13 ms·

Is the United States Exceptional?

41 points by wingspan 4y ago

aeneasmackenzie 4y ago
> Is the United States Exceptional? Fun fact, it is a formal heresy to believe (a historical form of) this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(heresy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(heresy)
rfreytag 4y ago
The author fails to consider the direction or rate of change the USA standing versus other nations. For most factors considered by the author the outlook is not good for the USA. Churchill did say the USA can be counted on to do the right thing after trying every other option; but nothing changes for the better if one's head is stuck in the sand.
- timbit42 4y ago
  It wasn't Churchill who said that.
  - rfreytag 4y ago
    Thank you - https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/11/exhaust-alternatives/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/11/exhaust-alternative... ... says it was likely Abba Evan.
the__alchemist 4y ago
Is this (from a 1992 satirical scifi book) still true?: > There's only four things we do better than anyone else music movies microcode (software) high-speed pizza delivery I vote yes, except for maybe 3.
- lelandfe 4y ago
  Is there a country more accessible than the US? It’s not perfect, but ADA’s ramp access across the country is remarkable
andrewclunn 4y ago
I agree with the sentiment, but framing your argument by dunking on an Aaron Sorkin avatar is sort of low hanging fruit. I mean that'd be like "destroying Communism" by taking down North Korean state TV. Doesn't mean you're wrong, but nobody worth listening to ever saw these things as more than by-the-numbers propaganda.
- aidenn0 4y ago
  As TFA mentions, the clip makes has regularly made the rounds on social media for years now. If this blog post can serve only as a single-link response to it, it has some purpose.
texaslonghorn5 4y ago
This was a good article, and before making a snap judgement and skipping it, you should note that the author means exceptional in the literal sense of being an exception or being different, rather than the colloquial sense of "really good." I think the conclusion is interesting, so I'm going to paste it here in case you don't want to read the whole article. > To put it simply then, the United States might be typified by an emphasis on achieving greatness (as traditionally defined) above almost everything else.18 The very bigness is the goal, driving forward towards larger profits, newer technology, more clicks and views, greater military power, more allies19, damn the consequences. That’s not the only thing at the heart of America, but it is one of the things. > And on those terms it is hard not to conclude that the United States is a success, indeed, it is a country that has succeeded on those terms like no other country has ever succeeded. It has resulted in a country which is not merely exceptional, but exceptionally exceptional – that is, the United States is highly unusual in an unusually high number of ways. And, as I noted at the beginning, it is unusual in fairly obvious ways, evident enough that one has to accomplish some serious mental contortions not to notice what a strange, expansive and powerful country the United States is. > The interesting question then is not if the United States is a great country but if it will be a good country, if all of that vastness in wealth, technology, influence and power will be put towards some worthy aim, both judged against our ideals20 and against the historical behavior of other great powers.21 It’s a question that only Americans can really answer, in our doing. I strive and hope that we answer well.
- towaway15463 4y ago
  > will be put towards some worthy aim Like self governance?
starkd 4y ago
This is a common misunderstanding of the meaning of the word 'exceptional'. The origins of the phrase "American exceptionalism" had nothing to do with greatness or thinking one country is better than another. It is exceptional only in that the country was concieved as an exception to the rule of where its power ultimately comes from. The normal foundation for the state was upon a divinely anointed monarchy. America was founded by the people who loan their power to representatives. That power can be revoked at any time by the people. It was a dramatic departure from the expactations of sovereignty at the time.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  While this may be true originally or historically, I don’t think it’s what most people today mean colloquially when they say American Exceptionalism, and I think there’s a large group of people that agree more with the colloquial definition.
  - elevation 4y ago
    The "colloquial" definition has been popularized by those who demean the US rhetorically. You can paint as a fool anyone who claims that "American Exceptionalism" even exists by contrasting the phrase to any statistic that makes the US look less than "exceptional." However, the classical definition, that the U.S. has a historically unique operating agreement, is generally understood in politically conservative contexts.
  - starkd 4y ago
    Yes, I understand that. But it's very different from its origins. When America was founded, it consisted of mostly farmers. Basic agriculture. It produced nothing extraodinary and in relation to other countries. Britain was the financial powerhouse of the world, and there were no monoliths present. I just wanted to point out how language has been distorted to make the notion of exceptionalism something that it is not and never was.
    - the_lonely_road 4y ago
lalaithion 4y ago
Newsroom spoilers ahead! > The diatribe that statement is treated by the visual language of the scene like a truth bomb, which is why it is so odd because Jeff Daniels’ character is not merely wrong, but (as I intend to show) laughably so The scene in question is literally the first scene in the first episode of the show. Jeff Daniels' character is disillusioned, sold out to advertisers, lacking integrity, and alone. His character arc, over the entire season, is about him getting over the attitude shown in the clip.
ncmncm 4y ago
