What Makes America Different?
By Richard Larsen
At the NATO Summit in Strasbourg, France, in 2009 our president said, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
Contrary to what some among us erroneously assume, American exceptionalism is not some obtuse reference to Americans being any better than anyone else in the world. It doesn’t mean that our products are somehow superior, or that we’re any more erudite than the inhabitants of any other country. It simply means that, as a nation, America was exceptional in how it was founded and the precepts upon which it was established are unique and unparalleled in all of human history.
There has never been anything so unique and exceptional in the rising up of a new nation than one being established according to declared inalienable individual and collective rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In an era when monarchs, rulers, autocrats and aristocrats governed according to their whims and disposition based primarily on caste or bloodline, a motley collection of men steeped in classical-liberal principles led a revolution and established a nation dedicated to individual freedom.
Those precepts were the foundation to 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 inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” There is nothing more exceptional in human history than those two sentences and the nation that resulted from their utterance: a nation that derived its “just” powers from the “consent of the governed.”
A decade later, a structural document creating the governmental framework by which the tenets articulated in the Declaration of Independence were codified, was ratified by the colonies. That document, our Constitution, stated specifically what our national government would do in no uncertain terms, and whatever powers were not specified or enumerated, were “reserved to the states respectively or to the people.”
That concept of limited governmental power and maximum individual freedom is the embodiment of American exceptionalism and is the reason for our holiday this past week. It is a time for us to reflect on the historical significant of a nation being so founded, intentionally constructed in such a way as to prevent tyrants, despots, and bureaucrats from usurping the authority and power of the people. While we may seem so far removed from those ideals today, the poignant reflection on the historicity of the day should stir something deep within our souls for a return to such principles.
We can also reflect upon, and celebrate the lives and contributions of those who fought and died for those principles. Not just in our revolutionary era, but with each successive generation from that time. None have given more, and sacrificed more, than our men and women in uniform, who have carried high the banner of freedom onto foreign lands to defend life and liberty, and vanquish tyranny.
Those who don the nation’s uniform take an oath of fealty to the Constitution, and that they will defend it against all foes, foreign and domestic. I often reflect how all of us, as citizens, should take a similar oath. For if we did, the abuses of power, usurped and purloined from the citizens, would be so much less likely to occur than we observe on a nearly daily basis in news emanating from our seats of government.
In our reflection of the historical significance of the day, may we catch a glimpse of the fervor that filled the hearts and souls of those earliest of patriots. They were so willing to give all that they had, including their very lives, for the freedom for which they yearned. Yet collectively, we allow that very liberty to be frittered away on a daily basis by ostensibly well-intentioned politicians who, through new legislation, laws, and Acts, limit individual freedom and liberty, and engorge government with ever increasing power to harass, subjugate, and rule over us. With each such law, we become less citizens of a republic based on freedom, and increasingly subjects to an omnipotent and omniscient government.
If we are to truly celebrate Independence Day, let us recommit to those principles for which our forebears struggled that we might enjoy the fruits thereof. Let’s not allow their sacrifices to have been in vain, but let us take up the torch of Lady Liberty, with the fire of freedom burning within our souls, and recommit to those founding doctrines that made America unique and exceptional in all of human history.
AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.
Very insightful – outstanding analysis. Of course, it will offend the libs but I’ve never discovered anything else the libs are good except offending.
Was this written by the same Richard Larsen who just last week condemned our founding fathers procedures in determining the constitutionality of an Act? Thanks to anti-government greedy conservative extremists like Mr. Larsen, our country is no longer exceptional.
Tom -
Many of us are exceptionally weird – doesn’t that count?
Tom, apparently it isn’t for I can’t recall a time when I’ve ever been critical of the founding fathers. You’ve obviously confused me with someone else you’ve perused recently.
Tom,
You guarantee exceptionality is an fluke. That and you quote yourself more often than you quote anything else.
Indeed what is constitutional, ask Obama, he gets to say. Started out with 6 Justices, then seven and then 9 and once 10 but back to 9 now. All Constitutional, right? It’s in the General Welfare Clause that everything can be made constitutional. Not a mandate but a tax. Taxes are constitutional but mandates aren’t? Oh, the webs we weave in this world of ours.
So obviously Obama has no idea what American exceptionalism is. Thank you for including his quote I’d forgotten about it. And of course Tom is confused. He’s always confused. Why should we expect anything else from him? Fantastic article, Richard! Wish we could’ve read this before the 4th, but it’s something we can and should remember all the time. Great job!
