American Unexceptionalism

Andrew Roberts has a great piece in the February issue of the American Spectator.  It was so good I had to excerpt a great deal of it:

[Winston Churchill] believed that given the will, Americans could achieve anything, because America was special. Yet today it is precisely this trust in the exceptionalism of America that is currently being called into question. History shows that nations that retain self-belief are indeed capable of astonishing feats, but those that suspect their time in the sun has passed cannot be saved, however rich they are or successful they have been.

…Such searing hatred of the American Idea from within American society-indeed from inside its cultural elite-is far more dangerous than what non-Americans feel… but much more worrying was President Barack Obama’s reply in April to a question from a Financial Times reporter about whether he believed in American exceptionalism. He said: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

This is reminiscent of what the Dodo says in Alice in Wonderland: “Everyone has won and all must have prizes.” Yet that is simply not how international relations work. Greeks might indeed believe in their own exceptionalism, as might Belgians, Thais, or Finns for that matter, but they are not truly exceptional in the light of global current affairs. The West once again looks to America for leadership in a risky world, as we so often have in the past. Although the U.S. economy was in recession in the second quarter of 2009, she pulled out of it in the third quarter. My country, Britain, is still heavily mired in recession, but nothing so cheers our markets as much as knowing that you are finally out of it. American optimism, free market beliefs, and the can-do spirit will raise the Western world out of these doldrums-at least, they will if they are permitted to by your Congress and administration. …

SO IN A RISKY WORLD, where the hegemony of the English-speaking peoples-necessarily led by America-is increasingly being encroached upon by China, India, the European Union, and other powers, will America continue to provide the global leadership she always has, ever since she erupted onto the global stage a century ago? For it was in 1909 that Teddy Roosevelt visited Hampton Roads in Virginia to witness the return, after a 14-month, 45,000-mile circumnavigation of the world, of the Great White Fleet.

On board the presidential yacht Mayflower, Roosevelt watched seven miles of bright white ships- they were painted battle-gray soon after-as they fired a 21-gun salute in his honor. “We have definitely taken our place among the world great powers,” he said afterward, and he was right. The places that the Fleet had visited subtly underlined this important new fact of global geopolitics. From Chesapeake Bay, the 16 battleships had steamed to the Caribbean, past the new possessions of Cuba and Puerto Rico, then down the east coast and up the west coast of South America, protected by the Monroe Doctrine. Each country of the Latin American part of the world cruise at which the Fleet stopped-including Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, and Mexico-could have harbored any illusions about what this massive new force portended.

After Mexico, the Fleet visited Hawaii (annexed by the U.S. in July 1898), New Zealand, and Australia, China, the (American-owned) Philippines, and then Japan. It then sailed across the Indian Ocean, through the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean, and then across the Atlantic. As a historian of America’s explosion onto the world scene recorded: “The cruise not only impressed the world with America’s newfound military strength, but excited the imagination of Americans as well. A million people had turned out in San Francisco to welcome the ships before their voyage across the Pacific.” There was no talk then of Greek exceptionalism being something that could be equated with American. …

YET ALTHOUGH THE CHALLENGES FACED by the English-speaking peoples today are undeniably challenging, they are hardly unique. History might not repeat itself, but it does occasionally rhyme. The War on Terror would be instantly recognizable to the great leaders of the English-speaking peoples of the past. Teddy Roosevelt and Winston Churchill would have heard in the overarching ambitions of the jihadists for a caliphate stretching from Spain to Indonesia an echo of the Wilhelmine ambitions that led to the first great assault on the English-speaking peoples in 1914. Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt would also have seen in the viciousness and ruthlessness of the Taliban a shadow of the swastika that fell across Europe from 1933 to 1945. Harry Truman, JFK, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher would have no difficulty in spotting the similarities between al Qaeda’s creed of universality with the Marxist dialectical claim of the Soviet Communists to eventual world domination.

What we are witnessing today is nothing less than the fourth great assault on the primacy of the English-speaking peoples from aggressive totalitarian belief systems. The methods might be different each time, but the mindset hasn’t changed. Yet what I fear might have changed is a growing unwillingness of the elites of the English-speaking peoples to continue paying the price for their liberty. The sunset clause President Obama put on his latest surge at his West Point speech is the latest example of this unwillingness.