There are two ways one may interpret "American exceptionalism". The first is that, being a rich country and democratically elected, our standards for fair and ethical behavior are higher than others'. We can afford to be generous and to be kind. Our declaration of universal human rights means we stick up for rights not just in our own territory, but for all our human sisters and brothers, extending due process to all, even those under the boot of foreign enemy governments, and aiding movements toward democracy, freedom, and recognition of inherent human rights and dignity. The other is that, being so fucking rich and powerful, the rules don't apply to us, and we are justified in doing anything, no matter how harmful, anywhere it gets something for companies based here or people holding power here at the moment. You can guess which way administrations who have promoted "American exceptionalism" jumped. I don't think I need to trot out examples, but it seems notable that Russia copied the verbiage that US published in support of its unsupportable invasion of Iraq when they invaded Ukraine. The US demanding International Criminal Court attention to Russian war crimes, while warning that any attempt at prosecuting well-known American war criminals would evoke military action, is particularly rich. Arranging for Nobel Peace Prizes to be issued to war criminals is a neat touch.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  > but it seems notable that Russia copied the verbiage that US published in support of invading Iraq, when they invaded Ukraine. I don't think it is notable that Russia copied the verbiage of the US, this seems like a logical fallacy. Bad people will always quote the most powerful people to try and make a point, or try and weaken them. It doesn't mean it's good, it is just an irrelevant part of the argument.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    You seem to miss the point that there was no legitimate justification for invading Iraq. We invaded Iraq because certain people temporarily in authority wanted to invade Iraq, for personal, petty, and cynical reasons. Russians cribbing from that was obviously meant ironically. Missing that point is telling.
srvmshr 4y ago
US definitely has exceptional successes, but there are so many systemic flaws which other countries may or may not have, and where US could vastly improve. * High medical costs * Highest maternal mortality among developed countries * Highest income gaps * High education cost & the vicious circle of college debt. * Increasing trends of bankruptcy & paycheck-to-paycheck sustenance. * Lack of public transportation issues in most places * Very oil dependent economy. * Gun violence. So many lives needlessly lost every year. * Growing mental health & opiod crisis * Lack of public awareness about current affairs (& to some extent apathy even) * Waning trust in judiciary & in parallel the rise of the rich oligarchy * Interference in politics of other countries * Equality of diversity (in true sense) is still to be achieved given racial profiling persists * The extent of personal freedom without state agencies keeping track of activities. It definitely has successes but there is a long road to being a model nation. But US as a nation has demonstrated the capacity to overcome odds in fortitude. There is hope - but a sense of cautious hope
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  This reads like a sudden kick to a friend in the nads and then telling him "you're a pretty good guy". What is the point of a post like this? It's not balanced at all if your last statement is to be considered. If you don't like the country then just come out and own it.
  - srvmshr 4y ago
    My comment wasn't to wax on further to the original post. There are glaring issues which US faces & can improve vis-a-vis developed countries with similar quality of life. Its a bad idea to push deficiencies under the rug, pretend they don't exist & call it an 'exceptionally exceptional' country
  - thiht 4y ago
    OP didn’t say they don’t like the US, but that there are tons of things to improve. Thinking US is the best country in the world and rejecting the issues is why it’s considered a shithole by a growing population of the world. As a French, the US seems like at third world country to me regarding social rights and benefits.
epolanski 4y ago
The biggest issue we Europeans have with the american exceptionalism are the implications on foreign politics. Victoria Nuland giving cookies at the Maidan square and appointing the post Yanukovich government? US can. Paying italian Mafia to kill socialist workers in Italy? US can. Having US drunk air force peoppe kill 30 civillians in Italy because they wanted to see how low they coukd fly and sending them back home without charges? US can. Toppling governments, supporting and funding coups in half the world? US can. Military actions around the world against UN, which include bs wars like Iraq? US can. Spying on all the world,including the german chancellor, inserting back doors in routers, processors and civilian infrastructure? US can. US exceptionalism is a dangerous thinking, and what is more worrying is how openly US leaders talk about it. I vividly remember a 4th july speech by Obama with a 10 minutes rant on how US is exceptional and can do things other can't.
- osigurdson 4y ago
  What about WWII, do you wish the US would have stayed out of that?
  - cat_plus_plus 4y ago
    Forget about WWII, does OP wish US would stay out of Europe now and leave superpower things to Russia?
  - epolanski 4y ago
    WW2 ended 77 years ago and it's time that we quit speaking about it as reasons to allow US do whatever they want on a geopolitical scale. Those are "deeds" of many generations ago.
palmetieri2000 4y ago
