Sermons
"Acceptionalism"
by Richard J. Martin
August 25, 2002, May Memorial Unitarian Universalist Society, Syracuse,
New York
Well, here we are. Summer's winding down, the students are back on
campus, it's nearing the end of August and that means next month is
September. Which means that soon we're going to hear a lot of reflection
on the meaning of the events of last September 11.
What I'd like to share with you this morning is some of what I learned
in the days and months following September 11. What I learned not from
the events themselves, but from the American public's reaction and response
to them.
Let me begin by saying that my own immediate response, as I watched
the twin towers burn and fall, was probably the same as everyone else's
- I was in shock. I was at work on the morning of September 11, and
my first notice came from Mariah Dillon, who told me that a plane had
crashed into the World Trade Center. Like most others, I initially assumed
it was an accident. As the events of the morning unfolded, I had to
force myself to realize that the tragedy I was watching on TV had been
inflicted with malice aforethought. Not only did I not get anything
else done the rest of the day, I wasn't much good for a week thereafter.
Some things just take a while to get used to.
But, even during that week, it was clear to me that the plane crashes,
or at least the forethoughts which led to the plane crashes, were more
complex than was being portrayed by the American media, was being propounded
by the American government, or was being understood by the American
populace. The human mind is good at experiencing emotion, or at applying
intellectual analysis, but the two hemispheres have trouble working
together (this is especially true of Caucasian males, but that's another
story). As a result, when we need to be very analytical, we get emotionally
detached from the subject. And, when a subject elicits strong (in this
case, very strong) emotions, we have a need for the intellectual explanation
to be extremely simple. "Good versus evil" is about as simple
an explanation as human culture has yet produced.
Still, the near-unanimity with which this nation accepted an explanation
of Good vs. Evil, of "they attacked us because they hate freedom",
of relegating the attackers and anyone who supported them or celebrated
their victory to the moral equivalent of sub-humanity, shocked me. At
one point, the polls showed 91% support for an immediate armed response;
most of the remaining 9% fell into the "don't know" category,
which left precious few of us favoring any more considered course of
action.
A number of media commentators, most of them based outside the United
States, noted that the US has struck many blows against Arab and Islamic
peoples over the years, and that this was the first retaliation against
American territory. Mention was made of US support for monarchic, oppressive,
or otherwise unpopular governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar,
Bahrain, etc. Not only did these theories of the crimes hold together
better internally than "they attacked us because they hate freedom",
they had the additional benefit of correlating with the national makeup
of the criminals of 9/11 - mostly Saudis, the rest Egyptians.
But these commentaries, in the rare cases where they were published
inside the US, drew nothing but derision and attack. The vast majority
of Americans made it clear that they didn't want to think of anyone
who could support attacks against American territory as logical, much
less reasonable or understandable. Americans felt an apparent need for
their shadowy opponents to be inherently evil, and for our own motives
and actions inherently good and pure. Our citizens applauded when President
Bush told the rest of the world "you're either with us or you're
with the terrorists". Leaders of western nations, sometimes gritting
their teeth, announced that they were with us in our hour of need. Leaders
of other countries, noting that there seemed room for a lot of ground
in the middle, were subjected to diplomatic and economic pressure, and
generally came around to the US side. Individuals, particularly those
inside the US, who pointed out that the polarized choice was ridiculous,
or that the US had, by its own actions, set the stage for the 9/11 attacks,
were asked pugnatiously why they hated America so much, and disparaged
as some sort of "blame America first" movement.
Clearly, the events of September 11 shattered an American cultural
icon, and the American populace was reacting by aggressively embracing
and protecting as many remaining icons as it possibly could. The icon
shattered that September morning was not the New York skyline - heck,
before they were destroyed, many folks found the twin towers an architectural
eyesore. No, the icon destroyed was the myth of American invulnerability.
In the past, American interests might suffer from foreign attack, or
American troops overseas might take casualties, but American territory
was thought to be proof against attack.
America's dominant position in the world is, in times of peace, thought
of as primarily economic. But James Chace, Professor of Government and
Public Law at Bard College, has noted that "the growth of the American
empire has come about not so much through a search for economic well-being
as through a quest for absolute security, that is to say, invulnerability."