If the United States does not provide the kind of leadership in our risky world that was provided by Churchill, the two Roosevelts, Truman, JFK, Reagan, and Thatcher, and which one day-especially in the field of homeland security-will be accorded to President Bush and Tony Blair, then we must tremble for the future. For America to listen to the siren voices of isolationism and to withdraw into herself- perhaps citing Washington’s Farewell Address as she does so-would be utterly disastrous for our planet in the 21st century. Power abhors a vacuum, and America’s withdrawal would soon be followed by the emergence of another nation that would not exhibit a fraction of America’s decency, fairness, and veneration for the popular will. …

WHEN IT COMES TO THE great power that might take America’s place as the 21st century’s hegemon, consider the field. There is the European Union, with its 500 million population, its profound anti-American prejudice, its endemic corruption-its auditors haven’t signed off its accounts in more than a decade-and the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the European project. Would Americans want the French and Germans to replace them and be bathed in the warm limelight of History’s favor? Or there’s China, a vicious totalitarian regime that treats its own massive population with cruelty and contempt, and would undoubtedly treat any other subject people worse, as the Tibetans’ experience proves. Perhaps the least bad would be India, which at least has similar political and legal systems, the rule of law and democracy, and 18 percent of whose people speak English, all thanks to the careful two-century stewardship of the British Empire. Yet can one really see India acting altruistically in areas of the world where her immediate self-interest is not evident, because her Founding Fathers imbued her nation with a noble and all-encompassing mission, as America’s did? …

The way that the United States can ensure that the world is never united against her is to abide by the spirit of the Special Relationship. I’ve lost count of the number of times that I’ve read the obituaries of people who have written obituaries of the Special Relationship, yet it is thankfully still with us, as is America’s special relationship with the rest of the English-speaking peoples. If one looks at the forces presently deployed in Afghanistan-i.e., in the vanguard of the struggle between civilization and barbarism in our world today-you see 98,000 American troops and 35,000 from the rest of NATO, of which the British make up the second largest element, with 10,000, then the Germans (in the safest province), but after that the Canadians, who have taken the larger per capita proportion of casualties, and there have been special forces contingents from faraway Australia and New Zealand, even though they are not in NATO. (This is one place where Greek exceptionalism does come into play, in that there are exceptionally few Greeks in Afghanistan.)

As Churchill put it: “It is the English-speaking peoples who, almost alone, keep alight the torch of Freedom. These things are a powerful incentive to collaboration. With nations, as with individuals, if you care deeply for the same things, and these things are threatened, it is natural to work together to preserve them.” Today, we in Britain fear that President Obama has little or no time for the Special Relationship. One of his acts on entering the Oval Office was to return the bust of Churchill given by the British embassy in the wake of 9/11 back to the embassy. More seriously, he canceled the European missile shield. Teddy Roosevelt and Lord Salisbury, Churchill and FDR, Macmillan and JFK, Reagan and Thatcher, and Bush and Blair have defined the Special Relationship, but nothing like that closeness exists between Obama and Gordon Brown. We must hope that Obama and David Cameron get on once the Conservatives win the 2010 election in Britain, for in this risky world we both need the Special Relationship.

“AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM is not just something that Americans claim for themselves,” Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute has pointed out. “Historically, Americans have been different as a people, even peculiar, and everyone around the world has recognized it. I’m thinking of qualities such as American optimism even when there doesn’t seem to be any good reason for it. That’s quite uncommon among the peoples of the world. There is the striking lack of class envy in America-by and large, Americans celebrate others’ success instead of resenting it. That’s just about unique, certainly compared to European countries, and something that drives European intellectuals crazy. And then there is perhaps the most important symptom of all, the signature of American exceptionalism-the assumption by most Americans that they are in control of their own destinies.”

It is that assumption, that sense of mastery of their own fates, that I fear might be faltering in modern America, and if so it will be the forerunner of a world historical tragedy, not just for America and the rest of the English-speaking peoples, but ultimately for the whole world. With the risks facing us today, American leadership is needed as much as ever before. America should hold on to her exceptionalism, never apologize for the American Idea, and be proud of the fact that you do things differently there.

Journalism Deny Bias – Nobody Buys It

Mike Masnick has a nice piece on the crock of journalistic unbiased-ness:

Is It So Wrong To Admit That Journalists Have Opinions Too?
from the hiding-them-doesn’t-change-that dept

There was a big kerfuffle in the journalism world over the weekend, as it was revealed late Friday that the Washington Post had rushed out new “social media guidelines” leading one editor to delete his Twitter account, and another to joke that under the new guidelines, his Twitter account would only discuss “the weather and dessert recipes.” This isn’t the first time news organizations have generated attention for coming up with restrictive social media guidelines. And, of course, one of the more ridiculous aspects of all of this was that the Washington Post didn’t reveal what those guidelines are, leading to a ton of speculation and leaving it to a competing news organization to publish the actual guidelines. A big part of the problem here was the lack of transparency from the Washington Post in the first place…

While we’re on the subject, the whole thing seems based on this platonic ideal of journalism that involves the objective, unbiased reporter. The guidelines basically tell reporters and editors that they shouldn’t say anything that suggests they actually have an opinion on something, and the editor who deleted his Twitterstream did so because it expressed an opinion on certain news events. But, it’s time we got over this. Just because people pretend to be objective, it doesn’t make them objective. Just because reporters claim to be unbiased, it doesn’t make them unbiased…