The logic of "The US is the greatest if you likes X things and bad if you prefer Y" is poor because it can be applied to anything. Colombia during Pablo Escobar's time was probably considered pretty great if you were a Narco Trafficker. The article entirely misses the problem non-US people have with the US faffing on about greatness or its exceptionality. Which is that individuals from the US seem to see this as an indication of their own superiority and develop a parochial point of view regardless of their almost total insignificance to the accomplishments of the US. Most US citizens have done precisely nothing to increase the 'greatness' of the US other than pay their taxes (which they oppose doing). Many non-US citizens have done much more, the success of the USA is the result of a combined effort from many countries but the parochialism of many Americans refuses to acknowledge this. Even if your country is exceptional, which is immeasurable nonsense (I'm sure every country is exceptional in some ways), you should not take pride from this because you have done incredibly little to achieve it. I expect precisely 0 Americans to agree with me, but my PoV is not uncommon in Australia at least.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  Nice job compartmentalizing 330 million Americans into your tiny box. Contrast how awesome Australia is to America and I think you'll see similar amounts of faults as you portray Australians as model citizens of the world and Australia as peak civilization.
  - palmetieri2000 4y ago
    Australia has many flaws, some of them quite significant. Note that I never say a single thing about Australia being perfect or model citizens, that is your fabrication which you interpreted as 'US Bad and Parochial, Australia Good". Very zero sum of you, which fits exactly into the type of personality I am talking about. Find as many flaws in Australia as you can, it wont offend me because unlike you I dont see my country as beyond reproach. I did not invent American Exceptionalism, I did not write the article we are discussing, Americans are the ones who refer to their country as the best or greatest.
- starkd 4y ago
mikkergp 4y ago
Can you really divorce greatness from goodness? I mean you can, but the author seems to go back and forth in how he places value on bigness. The sentiment that we have the most research institutions does not seem to be presented as valueless, and yet we also talk about the replicability crisis in science. McDonald’s is the largest restaurant chain in the world, does that mean American cuisine is the greatest? I think I agree with the overarching sentiment of the piece: that America is unquestionably exceptional given a neutral definition of the word exceptional, but may conclude we are less driven by greatness and more driven by dominance at all cost. And this is overly critical, America is obviously not do bad things 100% of the time, in fact I would probably say America is equal parts "Do great things" "Do, even if there's no evidence it's good" and "Gosh, no one has ever been inhumane enough to charge money for THAT before"
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I think you absolutely can divorce greatness from goodness. Think of Genghis Kahn, Stalin, Alexander the Great, and even Hitler. These are humans who have had an outsized impact on the course of humanity. Perhaps similar historical events would have come about with a different person, but they were the human that made massively impactful decisions. Their personal whims and experience decided the fate of large portions of the world. They had a great impact. If that is not the same as greatness, perhaps we need an alternative term to describe great impact without moral connotation.
WalterBright 4y ago
A nation founded on the principles of all men being created equal, along with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is indeed exceptional. The results have been exceptional, too. The US does indeed have plenty of problems, but those problems are usually traceable to neglecting those founding principles.
- Hammershaft 4y ago
  > A nation founded on the principles of all men being created equal, along with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness Isn't the legacy of these 'founding principles' tarnished from the fact that many of the founding fathers owned hundreds of slaves? We are still within a living generation of segregation in southern states, an injustice that owes directly to how the founding fathers applied those principles.
  - mhh__ 4y ago
    The principles may not be although I think it's a strong argument against the already silly concept of originalism
  - the_third_wave 4y ago
    No, it isn't. Those principles are things to be strived for, both when the words were put on paper as well as now. The fact that not all of those who put those words on paper totally embodied all of those principles does not make them any less worthy, they are a guiding principle after all - not a description of the state of the nation or the world in the 1700s. Under that guiding principle the USA has gone from a state which inherited slavery to one which, together with the United Kingdom, abolished slavery as well as the trans-Atlantic slave trade. While this did not totally end the practice of slavery - it existed long before the first slave was brought to the shores of the colonies and kept on existing long after the last slaver was boarded by the Royal Navy, indeed it still exists today in many countries in the middle east, Africa and parts of Asia - it did set in motion the cultural shift which made the concept of enslavement to be something which is unreconcilable with democracy [1]. There have been several ugly episodes in the history of the USA after slavery was abolished but this is one of the few cases where the arc of history indeed has tended towards justice. The wheels of justice may move slowly but move they do - unless obstructed. This is why the rise of identity politics - which aims to derail justice into ${identity_category} justice - is so harmful since prefix-justice is not justice. [1] this did not use to be the case, the Athenian democracy had no qualms about slavery
zmmmmm 4y ago
