In defense of Anglo-American exceptionalism

[Yossarian]

People here occasionally take issue with the notion that there is anything better about our society than some others. Here's an easy read highlighting the value of the Anglosphere and why it's worth preserving:

Keep Free and Carry On (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303289904579195922823363280)

(and maybe also a counterpoint to the celebration of socialism on the neighboring thread :~))

[Tradd]

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed that article.

[redfox]

Colonialism, empire, and economic tyranny by nicer names.

[Yossarian]

Colonialism, empire, and economic tyranny by nicer names.

I'm sure there is a valid counterpoint out there somewhere, but that's a total whiff.

[befree]

You got colonialism and tyranny out of that? I got individual freedom, peace, and opportunity out of it.

[creaker]

It's in line with the history I was taught in school - basically that it was all lined up to put us where we are now.

Of course that's as long as you don't examine the demographics of "us" too closely.

[razz]

The key point that I got from the article was the option of individual choice rather than tribalism or autocracy. While one could argue that the Netherlands, France, Spain, Portugal and other countries also had colonies, empires and tyranny, the Anglosphere has allowed the power and rights of the individual which is something for which I am very grateful.

[Lainey]

How many times have we heard this same phrase from the WSJ and other places: "they look to the government to solve their problems."

Yet when the 2008 economic collapse happened, where did the banksters look to 'to solve their problems'? This is my problem with essays like this. If an individual needs government help, they're lazy losers. If AIG asks, they're being smart businessmen.

Individuals only have as much power now as our corpocracy allows, and if the upcoming Supreme Court case about campaign finance limits gets enacted, then all bets are off - "exceptionalism" or no.

[Yossarian]

How many times have we heard this same phrase from the WSJ and other places: "they look to the government to solve their problems."


You shouldn't confuse first choice with last resort, or think that "decisions" that are mandated or driven by your Govt regulator are somehow real choices. And I guess this would fall into "other places" since the article is from a British rep to the EU, not a WSJ editor.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I'm sure there is a valid counterpoint out there somewhere, but that's a total whiff.

I think it hinges on definitions of exceptionalism. The article writer seems to think exceptionalism means has some good ideas (yea and you know what native americans had some good ideas as well etc.). And those critiquing exceptionalism think it means not seeing much of the harm and hypocrisy that is done by one's own government/culture/whatever. That sure these states are always proclaiming all these values they believe in but their practice of them is pretty shaky as well. Like the U.S. can proclaim involuntary medical experimentation is bad (yes also in the Geneva conventions) but it has a long history of doing such and not just in the bad 'ol Obama and W years.

Btw the whole critique of Obama in the article is beyond bizarre. So early in his Presidency or something Obama said something bad about "American exceptionalism", well Obama said a lot of things early on, and they have nothing to do with how he actually governs. Must more recently Obama advocated "American exceptionalism" in an attempt to justify a war of aggression on Syria (which thankfully didn't happen). It's a very odd lead to an article for anyone who actually read Obama's Syria speech - which really isn't the most obscure thing in the world. Anyway given that the U.S and U.K. has a pretty tight grip on being a police state at this point in time (how low information are we dealing with here not to be aware of this?) it's all kind of "glory days will pass you by ... " (focused on a long gone past)


How many times have we heard this same phrase from the WSJ and other places: "they look to the government to solve their problems."

Yet when the 2008 economic collapse happened, where did the banksters look to 'to solve their problems'?

I consider this one of the most brilliant articles I've seen on the topic, a Fed insider on QE (yes it's the WSJ!):
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303763804579183680751473884

It's not just "but bankers do it too!" It's that QE represented massive wealth transfer (4 trillion to profit off of) to some very wealthy segments of society (the banks). Sure many suspected it, but there's more credibility when the dude who was involved in running the program says so.


Individuals only have as much power now as our corpocracy allows

my suspicions too, and as much freedom as our corpoocracy allows which is increasingly little. I think all those who want something out of government that for many many it's as a last resort! That's it's probably very few for which it is a first resort beyond corruption (corruption like govt. web contractors haha). But it's not like we live in a good world, and so people try to bend a power that mostly bends in the direction of the rich and powerful occasionally in their favor too, though they lose more than they win.