Thank you Mr. Larsen! I’ve been saying all along – “Stand up and be counted”! Well put Sir!
John, you’re exactly right. And I would’ve had this one run last week had it not been for the Supreme Court on Obamacare. That bumped it a week. Sorry about that.
Skezix, thank you, and you’re exactly right. We can all make a difference if we’re willing to do so.
Hi Rick,
You have a political science degree, so where were you when the other students were reading about the influence of John Locke (separation of powers; separation of church and state) and David Hume?
Not to mention the Constitution of the Iroquois Confederation and the references to Islamic law in Jefferson’s law books and hundreds of others who took law degrees then.
Our founders were students of the European Enlightenment and our founding documents would not have been possible without those “liberal” (in the true sense of the world) thinkers. These ideas are not unique and all of us stand on the shoulders of giants who were not Americans.
The founders’ liberal Christianity also came from Europe not out of whole cloth. I have gathered a lot of evidence at http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/foundfathers.htm.
As to limited government, what about Hamilton’s national bank and his wise proposal to bail out the war debt of all the states? And thanks to some good historians’ research, we now know that the federal government required ship owners to buy insurance (gasp!) And how about that Republican Lincoln who signed the Morrill Act, the greatest single government program that made us the agricultural and engineering marvel of the world.
And, as I have argued, the founders would not have viewed corporations as persons. (Damned activist judges!) For them only God and humans (only on the quickening of the fetus) were persons.
As for our soldiers, they are indeed the best in the world, but that doesn’t mean that other countries do not have brave ones as well. I know many Vietnam vets who admired the grit and guts of the Viet Cong and the NVA. They defied one general’s desire to “bomb them back to the Stone Ages.”
And while we are on the subject, whose freedom did our great sacrifices in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan protect? Certainly not ours. Have you been reading about how the Iraqis are now using their freedom, or how the Afghans will abuse theirs when we leave? Tens of thousands of good American lives lost in vain!
As for you and your fellow constitutionalists, I will side with expert judges who for over 200 years have expanded and generally improved the living document that it is today, rather than the dead letters that you worship and claim to know the “true” meaning of.
Mr. Gier,
John Locke was a 17th century English philosopher. Not exactly a good source of what you aver. Spent some time in exile for being on a non-popular side.
Jefferson wasn’t the first choice to write what he did, maybe we should have waited for the first choice?
John Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government” is widely recognized as the main source of the political philosophy of our Constitution. Whether he was popular or not is totally irrelevant!
Nick, thank you for reaffirming my point. The Lockean Creed is central to our founding. It was, however, interesting that you chose to quibble over minutia while ignoring the thesis of the piece.
It is those very classical-liberal ideals that make America unique, something obviously lost on BHO, per his 2009 statement. Yet here he is, over the past couple of months, all full of “American exceptionalism,” yet he couches it in the same erroneous context that he did then: devoid of a knowledge of history and ascribing our “exceptionalism” to us somehow being “better” than the rest of the world. I rather believe he may have even gotten a better understanding of these principles at UI, for he obviously didn’t get any factual representation of American history at Harvard. I’ve always felt an Ivy League education was severely overrated, and he proves it nearly every day, from history to economics, and everything in between.
Just saw this today proving even more how stupid our community organizer in chief is.
When Obama stopped in at Master Lock in Milwaukee, Wisconsin last week, he was walking the plant and stopped to talk with a plant employee and looked up at the banner hanging on the wall and said to the worker and people around him, “It is great to be in a union shop, especially one as old as this union is ” – - – - pointing to the banner. He then said, “A Union shop since 1848″ – - – and then he went on to talk on what that banner stood for and how important it was to display it and show your union support.
The worker then said to Obama that it was the flag of the State of Wisconsin – - which was founded in 1848.
This was only reported by a local radio station in Milwaukee (1130AM) and not by the major news networks – - – they didn’t want to embarrass this “got no friggin’ clue” President!
Since they didn’t do their job of reporting on this presidential visit, the only way for the news to get around is by us – on the Internet.
Do your job; I just did mine, so voters will know what really happened here and just HOW BRIGHT THIS PRESIDENT REALLY IS !!!??? NOT!!
Hi Rick,
I did not ignore your thesis, nor did I reaffirm it. You claim that the precepts on which his nation was founded were unique and exceptional, but I pointed out that they came from the European Enlightenment, the Iroquois Confederation, Islam, and many other influences.
Americans did not invent classical liberalism as you imply in your column. There were liberal political parties all over Europe and they persist down to the present. These European liberals have been political opponents to the Labor Party in England and the Social Democrats on the continent.