I wonder how many of the conclusions would change if the EU is considered as a "country"? Which is to say, it's a little bit of a definitional problem around what the word "country" actually means. The US, being a federalist collection of semi-autonomous states is sort of a hybrid country. There are some clear aspects (a single military, federal laws, a common currency, a commonly elected president). But then there are other aspects such as that the autonomy given to states is such that they invent local laws to the extent that for a huge range of areas you effectively have to deal with the US on a state-by-state basis.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Historians distinguish "nation", "state", and "country". The US is a State, but not a nation, and not a country. EU approaches the status of a State, but also neither of the others.
usrn 4y ago
It was but the progressives destroyed it in the mid 60s.
- dang 4y ago
  Ideological flamewar is not what this site is for, and the site guidelines specifically ask you not to do it. You've been doing it repeatedly, unfortunately. If you'd please stop that, we'd appreciate it. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
cat_plus_plus 4y ago
The missing part of the story is that US may be exceptional, but also very vulnerable right now. People keep saying "guns/abortions are my right" (with equal extremes from opponents), why should I compromise at all? Well, framers of constitution compromised quite a bit on things they believed in and that caused problem later, but it's only through compromise that the nation came to exist and it's only through continued compromise that it can continue. Otherwise if living in an exceptional country is not making anyone happy, even morally it's better to have 50 less exceptional countries where people can come to some understanding rather than fighting all the time.
mudlus 4y ago
Yes. It's one of the few countries where citizens are protected from the government. This means anyone can make huge mistakes, and it's viewed as immoral to stop them. Myopically, it drives a politics of fear and control ('Won't someone please think of the children [who we don't consider people with rights, so as to individually choose not to go to school, for example]'). Long term, America has provided more progress to the world in terms of ideas, technology, knowledge, than any other community in human history. It also means that they are free to make ideological mistakes, no one is embraced to say their opinion even if it's wrong. This is a Tradition of Criticism, and it extends to the West in general, but is exemplified by America (Hollywood, US media, etc). All progress comes from criticism. America is 'exceptional', but with that power comes great responsibility--something recent generations don't seem to want. So, giving up rights, puts the responsibility in some other's hand--an appeal to authority. This has lead to a great culture of pessimism. I hope that will end soon and more American's will be optimistic and proud of their responsibility to infinite knowledge growth through a Tradition of Criticism.
- randcraw 4y ago
  Conversely, the EU is one of the few economies where citizens are protected from abuse by corporations. In America, mostly we're not. Choose your poison. Does that make the EU exceptional too?
snake_plissken 4y ago
So there are a number ways in which people define the phrase "American Exceptionalism". I didn't realize there was a debate about it until the phrase became part of the popular vernacular over the past, 5 years? All this time I've been stumbling around thinking it was our ability to run twin deficits (trade and budget) for like 40 years, without any appreciable increase in Treasury yields.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  The claim of "American Exceptionalism" was a cornerstone of the Bush Jr. presidency. Notably, the Obama presidency continued it, both in word (speeches) and in action (death from the sky).
Barrin92 4y ago
First off I think it's good that the author distinguishes between 'greatness' and subjective preference but I think the entire analysis is overly quantitative. It's a very long piece so I'll just take one example, the power and influence across the world: >"One may of course argue that this situation is changing, albeit slowly, but at the moment the contrast is startling: the sphere of Russian influence does quite reach Kyiv (about 150 miles from the Russian border) and the sphere of Chinese influence does not quite reach Taipei (about the same distance, but over water), but American influence evidently reaches both despite the former being 4,300 miles and the latter 6,500 miles away from American shores." While that is true one can't talk about influence without talking about depth and quality. Russia and China have more limited reach, but the countries where in particular Russia has had an influence, Russian culture deeply permeates. One only needs to visit Kazakhstan to see the influence from its very system of politics at the top and well into the private homes. US influence around the world is wide but often times quite shallow. It's mirrored in military disappointments despite overwhelming power. Vietnam, Afghanistan recently, and so on. Same in the sphere of culture. Despite the overwhelming dominance of the US and the UK as well and, the Chinese haven't all become American, as people are noticing now, despite what they thought in the 90s. Even South America diverges pretty widely from the US compared to say, Russia and its direct periphery. And I think this is to an extent true within the US as well. The author rightfully points out the dominance of US education in sheer numbers, but the US also seems to have unique troubles to translate this into social tools. For all the high quality of top tier American education and money, it hasn't necessarily created exceptional outcomes broadly, even compared to much poorer nations. There's a thinness to American exceptionalism that is often masked by the focus on numbers and size. While the country is exceptionally rich, the life expectancy is not exceptionally high, but lower than in Cuba. And I think articles like this which pretend to be objective do intentionally wave that aside.
jaqalopes 4y ago
