AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM REVISITED

After the conclusion of a vigil for the 21 killed at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde Texas, Senator Ted Cruz was cornered by British Sky News reporter Mark Stone. Mr. Stone pointedly asked the senator: "Why do mass shootings only happen in America? Why is this American exceptionalism so awful?" Cruz, whose campaigns and political action committees are among the primary beneficiaries of financial support from the gun rights lobby, taken aback, retorted: "I am sorry you think American exceptionalism is so awful. America is the freest, most prosperous, safest country on earth!" Unfortunately, it seems that both participants in this verbal altercation missed the mark about "American exceptionalism." However, their conversation generated an impulse to clarify this much used, but mostly misunderstood, concept. "Exceptionalism" refers to the perception or belief that a species, country, society, etc. is unusual or extraordinary - implying that it is superior in some way. "American exceptionalism" involves the belief that the United States possesses qualities that make it unique and special. The concept was first identified by the French aristocrat and diplomat Alexis de Tocqueville during the 1830s when he spent ten month here studying the effects of the American Revolution on our political culture. De Tocqueville enumerated five values he considered crucial: Liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire. His conclusions were later picked up, elaborated and redefined by political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset during the 1960s. Lipset also traced the idea of exceptionalism back to the American Revolution from which the U.S. emerged as "the first new nation" with a distinct ideology - based, again, on Liberty, equality before the law, individual responsibility, republicanism and laissez-faire economics. He added "republicanism" to the value mix, which is meant to recognize the sovereignty of the people as the source of all authority under the law, rejecting monarchy, aristocracy and hereditary political power. Throughout our history, political leaders managed to develop the concept of American exceptionalism into a symbol of national identity by convincing Americans, and by extension the world, that the U.S. is both destined and entitled to play a dominant, distinct and positive role on the world stage. Especially during periods of great change and tumult, leaders sought to inspire beleaguered Americans by reminding them of their national identity, deliberately incorporating the idea of exceptionalism. Outstanding examples of oratory manipulation included references to the country as: "Empire of liberty" - Thomas Jefferson; "The last best hope of earth" - Abraham Lincoln; "The leader of the free world" - Harry Truman; "Shining city on a hill" - Ronald Reagan; and "Indispensable nation" - Madeleine Albright. Barack Obama had a contentious disposition towards American exceptionalism, considering it no different from British or Greek exceptionalism, for which he encountered significant criticism. As a dominating principle the continued strength of American exceptionalism depends domestically on the depth of our acceptance of a national identity and internationally on our perceived dominance in many domains of power - military, economic, political and cultural. This, in turn, involves the existence of a believable image and an observable reality. Internationally our arrogant shortsighted glorification of exceptionalism and military interventions have taken their toll. Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist at Stanford University, postulated that the peak period of our hegemonic strength diminished after the financial crisis of 2007-2009. Domestic challenges, which significantly affect personal beliefs in a national identity, permeate our borders as well. Society is deeply polarized, not just on political issues like taxes and abortion - it extends into a struggle over cultural identity. Even external threats, such as the coronavirus, deepened divisions over masks and vaccinations, which became political issues. Michael Mazarr, a senior political scientist at the Rand Corporation, in a study commissioned by the Pentagon, concluded what many of us already know: three quarters of those surveyed are unhappy with where we are going as a country; across party lines, we no longer trust our institutions; only 10% are "very satisfied" with how democracy is working; the American "melting pot" is dead to many; median net worth of the middle class fell 20%, of the working class 45%. (Michael Mazarr, "The Societal Foundation of National Competitiveness," Rand Corporation, 2022). We are anxious that we may be taken over by China, that our consumption is unsustainable, and that we cannot afford the entitlements we have today. A civic identity that prided us as a multi-ethnic democracy has been replaced by warring narratives on questions of freedom, history of slavery and even sexuality. Every day, more that 110 people are killed by guns and more than 200 are shot and wounded. Our electoral system, once the envy of the world and emulated by many, are under attack by anti democratic, illiberal forces. Moreover, the January 6, 2021, insurrection at our Capitol, akin to what most of our allies would have expected in lesser developed countries, not the United States, helped to undermine our standing in the world. American exceptionalism, because of its systemic origins, is not entirely dead, but rapidly fading. Theo Wierdsma