Professors at Harvard teach this history and philosophy a lot better than anyone at the UI. Your mean-spirited critique of one of the most intelligent and well educated president we’ve ever had does not due you any credit at all.
Obama’s statement is a truism: citizens of every decent country should be patriots and be proud of their nations’ achievements. But none of them can claim to have precepts that are unique and exceptional. Liberal democracies around the world are proud to claim the same Lockean political philosophy of separation of powers and the consent of the governed. To claim otherwise is unhistorical, presumptuous, and just plain ignorant.
Nick, that was nicely contorted, though totally misrepresented. I made no claim to those principles being American in origin.
Please read again what I was was exceptional about America.
“There has never been anything so unique and exceptional in the rising up of a new nation than one being established according to declared inalienable individual and collective rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In an era when monarchs, rulers, autocrats and aristocrats governed according to their whims and disposition based primarily on caste or bloodline, a motley collection of men steeped in CLASSICAL-LIBERAL PRINCIPLES led a revolution and established a nation dedicated to individual freedom.
Those precepts were the foundation to 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 inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” There is nothing more exceptional in human history than those two sentences and the nation that resulted from their utterance: a nation that derived its “just” powers from the “consent of the governed.”
I capitalized a critical segment that you must’ve missed in your hasty misrepresentation. You seem to know what classical-liberal philosophy is, so why did you choose to ignore it in context?
If you are to disprove my thesis, please identify for me some other nation that has been so uniquely founded on those classical-liberal ideals, of life, liberty, and property. I really don’t know how you could’ve distorted that quite as severely as you did.
If Obama was so intelligent, I wish he would show signs of it. The only sign immediately perceivable is his oratorical skills, which fade dramatically in absence of a teleprompter. I guess he learned how to read well, then.
And no, his statement is not a truism. He’s talking about patriotism. Most nations are worthy of some fealty based on feelings of patriotism. If he had said, “I believe in American patriotism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British patriotism and the Greeks believe in Greek patriotism,” it would’ve been a truism. But that’s not what he said. What makes America exceptional is how, and under what precepts, she was founded. To claim otherwise is unhistorical, presumptuous, and just plan ignorant.
Richard, Nick knows better, but I think he’s kind of like Jimmy Carter is now, just trying to rewrite history to make himself relevant.
Oh, here’s that intelligent president we have from harvard. http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobamavideos/youtube/obama-57-states.htm
Golly, he’s so smart! Must’ve attended Nick’s classes.
Here’s another one of our president who is so smart. A 41 minute speech given in Aman, Jordan, of which a full 7 minutes is uhs! He really has a problem when he doesn’t have a teleprompter!
http://video.ezinemark.com/barack-obama-stuttering-uh-montage-46e850b7168.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-chair-invested-swiss-banks-foreign-drug-companies-and-state-bank-india_648350.html
But she’s not suspect and doesn’t have to produce what Romney does? How does that not work?
“Disclosure forms reveal that Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of Congress from Florida, previously held funds with investments in Swiss banks, foreign drug companies, and the state bank of India. This revelation comes mere days after the Democratic chair attacked presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for holding money in Swiss bank accounts in the past.”
But only Romney has things that needs to scrutinized to death?
Ward,
Show me I lied.
Oh… that’s too bad, we saw a nice exchange before a couple of addled brains became involved. It seems there’s room for one more.
I was intrigued to see a defense of American Exceptionalism. Of course, it totally missed the point, a point Nick skewered anyway. WHO CARES AT THIS VERY MOMENT HOW WE WERE FOUNDED????? Show me something in the NOW! How do we as a people stack up in the things that really matter? American’s see themselves as somehow “exceptional”, God’s chosen people. This is well established. They see it in our monetary system, our form of capitalism, etc. However, certainly not in any measure of happiness, poverty, health, incarceration, violence, education, etc. NO! Socialist democracies (we are surely one, albeit lackluster) best the US in all these categories.
Of course, Rick and many other Americans suffer from a supreme lack of perspective.
Max,
Yeah, latest Gallup say 44% think only one guy is so great. That’s a definite lack of perspective. The bought and paid for by other tax payer funds? I think the genus called American might be getting low in number.
Max, you made the same mistake Nick did, jumping at unsubstantiated conclusions. I “skewered” your notion of “American exceptionalism,” which is identical to “the One’s.”
Since you obviously missed it, here’s the 2nd paragraph again, for your corrective benefit.