All the facts here are fine but I'm left wondering, what are the stakes of "proving" how great America is? What good do all those aircraft carriers do me? Holding down the Chinese, I guess. But then, isn't holding the rest of the world down while the "American way of life" carries on the whole point of all this "greatness"? At the end of WWII, America was the last rich country standing and proceeded to go round the world kicking out left-wing governments (unfriendly or not) and installing right-wing ones. The result was unprecedented profits and security for American corporations, and some of that wealth undoubtedly trickled down. But I'm left thinking about the cost. Is it any wonder Russia, Iran, South America, etc. would distrust us and want us out of their business? The comparison at the end to the Mongols feels apt, since while their empire was undeniably great, it is very difficult to argue that they were a force for good in the lives of the people on whose backs that greatness was won.
- osigurdson 4y ago
  I don't think any historical power (Assyrian, Persian, Roman, Mongolian, Japan and even Britain) can be compared to the modern US. Those were just different and far more brutal times across all of humanity. If the US had been even remotely like one of these powers at the end of WWII, they would have dominated the entire world as the only nuclear power. Yet, they choose not to do so and allowed their enemies to develop nuclear weapons on their own. Stop beating yourselves up. The US has been an incredible force of good in the world for the most part - though not perfect of course. Russian, Iranian and Venezuelan governments on the other hand have been objectively horrible. I don't believe the "American way of life" is keeping anyone down other than those that wish to oppress others.
  - srvmshr 4y ago
    > Yet, they choose not to do so and allowed their enemies to develop nuclear weapons on their own. If they had a choice to not allow them develop lethal weapons, they would by all means. McCarthyism executed a few, incarcerated several & targeted scores on charges of defense espionage, over a decade, including Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb. Not a great example. If the world has misunderstood this grandiosity, US should be willing to let Iranians & Koreans build their nuclear weapons, no? > The US has been an incredible force of good in the world for the most part. Reference needed to make such "exceptional" statement. The natural status quo would have inadvertently kept some power balance with or without US. International policing has just made the waters murkier. AFAIK US has meddled with politics of dozens of countries for political & economic gains. Count almost the whole of Latin America in it. Confessions of an economic hitman is a good read (it exaggerated several claims but the theme is consistent & accepted to be major US policies) Middle East is a quagmire, and hard to comment in this post - but what was the rationale of pitting Pakistan against India militarily for decades & now India against China. This is setting up a war of attrition on someone else's expense. As an Indian by birth, I know the numbers run into thousands of soldiers & civilians killed in conflict, mostly funded by arms & assistance to Pakistan over 80s & 90s. Could you forget Nixon sent 7th Fleet to Arabian sea with an intention to nuke India if IndoPak war persisted to favor a dictator in Pakistan [1,1a, 1b]? Not to forget Taliban was propped up by US [2] & ISIS was created in the vacuum of lawlessness left behind after Opn. Iraqi Freedom [3]. > I don't believe the "American way of life" is keeping anyone down other than those that wish to oppress others. Space is a constraint for a full scale diatribe, but the Hispanic part of the world would like to have a word about it at least. Trade protectionism & political bullying has affected Latin American countries for several decades. Hispanic workers suffer lower wages in general than Americans, although working harder on most menial jobs [4] 1. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-indian-international-law-and-us-assertion-7266917/ https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-indian... 1a. https://www.firstpost.com/world/the-1971-war-when-richard-nixon-and-henry-kissinger-failed-to-scare-off-the-indians-10200661.html https://www.firstpost.com/world/the-1971-war-when-richard-ni... 1b. https://www.nytimes.com/1985/07/22/us/nixon-says-he-considered-using-atomic-weapons-on-4-occasions.html https://www.nytimes.com/1985/07/22/us/nixon-says-he-consider... 2. https://www.agoristnexus.com/taliban/ https://www.agoristnexus.com/taliban/ 3. https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/iraqs-power-vacuum-counterfactual-analysis-saddam-husseins-authoritarian-rule https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/iraqs-power-vacuum-cou... 4. https://universitybusiness.com/press-release/study-hispanic-workers-wages-less-than-whites/ https://universitybusiness.com/press-release/study-hispanic-...
Tainnor 4y ago
IMHO, the article boils down to the fact that the US is the top superpower in the first fully globalised era, and that to me explains why it seems to be "exceptional". It doesn't mean that it is more exceptional than earlier superpowers, like Rome, or Spain or Great Britain, if we account for the increased interconnectedness of the world. It also doesn't imply that all of these statistics may not one day apply (even more so) to a completely different country, such as maybe China. But most of all, I don't think any of it implies that this is fully due to any intrinsic qualities of the US per se. While those certainly played a role, so did accidents of history. Had Europe not been so dumb to go to war twice in the 20th century, maybe we would think of Great Britain as "exceptional". I also don't like how the author continues to use the adjective "great", despite acknowledging that it might be confused with "good". It's probably problematic that we speak of "Alexander the Great" too, but we do so due to historiographic tradition. There's IMHO no need to carry over this baggage to contemporary history. We can just call the US "important" or "a superpower", which is what it is, without using adjectives which so clearly imply moral judgement that the author immediately has to distance themselves from it (and IMHO in a rather half-hearted manner).

