was a child but they could be improved, still.
My point that involved the Native Americans was not that we owed them anything but that throughout our history we have never lived up to our ideals. Not just in small ways but in huge ways. I see no evidence that people today are any less selfish and short sighted and biased than people were 50, 100, or 200 years ago. People are still people.
We did fight wars to conquer those territories (except for the Gadsen Purchase of southern Arizona) since the government of Mexico did not want to give them up. But they were, indeed, wars of conquest. That hardly matches our ideals of government since we imposed our government on those residents.
Mexico did fight against the Spanish government and against dictators in Mexico. They have struggled and suffered much to gain freedom. But they have not been as lucky as we were.
Have you compared the land in southern Arizona, California, and New Mexico with the land just across the border in Mexico? The times I have seen it they looked about the same. So I don't know what you refer to in your last paragraph above.
I understand what you go on to say about not living up to our ideals. The only example I know to offer is this: Let's say (purely as an oversimplified example) that 10-years from now scientists discover unequivocally that apes are really a life form equal to our own. Would that make us, today, guilty, for treating apes like the animals we believe them to be, today?
As regrettable as it truly was and is, that was similar to Early Americans' perception of Native Amiercans. They had not seen them before and were wholly unfamiliar with their earthy and, as importantly, crudely gross ways of imposing death. In Revolutionary War time it was common for opposing army commanders to meet in person and discuss, in "gentlemanly fashion" and forewarning, what their opposing war strategies were. Native American ways were a bizarre diversion from all that Early Americans knew. That doesn't make it right, but that does put in perspective their short sightedness. Had our Forefathers perceived Native Americans as a full-fledged individuals, they surely would have extended the same ideals to them.
Our Forefathers' shortcoming was limited knowledge about the world around them, which cannot be directly attributed to some conscious decision 'not to live up to their ideals'.
The Mexico residents, upon whom you suggest we 'imposed our government', are the very residents and descendents who for years have demanded (and received) more than a bulk of their fair share from our government today. I don't get your point? There's a vast difference between what we did to Native Americans and what happened with Mexico.
Americans are exceptional in attempting to level the balances of power. There's already talk of China taking over American lands and if we lose our land to China, whose fault is that? China's or our own? The balance of power, indeed. That is how history unfolds.
From what I've seen of Mexican settlements along our border, they're shanties unsuitable for inhabitation. Even civilized areas combine unsuitable living conditions. Then there's the barren land that Americans dare not use as they would like to because of Mexico's border violence, else it would be made useful by Americans.
No, I see a world of difference.
If scientists find someday that some apes or dolphins or other creatures we have mistreated are every bit as human as we are in mind, then yes we would be guilty for treating them like animals.
Our ancestors (and most people today) did not thing of the Native Americans as being real people any more than slaves were real people. They (and we) were guilty of that.
The residents of California and so forth when we conquered those territories are all dead now. The U.S. citizens whose ancestors were of Mexico do not get more than their fair share from our government today. Big money interests get that. (See bailouts and socialism for the rich.)
Mexico is poor and we are rich. Naturally their homes and businesses are less impressive than ours. But you were talking about barren border land, not slums in your comment above and that is what I was referring to in my reply.
That is an ex-post-facto charge (making something wrong that previously wasn't).
Yes it is. I do that quite a lot. I hold people guilty of things I think of as being wrongs even though the persons were doing just as they were expected to do in their day and time. It's a way I have of feeling glad that I am who I am and didn't live there and then. Makes life a little more pleasant for me.
But my ethics and morals haven't changed in, well, I can't remember them changing. I have always wanted people to avoid suffering and be nice to each other and I have always had sympathy for animals. Something about being able to identify with them I suppose.
Am I guilty as charged?
Don't we hold Pontius Pilot (Sp.) guilty of Christ's death? Don't we hold the slave owners to be guilty of mistreating slaves? It's easy labeling behavior and happens in our minds whether we like it or not. That's why I get labeled so often by comments on Gather. People just do that.
When we identify an error someone made it matters not how long ago that error was, we can still learn from it.
