The ahistorical arrogance of this is breathtaking (or nauseating, take your pick). Obama's hegemonic ambitions are noteworthy in their scale: "the American moment" is to extend for "this new century." This is the undiluted embrace of "American exceptionalism," which I have discussed in detail: see my first Iran/foreign policy series, in particular "Messianic Zealotry as Foreign Policy" and the discussion there of the "Idea of Progress"; and the new "Dominion" series too, especially this installment and this one. Those essays discuss some of the internal inconsistencies and contradictions of the "exceptionalist" doctrine, one for which no one has ever been able to provide a convincing proof. Such a failure is unavoidable, since no such proof exists or is possible.
Let me very briefly mention another insurmountable problem in this view, and that is its assumption of omniscience. Note the famous formulation, which almost every politician robotically repeats: "the last, best hope of Earth." Well, "last" and "best" until another candidate appears better able to fill the generally accepted requirements for world leadership. Consider one instance of what I mean: if we continue on our present path, it is more than likely that "this new century" will see a significant economic weakening in the U.S., perhaps even a financial collapse. It is further likely that at some point in the next 50 or 100 years, our currently unparalleled military strength will be surpassed by China, for example. If China has undergone some not unimportant transformations of its own by that time (which is also far from unimaginable), China might then be able to make claims like Obama's with much more truth and conviction than the United States.
This point is in addition to the fact that every great civilization of the past has, in some form, made claims like those made by "American exceptionalism." Their time came and went, as will ours. But as I recently observed, our ignorance is close to perfect: we have rendered ourselves incapable of grasping the past, the present or the future. Understanding developments over broad historic periods is a task for which we are singularly unsuited, and our sole concern remains today and tomorrow, and at most the next election. In addition, to talk accurately and sensibly about such matters flatters the vanity of neither the political class nor Americans more generally. Even though it is the truth, no one wants to hear: "The United States represented a revolutionary and glorious political development at its founding. But the original principles upon which this nation rested began to be seriously eroded only one hundred years later, and today they are all but vanished. Unless we again radically alter our path, we are headed to the trash heap of history, like every nation of once great achievement before us." Such views need not apply: they will not garner large campaign contributions, they will not lead to speaking engagements, and they will certainly not get you to the White House.
Let me very briefly mention another insurmountable problem in this view, and that is its assumption of omniscience. Note the famous formulation, which almost every politician robotically repeats: "the last, best hope of Earth." Well, "last" and "best" until another candidate appears better able to fill the generally accepted requirements for world leadership. Consider one instance of what I mean: if we continue on our present path, it is more than likely that "this new century" will see a significant economic weakening in the U.S., perhaps even a financial collapse. It is further likely that at some point in the next 50 or 100 years, our currently unparalleled military strength will be surpassed by China, for example. If China has undergone some not unimportant transformations of its own by that time (which is also far from unimaginable), China might then be able to make claims like Obama's with much more truth and conviction than the United States.
This point is in addition to the fact that every great civilization of the past has, in some form, made claims like those made by "American exceptionalism." Their time came and went, as will ours. But as I recently observed, our ignorance is close to perfect: we have rendered ourselves incapable of grasping the past, the present or the future. Understanding developments over broad historic periods is a task for which we are singularly unsuited, and our sole concern remains today and tomorrow, and at most the next election. In addition, to talk accurately and sensibly about such matters flatters the vanity of neither the political class nor Americans more generally. Even though it is the truth, no one wants to hear: "The United States represented a revolutionary and glorious political development at its founding. But the original principles upon which this nation rested began to be seriously eroded only one hundred years later, and today they are all but vanished. Unless we again radically alter our path, we are headed to the trash heap of history, like every nation of once great achievement before us." Such views need not apply: they will not garner large campaign contributions, they will not lead to speaking engagements, and they will certainly not get you to the White House.
~ more... ~
No comments:
Post a Comment