41 points by wingspan 4y ago

> Is the United States Exceptional? Fun fact, it is a formal heresy to believe (a historical form of) this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(heresy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(heresy)

rfreytag 4y ago

The author fails to consider the direction or rate of change the USA standing versus other nations. For most factors considered by the author the outlook is not good for the USA. Churchill did say the USA can be counted on to do the right thing after trying every other option; but nothing changes for the better if one's head is stuck in the sand.

timbit42 4y ago
It wasn't Churchill who said that.
- rfreytag 4y ago
  Thank you - https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/11/exhaust-alternatives/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/11/exhaust-alternative... ... says it was likely Abba Evan.

the__alchemist 4y ago

Is this (from a 1992 satirical scifi book) still true?: > There's only four things we do better than anyone else music movies microcode (software) high-speed pizza delivery I vote yes, except for maybe 3.

lelandfe 4y ago
Is there a country more accessible than the US? It’s not perfect, but ADA’s ramp access across the country is remarkable

andrewclunn 4y ago

I agree with the sentiment, but framing your argument by dunking on an Aaron Sorkin avatar is sort of low hanging fruit. I mean that'd be like "destroying Communism" by taking down North Korean state TV. Doesn't mean you're wrong, but nobody worth listening to ever saw these things as more than by-the-numbers propaganda.

aidenn0 4y ago
As TFA mentions, the clip makes has regularly made the rounds on social media for years now. If this blog post can serve only as a single-link response to it, it has some purpose.

texaslonghorn5 4y ago

This was a good article, and before making a snap judgement and skipping it, you should note that the author means exceptional in the literal sense of being an exception or being different, rather than the colloquial sense of "really good." I think the conclusion is interesting, so I'm going to paste it here in case you don't want to read the whole article. > To put it simply then, the United States might be typified by an emphasis on achieving greatness (as traditionally defined) above almost everything else.18 The very bigness is the goal, driving forward towards larger profits, newer technology, more clicks and views, greater military power, more allies19, damn the consequences. That’s not the only thing at the heart of America, but it is one of the things. > And on those terms it is hard not to conclude that the United States is a success, indeed, it is a country that has succeeded on those terms like no other country has ever succeeded. It has resulted in a country which is not merely exceptional, but exceptionally exceptional – that is, the United States is highly unusual in an unusually high number of ways. And, as I noted at the beginning, it is unusual in fairly obvious ways, evident enough that one has to accomplish some serious mental contortions not to notice what a strange, expansive and powerful country the United States is. > The interesting question then is not if the United States is a great country but if it will be a good country, if all of that vastness in wealth, technology, influence and power will be put towards some worthy aim, both judged against our ideals20 and against the historical behavior of other great powers.21 It’s a question that only Americans can really answer, in our doing. I strive and hope that we answer well.