“Contrary to what some among us erroneously assume, American exceptionalism is not some obtuse reference to Americans being any better than anyone else in the world. It doesn’t mean that our products are somehow superior, or that we’re any more erudite than the inhabitants of any other country. It simply means that, as a nation, America was exceptional in how it was founded and the precepts upon which it was established are unique and unparalleled in all of human history.”
And, in case you missed it, we just celebrated our nation’s birthday, which is what the column was geared around. I address what you refer to as “the NOW” every week. Occasionally we need to step back to look at the big picture and examine our roots. This was intended to be such a reflective piece.
Rick, no, it wasn’t missed. Instead, I was taking a step back to look at the bigger picture. I would suggest American’s do think they themselves are somehow special, God’s chosen people. This is well established.
IMO, talking about American exceptionalism gives people a bloated sense of cultural self.
Max, you’re confusing individual exceptionalism (egotism) with American exceptionalism, they are not synonymous, nor are they necessarily connected philosophically.
Do you dislike China and Communism? Then you may want to think twice before you vote for Mitt Romney in 2012.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/bain-capital-mitt-romney-outsourcing-china-global-tech
PS.
“I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in. That’s the America I love.” “ I’m not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said whatever it was.” –Mitt Romney.
Tom, even you should be smarter than to rely on anything promulgated by Mother Jones! You’ve obviously not been keeping up on the debunked claims of the Obama campaign.
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
Pay special attention to the paragraph, “But after reviewing numerous corporate filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, contemporary news accounts, company histories and press releases, and the evidence offered by both the Obama and Romney campaigns, we found no evidence to support the claim that Romney — while he was still running Bain Capital — shipped American jobs overseas.”
Mother Jones (abbreviated MoJo) is an American independent news organization, featuring investigative and breaking news reporting on politics, the environment, human rights, and culture. Mother Jones has been nominated for 23 National Magazine Awards and has won six times, including for General Excellence in 2001, 2008, and 2010. (Wow, a whole 3 years out of 10 and 6 out of 23) In addition, Mother Jones also won the Online News Association Award for Online Topical Reporting in 2010 and the Utne Reader Independent Press Award for General Excellence in 2011. (Everybody knows those awards, right?)
With a paid circulation of 200,000, Mother Jones magazine is among the most widely read liberal publications in the United States. (And Playboy is down to 1.5 million)[citation needed] Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery serve as co-editors. Madeleine Buckingham has served as Chief Executive Officer and Steve Katz as Publisher since 2010.
The magazine was named after Mary Harris Jones, called Mother Jones, an Irish-American trade union activist, opponent of child labor, and self-described “hellraiser.” She was a part of the Knights of Labor, the Industrial Workers of the World, the Social Democratic Party, the Socialist Party of America, the United Mine Workers of America, and the Western Federation of Miners. The stated mission of Mother Jones is to produce revelatory journalism that in its power and reach informs and inspires a more just and democratic world. (Good luck)
Mother Jones is published by the Foundation for National Progress, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. Mother Jones and the FNP are based in San Francisco. Consider the source.
Tom,
Read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romney-and-his-departure-from-bain/2012/07/12/gJQAASzUfW_blog.html
But you stick with Obama and ignore the above. Somebody is desperate. Oh, guess where Obama is borrowing money from? Yup, that country.
Hi Rick,
I will be happy to give you a list of countries with ruling parties founded on classical liberal beliefs, but first I need to correct one major item: the Declaration of Indpendence changed Locke’s “life, liberty, and property” to “life, liberty, and happiness,” a major and significant change, right?
I agree with our founders that there is a lot more to life than owning property and making money. As the great religious prophets of the world have shown, one can be happy without either.
OK, all you have to do is go to the website for the Liberal International, which is meant to compete with and oppose the Socialist International, although parties from each organization sometimes form coalitions as in Denmark today.
Here are the goals of the Liberal International:
“to win general acceptance of Liberal principles which are international in their nature throughout the world, and to foster the growth of a free society based on personal liberty, personal responsibility and social justice, and to provide the means of co-operation and interchange of information between the member organisations, and between men and women of all countries who accept these principles.
The principles that unite member parties from Africa, the Americas, Asia and Europe allegedly are: respect for human rights, free and fair elections and multi-party democracy, social justice, tolerance, free market economy, free trade, environmental sustainability and a strong sense of international solidarity.”
Full membership (parties are kicked out if they violate classical liberal principles) includes over 60 nation states.