What good does blaming people in the present do? I find that blaming individuals does little good and much harm. It takes time, energy, and attention away from what can be done to fix the problem. Blaming a particular bank robber for stealing money from a bank doesn't solve the problem of bank robberies or robberies in general. But the blaming process means we are not even thinking about the problem and certainly not doing anything to prevent its happening again nor helping the victims.
Only by calling to account in the present can there be any opportunity for repentance (and change of behavior). To only assign blame for deeds past and un-correctable is both a waste of time and a source of neuroses (as well as the endless generation of unamendable guilt and political turmoil). Take the reparation talk you hear promoted. No American alive today was either a slave holder or a slave so what's the point?
And actually as regards Pontius Pilate, no, we don't blame him but that is a discussion for another day.
I am no ones judge. It is not my place to call anyone to account. I am not trying to get anyone to repent. That's not my job either. I have not called for reparations by anyone.
But I can learn from the errors of others and that's where blame assigned to others can help me change my ways. That's one of several reasons I don't drink alcohol, for example.
Anyway, I don't see us getting any better at seeing our own shortcomings and working to overcome them. I think some other approach must be used to have some chance of success. Temptation is just too difficult for people to resist.
Thanks. I watched Prager's video and it is spot on. I appreciate you adding the link to this article. The topic is a very important one that deserves a lot more consideration at all levels, media and education just to name two.
As for the "rich," take a look at what those voting-in these glorious tax hikes (that I'm already feeling) take home in pay and benefits and perks. You don't see the forest for the trees and that's only because you use Leftist selective vision.
The "rich" are who PAY the MOST taxes, by the way. Well, assuming they're not excluded by working for Obama's administration, since most of them don't pay their tax tabs. Where's the whining?
I'd compare my tax bill to yours any day ... if you have one? Apparently you don't because you don't seem to know what comprises "the rich." If anyone should be complaining it should be folks like me and we're not ... so why are you? Maybe folks like me 'get' more than the Left spin that's put on the surface of it.
BTW, "planning" taxes to pay for Obama's Trillions in debt have absolutely nothing to do with American Exceptionalism.
Do you ever not complain? You're always complaining but never offering so much as a glimmer of a solution.
Nobody is confused except possibly you. As your guy Lipset himself says on page 19 of his tome:
"The American Creed can be described in five terms: liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissez-faire. Egalitarianism, in its American meaning, as Tocqueville emphasized, involves equality of opportunity and respect, not of result or condition."
Another author chosen by you that agrees with me. Thanks.
tame: Is this the goal? To count the number of times President Obama gets around protocol? What if he hadn't omitted the Creator twice? Would you have thought any better of him? Maybe you're missing a President who's in a better position to deceive you.
tame: Did you question President Bush's practiced craftiness when he was using his born againness to get elected and to play God? Was it ok when he allowed Osama bin Laden to go free, as long as he dotted his i's and crossed his t's?
The question is: Why are you searching so hard for something to pin on this President? Is there a conspiracy theory you just have to prove?
tame: And what conspiracy is that, Ken?
Ken: I'm just pointing out his version to American exceptionalism and all that it embodies.
tame: You derived all that from his having twice omitted the term Creator??? Is that how you excuse your becoming judge and jury?
Ken: Why the warped version of the "two wrongs make a right" defense?
tame: I'm not suggesting that either President is right. For you to suggest otherwise, sounds desperate.
Tamer, only in dealing with the present can we affect the future. To consistently bring up the past with which we can do nothing is an exercise in futility isn't it?
STAY IN THE PRESENT!
and since the US was not the first Republic, nor Democracy, nor first to establish the same rights as our declaration of independence people are basing 'exceptionalism' strictly on the phrase "by their Creator".
Every wonder why they chose 'their Creator' vs The Creator or even God? Ever read some of the writings of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine and other of our 'founding fathers'? Deist, Naturalist, or as Teddy Roosevelt called Thomas Paine ""filthy little atheist". The Age of Reason was a favorite pamphlet of Franklin and Jefferson. Just as Ethan Allen's 'Reason: the Only Oracle of Man', villainized Allen just as Paine was despite their leading roles in the Revolution they were labeled names like "loathsome reptile", "lilly-livered cynical rogue" . Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, argued that religion only served the useful purpose of "social control". John Adams was the only founding father who spoke out against either pamphlet or book.