towaway15463 4y ago
> will be put towards some worthy aim Like self governance?

starkd 4y ago

This is a common misunderstanding of the meaning of the word 'exceptional'. The origins of the phrase "American exceptionalism" had nothing to do with greatness or thinking one country is better than another. It is exceptional only in that the country was concieved as an exception to the rule of where its power ultimately comes from. The normal foundation for the state was upon a divinely anointed monarchy. America was founded by the people who loan their power to representatives. That power can be revoked at any time by the people. It was a dramatic departure from the expactations of sovereignty at the time.

mikkergp 4y ago
While this may be true originally or historically, I don’t think it’s what most people today mean colloquially when they say American Exceptionalism, and I think there’s a large group of people that agree more with the colloquial definition.
- elevation 4y ago
  The "colloquial" definition has been popularized by those who demean the US rhetorically. You can paint as a fool anyone who claims that "American Exceptionalism" even exists by contrasting the phrase to any statistic that makes the US look less than "exceptional." However, the classical definition, that the U.S. has a historically unique operating agreement, is generally understood in politically conservative contexts.
- starkd 4y ago
  Yes, I understand that. But it's very different from its origins. When America was founded, it consisted of mostly farmers. Basic agriculture. It produced nothing extraodinary and in relation to other countries. Britain was the financial powerhouse of the world, and there were no monoliths present. I just wanted to point out how language has been distorted to make the notion of exceptionalism something that it is not and never was.
  - the_lonely_road 4y ago

lalaithion 4y ago

Newsroom spoilers ahead! > The diatribe that statement is treated by the visual language of the scene like a truth bomb, which is why it is so odd because Jeff Daniels’ character is not merely wrong, but (as I intend to show) laughably so The scene in question is literally the first scene in the first episode of the show. Jeff Daniels' character is disillusioned, sold out to advertisers, lacking integrity, and alone. His character arc, over the entire season, is about him getting over the attitude shown in the clip.

ncmncm 4y ago

There are two ways one may interpret "American exceptionalism". The first is that, being a rich country and democratically elected, our standards for fair and ethical behavior are higher than others'. We can afford to be generous and to be kind. Our declaration of universal human rights means we stick up for rights not just in our own territory, but for all our human sisters and brothers, extending due process to all, even those under the boot of foreign enemy governments, and aiding movements toward democracy, freedom, and recognition of inherent human rights and dignity. The other is that, being so fucking rich and powerful, the rules don't apply to us, and we are justified in doing anything, no matter how harmful, anywhere it gets something for companies based here or people holding power here at the moment. You can guess which way administrations who have promoted "American exceptionalism" jumped. I don't think I need to trot out examples, but it seems notable that Russia copied the verbiage that US published in support of its unsupportable invasion of Iraq when they invaded Ukraine. The US demanding International Criminal Court attention to Russian war crimes, while warning that any attempt at prosecuting well-known American war criminals would evoke military action, is particularly rich. Arranging for Nobel Peace Prizes to be issued to war criminals is a neat touch.

mikkergp 4y ago
> but it seems notable that Russia copied the verbiage that US published in support of invading Iraq, when they invaded Ukraine. I don't think it is notable that Russia copied the verbiage of the US, this seems like a logical fallacy. Bad people will always quote the most powerful people to try and make a point, or try and weaken them. It doesn't mean it's good, it is just an irrelevant part of the argument.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  You seem to miss the point that there was no legitimate justification for invading Iraq. We invaded Iraq because certain people temporarily in authority wanted to invade Iraq, for personal, petty, and cynical reasons. Russians cribbing from that was obviously meant ironically. Missing that point is telling.

srvmshr 4y ago

US definitely has exceptional successes, but there are so many systemic flaws which other countries may or may not have, and where US could vastly improve. * High medical costs * Highest maternal mortality among developed countries * Highest income gaps * High education cost & the vicious circle of college debt. * Increasing trends of bankruptcy & paycheck-to-paycheck sustenance. * Lack of public transportation issues in most places * Very oil dependent economy. * Gun violence. So many lives needlessly lost every year. * Growing mental health & opiod crisis * Lack of public awareness about current affairs (& to some extent apathy even) * Waning trust in judiciary & in parallel the rise of the rich oligarchy * Interference in politics of other countries * Equality of diversity (in true sense) is still to be achieved given racial profiling persists * The extent of personal freedom without state agencies keeping track of activities. It definitely has successes but there is a long road to being a model nation. But US as a nation has demonstrated the capacity to overcome odds in fortitude. There is hope - but a sense of cautious hope