[Gregg]

Colonialism, empire, and economic tyranny by nicer names.

Sounds a bit like a free association between Anglo-American exceptionalism as described in the article and white privilege as often sited in other venues. I don't believe they are the same thing although it is probably possible to link the two ideas if you connect enough dots (and are flexible enough to stretch that far).

[redfox]

I think the exceptionalism stance is based upon the unearned privilege gained by colonialism & empire building, both of which are tyranny. We gained this exceptionalism at the expense of the poor and people of color. Not so exceptional.

[Gregg]

If you're looking for me to try to defend the Anglo world as perfect it won't happen. That said, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, either. There are some positive aspects of our society (personal liberty, free contract, jury trials, uncensored newspapers, regular elections, habeas corpus, open competition, secure property, religious pluralism as quoted from and described in the OP article) that barely exist, if at all, outside the Anglo sphere of influence. Some of those are truly exceptional constructs, especially in light of how things are done in other parts of the world. To acknowledge those virtues does not excuse any tyranny or oppression that is also present throughout our history, it is simply an exploration of how some of our most valuable 'pillars of democracy' came about.

[razz]

Weel said, Gregg. Nor would I defend the colonialism and the results for corporate profit. I do agree with Gregg that you are confusing two separate issues that may overlap.

I was just at the Mesopotamia exhibit in Royal Ontario Museum and saw the history and development of society. There were overlords and persecution for centuries but no legal power and worth of the individual.

The world of the Norsemen tried seeking far lands in Europe and North America to conquer, control and develop but no power and worth of the individual.

The Asian leaders such as Genghis Khan acted in similar fashion limited by the technology of their time.

As technology in shipping and war materials improved, the Dutch, the Spanish and Portuguese were able to expand at the request of royal autocrats but no legal power and worth of the individual.

The more modern versions of North American and African history does not speak of centuries of continual peace and harmony but ongoing wars as possible with their technology and persecution to gain control with slaves but no legal power and worth of the individual.

It is a newer development based on the Christian idea of the worth of each person and unique. Is it perfect? No but it does exist separate from the idea of colonialism? Absolutely.

[Yossarian]

Sounds a bit like a free association between Anglo-American exceptionalism as described in the article and white privilege as often sited in other venues. I don't believe they are the same thing although it is probably possible to link the two ideas if you connect enough dots (and are flexible enough to stretch that far).


I think the exceptionalism stance is based upon the unearned privilege gained by colonialism & empire building, both of which are tyranny. We gained this exceptionalism at the expense of the poor and people of color. Not so exceptional.

So connect away. The "exceptionalism" at issue is defined right off the bat in the article:

Most Brits do indeed believe in British exceptionalism. But here's the thing: They define it in almost exactly the same way that Americans do. British exceptionalism, like its American cousin, has traditionally been held to reside in a series of values and institutions: personal liberty, free contract, jury trials, uncensored newspapers, regular elections, habeas corpus, open competition, secure property, religious pluralism.

So connect the dots for me (without adding strawmen)- How is this derived from unearned privilege?

[kib]

So connect away. The "exceptionalism" at issue is defined right off the bat in the article:

Most Brits do indeed believe in British exceptionalism. But here's the thing: They define it in almost exactly the same way that Americans do. British exceptionalism, like its American cousin, has traditionally been held to reside in a series of values and institutions: personal liberty, free contract, jury trials, uncensored newspapers, regular elections, habeas corpus, open competition, secure property, religious pluralism.

So connect the dots for me (without adding strawmen)- How is this derived from unearned privilege?

Dot: Because traditionally 2/3 of those values and institutions excluded, either outright, through bigotry, or by way of cost, some or all of the following groups: women, minorities, immigrants and non-christians.

Dot: Therefore, the people it did include, white male citizens with money, had much more individual power, influence and ability to garner resources, make changes and procure lives that were ... exceptional.

That said, I think the values you've listed are, if honestly and equitably applied, worth holding onto. Since it's hard to imagine an argument to that idea, but the article does seem to be arguing in favor of it as if that were the objection, the extrapolation is the article is really doing a subtle promotion for blanket forgiveness of the time in which these values only applied to the lucky few.