System of American Exceptionalism - Case Study Example

Thesis ment: American exceptionalism has both the good side and the bad side. Harold Hongju Koh presents a very strong argument on the four faces of the American exceptionalism faulting the exceptional views of the nation as contributing factors that result in human rights problems. Ted Bromund presents his defense on American exceptionalism, emphasizing on the history of the nation and its scholars, as well as the political and justice system in the nation. Facts presented indicate that American exceptionalism has both good and bad qualities, considering the fact that these statement comes from a former government official. Enthusiasts of the myth of American exceptionalism need a radical change on the conception of the nation and the world around, if any efforts against racism, human right violation, and other ills are to bear fruit. I. American exceptionalism introduction II. American exceptionalism debate a) Ted Bromund’s arguments b) Harold Hongju Koh’s arguments III. Personal Position IV. Conclusion American Exceptionalism The United States of America has had different descriptions in the past two centuries by some of its prominent leaders, ranging from titles like the indispensable nation, free world leader, and the best last hope of earth, the empire of liberty, and the shining city on a hill. These descriptions constitute the concept of American exceptionalism. This is an ideology that America’s political system, history, and values are unique in the universe (Jacobs). Moreover, enthusiasts of the ideology argue that the US is entitled and destined to play a positive and distinct role in the universe. Ted Bromund’s arguments The concept is an international debate among specialists and experts from all lifestyles, from law to former US government officials. Among them is Ted Bromund, a senior research fellow from Margret Thatcher Center for Freedom. Bromund advocates for the American exceptionalism ideology, mainly basing his arguments on the history of the great nation. On the other end of the debate are individuals like Harold Hongju Koh, a laws specialist and former government official in both Reagan’s and Clinton’s administrations. Koh, argues that the American exceptionalism has two facets, the good, and the bad. This paper focuses on the arguments of Koh and Bromund to assert that the American exceptionalism has both the good side and the bad side. In the article American Exceptionalism and its Enemies, Bromund strongly argues that the US is an exceptional state. Bromund begins his statement by pointing out that America has the oldest and the most capitalistic liberal democracy. He further re-asserts that it was the first nation whose foundation was on the belief of inherent human rights, also the first nation founded because of colonial power rebellion, as well being the first nation to recognize the power of the government as consent from its citizens. Bromund argues further on the fact that the US was the first nation to have separation of power with clear subordination of military rule to civilian rule, as well as placing all these in a constitution that was democratically and publically acceptable. (Bromund). He capitalizes on the freedom of speech and movement, separation of the church and the state, the bill of rights, and the immigration concept of the nation as the key indicators of the American exceptionalism. Bromund then explores the academies where the American exceptionalism concept is a myth founded on self-righteous national chauvinism. He argues that the concept easily paints an individual as a conservative if he/she refers to it without sneering, and ingratiates those dismissing it as a historical ignoramus and dangerous right-wing ideology. Additionally, he points out President Obama’s comment to a French reporter concerning American exceptionalism, arguing that he is a product of these academies. Another reason that Bromund gives for labeling America as exceptional is its embracement of liberal principles. He argues that the nation acceptance of modernity, equality, immigration, and freedom of movement that are the foundation of the exceptional concept are based on liberalism. However, the order of 1787 and 1776 exhibit some conservative roots, and Bromund claims that this core conservatism was what sustained liberalism (Bromund). He also states reason why the American scholars devoted their efforts to explaining the exceptional principles of America. The argument by Bromund reaches a climax when he suggest that since the US was founded on the values of freedom and the bill of rights, its values are pure, and thus exceptional. His next move is to counter-argue some of the major points by Koh that highlights the different faces of the exceptionalism ideology. He begins with Koh’s concern over the US protection on speech and press than other countries. His argument is based on the European Union law that allows some degree of tolerance to such measures. His emphasis is on the judicial doctrine of margin of appreciation. According to Bromund, the US differences are in the least unsettling. He also attacks Koh’s suggestion of the effects of exceptional free speech principles and his argument that they cause problems in the international level. Bromund proposes a moderation of such principles by the Supreme Court, suggesting a trans-nationalistic approach to judicial interpretation. Harold Hongju Koh’s arguments Ultimately, Bromund discusses all the four faces of Koh’s American exceptionalism, defending his stand and presenting some solutions to those problems. However, none of the arguments presented by him holds water. For instance, his argument concerning the different label and double standards are vague. He states that the reason the US does not integrate some features of cultural distinctiveness is because the US is a federal system and that each state has the right and the powers to use terms of their choice in reporting. Additionally, he reiterates that the national government is responsible for its citizens only, not the preference of other international organizations (Bromund). This is an example of bad exceptionalism. Despite the fact that the nation embraces a federal style of governance, it is still what makes up the US. Again, on the issue of double standards, he seems to argue that the right of self-government preside all other rights, regardless of their importance. Bromund does not consider the receiving end of the American exceptionalism. A good question may be to ask whether the claim for exceptionalism justifies the consequences. Another advocate of the American exceptionalism is Alexis de Tocqueville. His emphasis rests upon the puritanical origin, the country itself, and the commercial habits of the Americans. He also agrees with the belief that no other nation will have a similar position as that of America. The two experts do not consider the consequences that result for the actions that the US takes in the name of being exceptional. How do we defend the destructions that the US causes to other countries (like Afghanistan) in the name of fighting terrorism? Moreover, in destroying other nations, is the US exceptionally good or exceptionally bad? Such reflections are the concern of people like Martin