The myth of American invulnerability, and the cultural dogma of inherent
American superiority which accompanies it, have their roots in the deeper
and more widely-held myth of American exceptionalism. That is, the largely
unspoken - because there's no need to speak of the obvious - belief
that America, as a nation, a country, a culture is somehow special.
Other countries and their citizens may have serious limitations or flaws;
not America. Other countries and cultures may be subject to the patterns
of history; not America. Other countries might lose wars or have their
territory invaded; but not America. In its modern variant, American
exceptionalism propounds that capitalism and two-party democracy are
the natural result of an evolutionary process which started at the dawn
of civilization; they are clearly superior to all other economic and
social systems, the result was fore-ordained, there could have been
no other.
The myth of exceptionalism runs deep throughout American popular culture.
With the possible exception of our British ally James Bond, who but
an American is allowed to save the world, according to Hollywood, or
Robert Ludlum, or the Fox News Channel? What nation's President is "the
leader of the Free World"? What country offers its citizens the
highest standard of living in history? What colors don't run? Who's
"always right and never wrong, that's what I learned in school"?
Whose president said "My administration has a job to do and we're
going to do it. We will rid the world of evil-doers."?
Any middle-school American history teacher will tell you that the myth
of American exceptionalism began with the "Pilgrims", with
the settling of America by people seeking religious freedom. And it's
true that the Puritan founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony saw themselves
as creating an exception. Their avowed intent was to "purify"
Christian society, to serve as an example to England and the rest of
the world, to be as "a city on a hill" for all to see and
marvel at. They set out to create "a redeemer nation".
The actual accomplishments of the Puritans were somewhat less distinguished.
They considered hijacking the Mayflower (advertised as sailing for Virginia,
the intended destination of the non-Puritan majority of passengers),
they may have bribed the crew to sail North of both Virginia (controlled
by Anglicans) and New Amsterdam (controlled by the Dutch), they burgled
the homes and robbed the graves of the Indians who lived at Plymouth
before their arrival and, when they had created their theocracy, they
learned that Cromwell's Puritan government considered them extremists,
and didn't much want them back.
So why are the Pilgrims so deeply engrained in the American sense of
identity? Why, if asked when America was first settled, do most college
freshmen answer "1620"? A large part of the answer lies in
Abraham Lincoln's establishment of Thanksgiving as a national holiday
in 1863. Lincoln's aim was to promote a national sense of unity (a commodity
in short supply in 1863). He chose Thanksgiving as a way to promote
not only unity, but a sense of moral superiority and godliness. Ironically,
the folks we now know as the Pilgrims (a term first applied in the 1870's)
weren't mentioned in Lincoln's original proclamation; their Thanksgiving
story was grafted onto the national holiday during the 1890's, at about
the same time as flag-worship became a part of the American civic religion
(and for the same reason, in reaction to waves of non-British immigrants).
America's sense of exceptionalism has been promoted in order to create
or reinforce a sense of identity among people with little shared history,
to distinguish "real Americans" from "newcomers",
and to rally support around the government. Deborah Madsen, a professor
of English at London's South Bank University, describes exceptionalism
as "the notion that Americans have a distinct and special destiny,
different from that of other nations", and calls it "the single
most powerful force in forming the American identity".
Indeed, it is the formation of that identity, through a sort of national
creation myth, that lingers still. Many of the less subtle expressions
of cultural superiority (Social Darwinism, Manifest Destiny, hopefully
Trickle-Down Economics) have been discarded along the wayside. But that
sense of identity and participation in a special destiny has remained,
unspoken and pervasive.
And, as we have all experienced, when myth and reality conflict within
the sphere of human emotion, myth typically wins out. We tend not to
accept, either denying or discounting, any facts which conflict with
our deeply held beliefs about ourselves. In this way, our myths of identity
and exceptionalism have worked against us. We have become prone to a
sort of national hubris. We decline to see ourselves as others
see us, and to see others as they truly are.
For instance, President Bush has declared us repeatedly to be a peace-loving
people. Woodrow Wilson said "America is the only idealistic nation
in the world", and described the US as the leading defender of
self-determination for all the world's subjugated peoples. These are
surely statements with which most US citizens would agree, yet they
are demonstrably incorrect.
To say that the US is idealistic (or at least has citizens who are)
is reasonable, but to say that no other nation is or has such is ridiculous.