So people should reflect on the use of 'their Creator' and why it was used. Maybe to allow each person to decide for themselves who or what their Creator is.
Now let's discuss those 'God given rights' that creates 'American expectionalism'. Considering everyone of them have at one time or another been at best an illusion, at worst only existed for a select few, I am not sure we should be bragging about them.
That's even to ignore the fact it is not part of the Constitution but the Declaration of Independence. If I am correct we do not use the Declaration of Independence as our 'rule of law'.
Therefore the use of the word Creator has no standing in regard to defending the constitution which is the oath of the president. Just as the words from the DI: regarding
Also, lets not forget that the Constitution did not replace the Articles of Confederation until 1789, making it our second constitution. Which is why the newer one has the preamble: 'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'
Seems many people want to quote from the Declaration of Independence (which was written as the list of reason for breaking from England, not as part of our law). I would suggest some of you at least read it:
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm
And to KenS: A socialist wrote the original pledge of intelligence. socialism is not about govt owned, but worker owned. they have been a big part of our history though I doubt you would realize who they were and are. You really need to educate yourself. Move out of the agrarian society of the 18th century and wake up to the 21st.
Welcome to Gather. I'm tempted therefore to go easy but patience is thin.
Virtually everyone who reads this realises that American Exceptionalism refers to the United States. And if we are not the first to be so founded, who do you propose?
Did you miss that the Founders (despite your obvious selective reading of them) held rights coming from our creator to be self-evident? Now one can presume that to be the Judeo-Christian God, another Budda, another mother earth but that 's the thing; religions may be many things but they cannot be equally true.
And regardless of what you think of it and and how little respect you have for it, many leaders (those of this United States of America) speak of the special standing of the Declaration of Independence wording (especially the part quoted about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) implying it's implicit part in the American Experiment.
Lastly, it matters little which definition of socialism (worker owned, government owned, or government controlled) is in play as each diminishes individual Liberty. The rule of law and the Constitution (both of which are supposed to be in force still today) are as important and as applicable today as they ever were.
And you're right we do mess up now and then but in any comparison to any other real place (vs some imaginary nirvana) we grade out pretty well.
Constitution Class/5000 Year Leap Powerpoint (downloadable)
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978661224
The principles of rule of law, inalienable human rights, equal justice, and liberty, as well as a firm basis of moral principles, can all be defended perfectly well on grounds of nothing other than secular reason and the rules of logic.
To out it concisely, that each person is a self-owner is axiomatic; it is a logical truism. It is proven by the fact that all other possible alternatives are demonstrably absurd. Human action is willed, and thus is necessarily manifest by a controlling, responsible agent; this is the definition of ownership. Human faculties are owned. Either we each own our bodies and faculties, or no one owns themselves but is a part owner of everyone else. Only the former is logically permissible; the latter is a logical absurdity. Being complete self-owners, each individual has a right to the free and inoffensive exercise of their faculties. Therefore liberty is logically defended; it is demonstrably provable that each person has a right to defend their person, their faculties, and the natural resources they transform by the inoffensive use of their faculties (life, liberty, property) from invasion by force or fraud, as against any and all other individuals (even if it is a group of individuals calling themselves "government.")
We are born endowed with intrinsic, inalienable rights as human beings; whether we are the work of a divine Creator, or not. (I personally believe we are; but the point is that either way, it is immaterial to the case).
You say you read Bastiat, so all this should already be familiar to you. Personally, I tend to leave all mention of a Creator out of my defense of individualism, for one thing because it doesn't leave my argument open to the vulnerability of the fact that God is not provable, also because talk of a divine power tends to reflexively repel non-believers shutting them down to potential openness to the logical validity of my case, and also because it's just plain not necessary.
I personally do believe that the universe is the work of a Creator; I actually think this is the most logically valid explanation. Science only explains the mechanics of the design; it does not disprove, nor say anything at all really, about the designer.