…it’s bias and opinion that goes into determining what story makes the front page, or the middle page or gets spiked. It’s about how the “facts” of the story are presented. There’s bias everywhere. Asking reporters to bite their tongue and not actually say what they think doesn’t negate the bias, and it doesn’t help readers/viewers/listeners get any closer to what’s real. It’s just a way of avoiding responsibility, avoiding the community, and avoiding doing a good job. In the meantime, as newer publications (mostly online) do away with the ridiculous idea that a party can be fully impartial, the community of people who consume and share and spread and make and comment on the news are going there. Because that’s where “the news” is best presented. – TechDirt.com

Obama President of Russia?

According to Gerald Warner Obama could be the first black Russian president as well Рhow historic is that!

Barack Obama’s chances of re-election in three and a half years’ time may be evaporating at unprecedented speed, but his presidential ambitions could still be realised in another direction. He would be a shoo-in to win the next Russian presidential election, so high is his popularity now running in the land of the bear and the knout. Obama has done more to restore Russia’s hegemonial potential in Eastern and Central Europe than even Vladimir Putin.

His latest achievement has been to restore the former satellite states to dependency on Moscow, by wimping out of the missile defence shield plan. This follows on his surrender last July when he voluntarily sacrificed around a third of America’s nuclear capability for no perceptible benefit beyond a grim smile from Putin. If there is one thing that fans the fires of aggression it is appeasement.

Despite propaganda to the contrary, 58 per cent of Poles were in favour of the missile shield. But small nations must assess the political will of larger powers. Thanks to President Pantywaist’s supine policies, the former satellite states can see that they are fast returning to their former status. The American umbrella cannot be relied upon on a rainy day. They have been here before. Poles remember how a leftist US president sold them out to Russia at Tehran and Yalta. The former Czechoslovakia was betrayed twice: in 1938 and 1945.

If the word is out that America is in retreat, it will soon find it has no friends. The satellites will pragmatically accept their restored subordination, without openly acknowledging it, and co-operate with their dangerous neighbour, ushering in a new generation of Finlandisation.

Bringing unstable states like Georgia into Nato would be a liability, not a defence. The crazy notion of a US-Nato-Russian combined defence policy has all the staying power of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Ronald Reagan, assisted by Margaret Thatcher, implemented the sensible principle that Russia, from the time of Peter the Great, respects only strength and steely political will. A pushover in the Oval Office is the best news Russian expansionists have heard since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Barack Obama is selling out America and, by extension, the entire West. This is a catastrophe for America and the wider world. – UK Telegraph

The Most Important Word Ever Spoken

You may have never thought about this, or you may think that it’s impossible to determine the most important word ever spoken. To the contrary, it is quite obvious, once I make you aware. I am referring to the single most important word ever uttered in the history of the planet! The answer is: “tetelestai”. If you think this looks like Greek, you’re right. But most historians & scholars agree that this is the language that was most likely spoken at this time & for this particular event – the most important word. And since it is absolutely that, I believe it is valuable to be able to say it, just as it was spoken. It is pronounced “teh-tel-eh-stye”. Go ahead say it. “tetelestai”. Good, don’t you love the sound of it? You will.So what does it mean? The translation can vary slightly (another reason to know the original word, so you get it exact), but is usually rendered “It is finished”, or “It has been finished” (Jn 19:30). This word was the 6th of 7 statements made by Christ on the cross. So now what does this mean? To fully appreciate it, we must first understand what was happening during this crucial time in history.

The cross of Christ is the central event of the entire universe. Everyone before it, looked forward to it, and everyone after looks back. Christ was on the cross for 6 hours (9 to 3). During the first 3 hours He took abuse from men, the jeering & mocking, etc (Mt 27:39-44). The second 3 hours He took abuse from God Himself (Mt 27:46, Is 53:4-6). This is why the sky turned dark (Mt 27:45). It was between the Father & the Son alone, too personal, too sacred for anyone else to watch. It was during this time that Christ was actually being pushed into hell to suffer the wrath of a holy God on our behalf (Rom 1:18, 1Pe 2:24). We are incapable of understanding the shock, torment, and loneliness of such an experience, especially for One who had never sinned or been separated from the Father (2Cor 5:21). But it must be so to satisfy God’s justice, the payment for sin must be made. So somehow, again beyond comprehension, in a finite amount of time, Jesus endured an infinite amount of suffering & wrath. He literally became sin for us (2Cor 5:21).