In Europe here are the liberal parties that are leading their countries: Liberal Democrats (UK) in coalition with the Conservatives; Belgian liberals in coalition; Croatian Liberals in coalition; Danish liberals in coalition with Social Democras (gasp!); Finnish Liberals in coalition; German Free Democrats in coalition with German Conservatives; Dutch Liberals leading the coalition; and Swedish Liberals in coalition with Conservatives. Yes, there are lots of conservatives and liberals even in Sweden.
Now to claim that these liberal parties are not unique and exceptional in their conformity with classical liberal principles is presumptuous. You will have to show me how they deviate from those principles. The ball is now in your court.
By the way, how do you know that Obama meant by American exceptionalism that we are better than others. I bet you a lot of money that that was definitely not what he meant. He bet he was talking about patriotism.
Oh, I forgot one. The liberal Free Democratic Party of Switzerland rules in a board coalition with Social Democrats.
Nick, if this was a test, you’d get an “F.” And not just an “F,” but a “0.”
The assignment was, “identify for me some other nation that has been so uniquely founded on those classical-liberal ideals, of life, liberty, and property.”
“Parties,” which you spent your entire comment on, are not “nations.”
“Classical-liberal ideals” are, in most cases, antithetical to, not synonymous with, contemporary “liberal” ideals as you explicated.
Good attempt at misdirection, but your shot was in the opposite direction of the target.
BHO may have been talking about either one of those, neither of which is what American exceptionalism means or is based upon. It’s clear, however you read that comment in 2009 or his more recent ones on the campaign trail, that he has no concept thereof!
Rick said: “Max, you’re confusing individual exceptionalism (egotism) with American exceptionalism, they are not synonymous, nor are they necessarily connected philosophically.”
Am I? It is true, some are confused by the notion, a simple Google search of “American Exceptionalism” returns many documents displaying the bloated sense of cultural self I mentioned previously. I’m sorry you can’t see the connection.
Max,
That’s all right, google can’t see either. Do you know how to do Boolean searches. I recommend EBSCO Host rather than google for the good stuff.
Hi Rick,
Once again: it is “happiness” not “property.” Jefferson made the change for a very good reason.
Did you read the statement of principles of the Liberal International? Classical liberalism thorough and thorough. Political parties have built nations, and English liberals built the capitalist nation that we now know as the UK. Those nasty Laborites and Social Democrats came much, much later. Classical liberals used to be on the left side of the political spectrum, and now, contrary to your inaccurate account, they are right in the middle, having been pushed there by Social Democrats, who have now been pushed to the center by more doctrinaire socialists.
Orignally, English conservatives did not believe in free markets or free trade, but liberal political parties always did and still do. For example, the German Free Democrats are always asking for big tax cuts.
There is nothing unique about the spread of liberal democracy around world. All these countries–some more successful than others–have been built on the classical liberal principles stated in the Liberal International website.
It’s really tacky to hand out grades to people, especially because you have not done sufficient research yourself about the history of classical liberalism.
It is also really tacky and illogical to make ad hominem arguments against Obama. You now admit that you don’t really know what he meant by exceptionalism, but you made it the premise of your entire column.
So the guy who’s complaining that it’s tacky to hand out grades is also the same fellow who, several months ago, apparently had no problem in making a rather smug reference to me in saying I was an inspiration for his column on immigration in Europe?
The same fellow who, while refuting my arguments on the online blog, made cutesy remarks about how hungry he was but decided to keep refuting me anyways (cocky much?)
What an odd world we live in.
Blogging does have it’s odd moments. Got that right.
Nick, no it isn’t “happiness.” I referred very specifically to the classical-liberal ideals that inspired our founding fathers. The Lockean Creed specifically stated “life, liberty, and property.” THAT was the inspiration. Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, changed it to “pursuit of happiness.” Which in a way, has altered the American interpretation by equating property with pursuit of happiness. For most of the state constitutions, including Idaho’s, reiterates it as stated in the Lockean Creed.
Further, your attempt to equate your party objectives with classical-liberalism is clearly disingenuous. The objectives start out well, “personal liberty and personal responsibility,” and then they throw in “social justice.” Nick, even you should know that that’s code word for economic egalitarianism, i.e. socialism! That’s as antithetical to classical-liberalism as you can get!
Nor is it “tacky and illogical,” nor “ad hominem” in my criticism of Obama. As elucidated in the column, American exceptionalism is based on the uniqueness of our founding principles as a nation. Clearly Obama doesn’t understand that, for in his quote, he said he believes in it like the Brits or the Greeks believe in it for them. Neither the British monarchy nor the modern Greek nation were founded as was America on those precepts. Which means he could only have been talking about patriotism or some nationalistic sentiment. It’s deduction, Nick. Have you lost that as well?