VIOLENT POLITICAL RHETORIC SURGING

It has become glaringly evident that violent political rhetoric, on a scale and with a focus seldom seen before in this country, is out of control. We have experienced heated political discourse before, especially during periods of political instability like the run up to the Civil War, or the fierce cultural clashes of the 1960s and 70s. However, with some notable exceptions, agitation during those episodes was predominantly focused on political control or property. The Civil War was essentially an economic dispute over states rights, while the massively intense protests during the 60s and 70s were predominantly left wing inspired cultural movements exhibited by groups targeting civil rights, the Vietnam War, women's liberation and others. Our current political dialogue, exacerbated by gridlock at the highest levels, appears to have transitioned into an era of frustration, prompting an increasing number of actors to resort to violence as a primary recourse. Today, with assistance of social media, mainstreaming of violent political speech has encouraged a growing number of Americans to target election officials. In 2021, threats against members of Congress reached a record 9,600, 4,100 during the first three months alone. Violent threats against U.S. lawmakers have more than doubled during the past five years. A survey published November 1 of 2021 indicated that 18% of all Americans, 30% of Republicans, 17% of independents and 11% of Democrats, believe that "patriots might have to resort to violence to save the country." ("Cultural Change and Anxiety in America," PRRI Research, Nov.1, 2021). Violence throughout our political history is well documented. Four presidents were assassinated: Abraham Lincoln (John Wilkes Booth), James Garfield (Charles Guiteau), William McKinley (Leon Czolgosz) and John F. Kennedy (Lee Harvey Oswald). Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford survived targeted attacks. Barack Obama apparently received 30 death threats a day when he was in office and, following the 2016 election, Donald Trump faced 12,000 calls for his assassination on social media. In addition, Representative Gaby Gifford was shot and severely wounded in 2011, and Representative Steve Scalise barely survived an assassination attempt during a Congressional baseball game in June of 2017. Multiple other attempts have remained unpublished. The Secret Service prefers not to communicate threats on our chief executives in the belief that doing so would generate more criminal behavior. Attacks are also not limited to the top echelon of our government. Anyone involved in the election process is a potential target. One week after the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Eric Coomer, an executive at Dominion Voting Systems, was forced into hiding. Angry supporters of then President Donald Trump, believing false accusations that Dominion had switched votes in favor of Joe Biden, published Coomer's home address and phone number and put a million dollar bounty on his head. The families of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger, Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers and many others have suffered incessant threats throughout this epidemic. And, just recently, Missouri Republican Senate candidate Eric Greitens, armed and in full tactical gear, published a campaign ad urging supporters to get a "RINO" (Republican in name only) hunting permit, proclaiming "no bagging limit, no tagging limit, and it does not expire until we save our country." Even voting "the wrong way" can invite threatening repercussions these days. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) posted the names and phone numbers of the 13 GOP lawmakers who supported the bi-partisan infrastructure bill Congress passed in November last year, calling them "traitors" on twitter. The threats are everywhere. Even minor functionaries involved in the execution of our electoral system are now looking over their shoulders and feel the need to protect their families. Under federal law threatening government officials is considered a felony. Just threatening the President is punishable by up to 5 years of imprisonment. Anyone convicted of targeting other officials can receive anywhere between 5 and 10 years of incarceration. Perpetrators caught in the act frequently refer to their "freedom of speech" in defense. While "Freedom of Speech," a feature of the First Amendment to our Constitution is fundamental in our democracy as a right to articulate opinions without fear of retaliation, censorship or legal action, it is not absolute. The Supreme Court, in "Brandenburg v. Ohio" (1969), clarified that this provision does not include inflammatory speech "directed to incite or produce imminent lawless actions." The onset of social media has made the application of this principle more controversial and cumbersome however. Representative Adam Kinzinger, whose family was pointedly threatened with execution, issued a somber assessment: "I've noticed a decline in our civil discourse over the last 5 years, and it's devolved to a scary point, where anger and vitriol are reflexive and the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable is all but lost." We continue to slide down the slippery slope of incivility. We need to acknowledge and identify these incidences and tell people the truth, unless we want to end up in another civil war. Theo Wierdsma