Idealists exist in every culture. Idealistic nations include Canada,
Iceland, Switzerland, the UK, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, North Korea
and Zimbabwe. These cultures may not always share our ideals, but they
hold ideals dear, nonetheless.
Ask about love for peace, and the popular notion is that we've fought
maybe 8 major wars since the Revolution. But the truth is, we have sent
our troops into harms way some 240 times since 1798. On average, that's
8 times every 7 years. We've sent troops, uninvited or for purposes
of suppressing the local population to every part of the world except
Scandinavia, Tibet, the Indian subcontinent, and portions of Oceania
and Africa. We've invaded sovereign nations in order to rescue freebooters
and blockade runners, force trade upon unwilling partners, influence
succession to the throne, avenge an insult to our Consul, and protect
the property and interests of Americans and American corporations too
numerous to list. We have a list of victims that would make the old
"evil empire" itself green with envy. And, we are still the
world record holder in atomic weapons used (against primarily civilian
targets, by the way).
And to say that America's role is to defend self-determination for
the world's peoples is particularly ironic. Can anyone here name an
Arab monarchy we don't support? What about self-determination for Arabs?
And the list of dictators the US has imposed, the list of elected leaders
we have deposed or had assassinated, the number of national elections
we have interfered with goes on and on. Just in the last year, we have
interfered with a free election in Nicaragua and supported an attempted
coup in Venezuela.
There is ample reason for the peoples of the second and third worlds
to look on our protestations of purity with skepticism.
And our recent record in North Africa, the Middle East and western
Asia is particularly shameful. In (sometimes unsuccessful) efforts to
advance our own interests over those of their respective citizens, we
have supported
- a coup in Syria;
- a coup in Egypt;
- assassination, a coup and decades of repression in Iran;
- assassination, a coup, and decades of repression in Iraq;
- a coup in, and an invasion of, Lebanon;
- a coup and bombing in Libya;
- civil war, a coup and years of oppression in Afghanistan;
- bombing in the Sudan;
- decades of oppression in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
All this without even bringing up the Israeli/Palestinian issue.
Is it truly surprising that someone, operating out of one of these
countries, should finally manage to find a way to strike back?
Our culture of exceptionalism makes it difficult, nearly impossible,
for us to see that those who attacked us are acting just as we would
act, were we in their position. Islamic fundamentalists don't have a
monopoly on terrorism, George Washington practiced terrorism
(indeed, he practiced it against the Iroquois not too far from where
Syracuse now stands). The US Army practiced terrorism during the Civil
War, and against numerous Indian nations. The repeated US practice of
strategic bombing is based explicitly upon the desire to terrorize civilian
populations. If US citizens had endured nearly the mistreatment Arab
peoples have at the hands of this country and its agents, we would attack
our oppressors with every means at our disposal, and celebrate wildly
any terror or damage we were able to inflict.
The truth of the matter is, our circumstances in this country have
been exceptional, but we as a nation of human beings are simply not.
In infant mortality, we rank behind at least 18 other developed nations.
In life expectancy, behind at least 15.
In foreign aid per capita, behind at least 6. Factor that for income
level, and we're behind at least 16.
We're exceptional in our military spending - first among developed
nations at over $1000 per year per person. And we have the strongest
relative reliance of all developed nations on military spending to achieve
our international aims - 40 times as much on military might as on foreign
aid - Italy is number two, at 16:1.
(By the way, those numbers predate the Bush buildup in spending for
military and homeland security - they're doubtless worse now.)
We don't even have the highest standard of living among developed nations,
as much as we'd like to pretend we do.
President Bush, speaking on October 11, said memorably, "I'm amazed
that there is such misunderstanding of what our country is about, that
people would hate us. I am, I am - like most Americans, I just can't
believe it. Because I know how good we are …". Our culture
of exceptionalism doesn't prevent the rest of the world from seeing
us for who we are, it only prevents us from seeing ourselves accurately.
We don't care about citizens of other countries, because we don't see
them (particularly if they're poor, or of color) as being like us. We
spend only about $25 per capita, annually, on foreign aid which improves
other people's lives. Remember, we spend about $1000 per person on our
military, which ends other people's lives.
Put it this way: if we were willing to spend on our military only as
much per citizen as the Italians do (and they're in second place), we
could free up $106 billion per year to help people with. That is, we
could increase our foreign aid by a factor of over 15.