Sellevold, Ron Jacobs, and Harold Hongju Koh (Sellevold 45). Personal Position Drawing upon the arguments of Koh, Sellevold, and Jacobs, I can assert that American exceptionalism has both good and bad sides. Koh states the four face of American exceptionalism as distinctive rights, double standards, the flying buttress, and different labels. Koh argues that the distinctive rights culture of the Americans grows out of their political, economic, and social history (Koh 112). As a result, I believe that some human rights receive greater emphasis and protection in America than in other regions like Asia and Europe. He gives an example of the US First Amendment laws regulating speech and religion. Therefore, I argue that the distinctive rights culture is inconsistent with the values of universal human rights. Consider the doctrine of margin of appreciation in the EU law, which allows a certain degree of variance between nations in the protection of similar rights in order to promote such forms of distinctiveness of the American rights culture, which is obviously a bad exception. On the different labels face, Koh points out that America’s use of different labels to describe similar concepts are a philosophical abuse to the rest of the world. He gives an example of a presentation before the Committee against Torture in Geneva on the reasons why America did not maintain records of cases of torture. His answer was that the Americans use different terms to refer to torture, like police brutality, cruel and unusual punishment, violation of civil rights, and the likes. It thus follows that the American culture is non-integrationist (Koh 115). At large, I believe that the American cultural distinctiveness does not integrate the international acceptable standards of human rights or the terms. The different terms and labels do not mean different rules. Despite using a different label to renounce torture, the US accepts torture prohibition. The next point regards the practice of American exclusion from treaties. The doctrines of non-self-executing treaty, and ratification with reservations with the justification that America is an exceptional nation fails to point out that not all treaties that the US excludes from are problematic. America has an embarrassing record of late ratification and non-ratification of different human rights treaties. Koh emphasizes the fact that noncompliance, rather than non-ratification is the underlying problem. Assertively, the US adopts compliance without ratification practice on human rights treaties (Koh 125). In supporting my opinion, a prime example is the Genocide Convention, where no individual claimed that US officials committed genocide acts in the thirty-seven years before it signed and ratified the treaty. This is an example of the American practice of compliance without ratification, or the America’s flying buttress mentality. On the other hand, Martin Sellevold explains that this mentality enables America to give a false sense of freedom through the compliance without ratification practices. According to him, the US feels obliged to correct and control the “wrongdoings of uncivilized nations”. The US follows and supports international realm rules not for legal obligation but for political prudence, thus maintaining the unfettered sovereignty illusion and enjoying the appearance of compliance at the same time. Similar to the faces of different labels and distinctive rights, the flying buttress mentality is a problem of America rather than that of the world (Koh 121). For instance, the fact that Somalia and the US were the last nations to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child is quite embarrassing. This is especially considering the fact that the US receives credit for financial and large-scale moral support in supporting child rights around the globe, despite its failure to ratify a convection that it complies with in most respects. The most and last problematic face of the American exceptionalism is the use of the exceptional US wealth and power to apply double standards. According to Ron Jacobs, America proposes rules that apply to itself and its allies, and dictate different rules for the rest of the world. Examples include the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, and the Second amendment that excludes the nation from the ban of illicit transfer of light weapons and small arms, the Guantanamo Bay detention among others (Jacobs). Jacobs argues that the “American superiority focuses on the cultural constructs and basic religion cultures”. He raises four problems with the application of double standards. First, he argues that America falls low in the lower rung, with other horrid bedfellows, like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria in failing to abolish the death penalty on juvenile offenders. Such appearances undermine the nation’s commitment to pursue affirmative agendas in human rights. Moreover, the nation is forced to defend or condone human rights violation, despite having criticized them earlier (like the critique on Russia’s war against Chechen terrorists). The third problem is that application of double standards significantly reduces the claim that the nation leads in moral authority. In essence, this practice reduces the power of America to persuade through principles, which is a fundamental element in its soft power concept. Lastly, the act of opposing global rules aiming to modify them to suit their purposes undermines the legitimacy of the rules. Koh presents the fifth facet of the American exceptionalism, which he refers to as the exceptional global leadership (Koh 137). Through his argument, Koh provides several points that highlight the global position of the US, asserting that human rights problems result from US non-participation in human rights initiatives. Other professionals sharing the same notions on America exceptionalism include Jacobs, and his argument on the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, and Phillips with his rise and fall of great nation’s concept (Jacobs). Conclusion Therefore, America is an exceptional nation, but it is not any better than the rest of the world. Furthermore, it is not exceptionally immune to other factors like the historical forces that shaped previous empires and nations. For the US to flourish as a truly exceptional nation the foundation upon which the policies of double standards, different labels, and distinct cultural rights needs to change. Otherwise, any movement against human rights violation, racism, and other ills will fail if the myth of American exceptionalism persists. This will not be because of lack of the right motivation on its part, but because the US does not have a radical conception of the world around it. Works Cited Bromund, Ted. “American Exceptionalism and its Enemies.” The New Ledger Features – Politics. Monday, May 25, 2009. Print. Jacobs, Ron. American Exceptionalism: A Disease of Conceit. Web. Feb 14, 2012. Koh, Harold Hongju. America’s Jekyll‐and‐Hyde Exceptionalism. Ed. Michael Ignatieff. American Exceptionalism and Human Rights. 111 ‐143. Print. Phillips, Dennis. Is America an Exceptional Nation? Web. Feb 14, 2012. Sellevold, Martin. A Look at American Exceptionalism. Australian Rationalist, No 65: 45‐48. Print. Read More