Just before 3:00 Jesus states, “I thirst” (Jn 19:28). Previously He refused anything that might reduce His suffering (Mt 27:34), but now He asks for it. Why? He was about to utter “tetelestai”. To declare to the world & all of history that the most significant accomplishment of all time had been finished (Jn 19:28). The perfect sacrifice had been made. The sinless one paid the price for all us sinners (1Pe 3:18). God’s wrath had been satisfied, and His holiness maintained (1Jn 2:2, Hab 1:13, Rom 3:21-26). To make this declaration, Jesus needed to moisten His parched mouth & throat so that He could speak loud & clear for all of us to hear, that wonderful truth of His finished work. In Mt 27:50 it says “He cried out in a loud voice.” That loud voice was “tetelestai”!! His work on earth had been finished. “tetelestai”! Truly, this was and is the most important word ever spoken. Amen?

– Daniel Kuban (5/25/09)

What’s the One Thing I’d Pass On…?

…Spend time in your Bible!

By “spending time” I mean regular, consistent, planned, quality time reading, studying, meditating on & memorizing the Word. Why? Because I can testify after a 32 years of being a student of the Word, there is no better source for life’s challenges. To be sure there are numerous excellent Christian & non-Christian authors to learn from. But “good, better & excellent” are the biggest enemies of the best! The Bible is simply the best. It contains answers for anything you’ll face.

In it you’ll learn why you should work (2Th 3:10, Ecc 5:12), how to work (Eph 6:5-8, Col 3:23), how to be a boss (Eph 6:9, Col 4:1, Mt 5:37, Pr 3:27), how to relate to your co-workers (Mt 5:42, Mt 7:12) & your boss (Col 3:22), and how to find favor before God & man (Pr 3:3,4); how to be a friend (Pr 17:17, 18:24, Jn 15:13) & how to treat your enemies (Pr 24:17, 25:21, Mt 5:44), how to be a son/daughter (Pr 31:28, Eph 6:1-3, Col 3:20), how to be a husband/wife (Eph 5:22-29, Pr 12:4), and how to be a father/mother (Pr 22:16, 23:13, Eph 6:4). You’ll also see how to run a business (Ja 4:13-15, Lev 19:11, Pr 11:1, 16:11), how to make money (Duet 8:18, 1Chr 29:12), how to give away money (Mt 6:3&4, 2Cor 9:7, Pr 3:9), how to save money (Pr 10:5, 30:24&25, 1Cor 16:1-3) & how to spend money (1Tim 6:17-19, Ecc 5:19). It even tells you how to make money in your sleep (Ps 127:2). The Bible explains how to pay your taxes (Mt 22:21, Rom 13:7) & how to drive your car (Rom 13:1,2). It teaches us how to have joy (Jn 15:11, Ph 4:4, Ja 1:2&3), and how to handle sorrow (2Cor 7:9&10, Mt 5:4), how to enjoy life (Mt 6:34, Ecc 5:18, 1Tim 6:17), how to live long (Pr 3:1,2,16, Ps 91:16), how to pray (Lk 18:1, 1Th 5:17, Mt 6:5&6) and how to make decisions (Pr 3:5,6, Ja 1:5, Jer 29:11). It tells us how to have success (Josh 1:8, Jer 9:23&24), and survive failure (Duet 31:8, Is 41:10, 2Chr 20:15, 17, 2Cor 12:9), how to survive the storms of life (Ps 30:5, 126:5&6, 2Cor 4:17), how to avoid temptation (1Cor 10:13, Heb 2:18), and how to have victory over the evil one (2Cor 10:3-5, Ja 4:7). It tutors us on how to exert personal influence (2Tim 2:2, Heb 10:24,25, 2 Thes 3:9), and who is supposed to do ministry (Mt 28:19,20, Eph 4:12). The Bible is clear on how to have sex (Gen 2:24, Heb 13:4), and how to not have sex (1Cor 6:9,16,18, Eph 5:3). It instructs us on how to be rich (1Tim 6:17, Jer 9:23,24, Mt 16:26, Ps 52:7, Pr 11:28), how to be poor (Ja 2:5, Mk 12:43), and how to be content (Ph 4:11-13, 1Tim 6:6-8). It teaches us how to live when we are young (1Tim 4:12), and when we are old (Pr 20:29, 16:31, Ps 71:9, 18, 92:14, Is 46:4) and even how to face death (Ps 23:4, 2Cor 1:9, Ecc 7:1). And finally, it declares how to find God (Jer 29:13, Lk 9:24), and be certain of everlasting life (Rom 6:23, Jn 5:24, 1Jn 5:11-13).

The Bible contains all we need (2Tim 3:16,17), and even promises a blessing for those who take the time (Rev 1:3).

— Daniel Kuban (5/5/09) after being asked for help on a high school graduation speech on mentoring/discipleship (Christian school).