Or, if you prefer, we could keep our military spending at the same
level as it was a couple of years ago, and simply take the additional
funding President Bush has proposed, and use that for foreign aid. If
we did, we could raise about a quarter of a billion people out of poverty.
That's one person raised out of poverty for every man, woman and child
in the USA.
It's been said (perhaps a bit too neatly) that America has never failed
to win a war, nor to lose a peace. We can change that, if we really
want to.
What we need, as a nation, to really achieve both prosperity and security
is to get over our EXCEPTionalism, and imbue our culture with ACCEPTionalism.
Prosperity, because think of the tremendous market opportunity constituted
by a quarter of a billion people no longer poor. It's not China or India,
but it's big.
And security, because no one attacks Santa Claus. If we were to spend
an additional $50 or $100 billion per year on foreign aid (and remember,
like military spending, much of that comes home to American workers
in the form of purchases of American goods), if we were to spend that
much we'd be giving out far more foreign aid than the rest of the world
put together. Combine that with a modest decrease in military spending
(we could still be number 1, if we thought it necessary), and we could
reshape our whole image. Not just to the rest of the world, but to ourselves.
(Right now, we're not Santa Claus, we're more like the Grinch.)
So, what has this got to do with UU-ism?
Well, other than pushing us into the public discourse to propound a
set of government policies consistent with our stated principles and
purposes, other than thinking that UU-ism has something to offer America
and the world, maybe nothing.
On the other hand, maybe we, as a denomination, are guilty of a little
exceptionalist thinking ourselves.
Exceptionalism requires that you define yourself as the exception.
Being the exception means being different from the rule, different from
the majority. Defining yourself as different, at the very least, invites
you to define yourself by what you're not. And defining ourselves by
what we're not (rather than by what we are) is a charge long hurled
at UU-ism.
If we can bring ourselves to understand that Americans really aren't
as different from other people as our somewhat parochial culture has
led us to believe, maybe we can follow that with the understanding that
UU's aren't as different from adherents to many other religious faiths.
Truth be told, many liberal Christians have doubts about God as an old
white guy with a beard. They're just more willing to accept the metaphor
than many of us are. They sort the message out of the myth, letting
their priests and preachers prattle on and taking home what fits their
lives. Many of them have the same aspirations, the same values as you
and I. In a moral or ethical quandary, many of them would make the same
choices we would. The big difference, perhaps, is that they're not as
metaphorically challenged, as insistent on literal truth or scientific
consistency, as many of us are.
Why does this matter? Well, if we UU's weren't so hung up on fending
off what we don't believe (winning the war), maybe we could accomplish
more good in the world.
Our principles are a great starting point, if we are willing to demand
that our government live up to them.
The inherent worth and dignity of every person applies not just to
Americans, but to individuals from all nations, all cultures, all parts
of the world.
The use of the democratic process is not limited to Americans, but
can be of benefit to all countries. After all, if folks in other lands
have inherent worth and dignity, how can we support dictatorships and
monarchies which oppress them?
The goal of world community requires support of all international laws,
not just those which advantage Americans above citizens of other countries.
We need to get past the idea that, as Hofstra Law Professor Peter Spiro
says, "the United States can pick and choose the international
conventions and laws that serve its purpose and reject those that do
not. Call it international law a la carte."
Respect for the interconnected web of all creation requires that we
participate in, in fact lead, treaties and other efforts to preserve
the ability of the Earth to support all life, including promotion of
healthy living environments for all.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) has issued a statement: "If we delude
ourselves that we are simply misunderstood rather than that our policies
are arrogant and insensitive, … then our present agenda will e
nothing more than an articulation of narrow self-interest instead of
common cause with the rest of the world." Can we as UU's maintain
our self respect, if we say anything less forceful?
Whether or not we believe, as individuals, in the God of Christianity,
maybe we can help our president remember that he chose Jesus as his
favorite political philosopher, and not Jeremiah.
Francis Fukayama, professor of Political Economy at Johns Hopkins,
commented on September 15 that the events of September 11 spelled the
death of American exceptionalism. He said that our country "now
has little choice but to give up its self-absorption and join the rest
of the world." So far, the actions taken by our government have
not bolstered his position.
But maybe, just maybe, if we are willing to undertake some UU ACCEPTionalism,
we can help America to win the peace.