stjohnswarts 4y ago
This reads like a sudden kick to a friend in the nads and then telling him "you're a pretty good guy". What is the point of a post like this? It's not balanced at all if your last statement is to be considered. If you don't like the country then just come out and own it.
- srvmshr 4y ago
  My comment wasn't to wax on further to the original post. There are glaring issues which US faces & can improve vis-a-vis developed countries with similar quality of life. Its a bad idea to push deficiencies under the rug, pretend they don't exist & call it an 'exceptionally exceptional' country
- thiht 4y ago
  OP didn’t say they don’t like the US, but that there are tons of things to improve. Thinking US is the best country in the world and rejecting the issues is why it’s considered a shithole by a growing population of the world. As a French, the US seems like at third world country to me regarding social rights and benefits.

epolanski 4y ago

The biggest issue we Europeans have with the american exceptionalism are the implications on foreign politics. Victoria Nuland giving cookies at the Maidan square and appointing the post Yanukovich government? US can. Paying italian Mafia to kill socialist workers in Italy? US can. Having US drunk air force peoppe kill 30 civillians in Italy because they wanted to see how low they coukd fly and sending them back home without charges? US can. Toppling governments, supporting and funding coups in half the world? US can. Military actions around the world against UN, which include bs wars like Iraq? US can. Spying on all the world,including the german chancellor, inserting back doors in routers, processors and civilian infrastructure? US can. US exceptionalism is a dangerous thinking, and what is more worrying is how openly US leaders talk about it. I vividly remember a 4th july speech by Obama with a 10 minutes rant on how US is exceptional and can do things other can't.

osigurdson 4y ago
What about WWII, do you wish the US would have stayed out of that?
- cat_plus_plus 4y ago
  Forget about WWII, does OP wish US would stay out of Europe now and leave superpower things to Russia?
- epolanski 4y ago
  WW2 ended 77 years ago and it's time that we quit speaking about it as reasons to allow US do whatever they want on a geopolitical scale. Those are "deeds" of many generations ago.

palmetieri2000 4y ago

The logic of "The US is the greatest if you likes X things and bad if you prefer Y" is poor because it can be applied to anything. Colombia during Pablo Escobar's time was probably considered pretty great if you were a Narco Trafficker. The article entirely misses the problem non-US people have with the US faffing on about greatness or its exceptionality. Which is that individuals from the US seem to see this as an indication of their own superiority and develop a parochial point of view regardless of their almost total insignificance to the accomplishments of the US. Most US citizens have done precisely nothing to increase the 'greatness' of the US other than pay their taxes (which they oppose doing). Many non-US citizens have done much more, the success of the USA is the result of a combined effort from many countries but the parochialism of many Americans refuses to acknowledge this. Even if your country is exceptional, which is immeasurable nonsense (I'm sure every country is exceptional in some ways), you should not take pride from this because you have done incredibly little to achieve it. I expect precisely 0 Americans to agree with me, but my PoV is not uncommon in Australia at least.

stjohnswarts 4y ago
Nice job compartmentalizing 330 million Americans into your tiny box. Contrast how awesome Australia is to America and I think you'll see similar amounts of faults as you portray Australians as model citizens of the world and Australia as peak civilization.
- palmetieri2000 4y ago
  Australia has many flaws, some of them quite significant. Note that I never say a single thing about Australia being perfect or model citizens, that is your fabrication which you interpreted as 'US Bad and Parochial, Australia Good". Very zero sum of you, which fits exactly into the type of personality I am talking about. Find as many flaws in Australia as you can, it wont offend me because unlike you I dont see my country as beyond reproach. I did not invent American Exceptionalism, I did not write the article we are discussing, Americans are the ones who refer to their country as the best or greatest.
starkd 4y ago

mikkergp 4y ago

Can you really divorce greatness from goodness? I mean you can, but the author seems to go back and forth in how he places value on bigness. The sentiment that we have the most research institutions does not seem to be presented as valueless, and yet we also talk about the replicability crisis in science. McDonald’s is the largest restaurant chain in the world, does that mean American cuisine is the greatest? I think I agree with the overarching sentiment of the piece: that America is unquestionably exceptional given a neutral definition of the word exceptional, but may conclude we are less driven by greatness and more driven by dominance at all cost. And this is overly critical, America is obviously not do bad things 100% of the time, in fact I would probably say America is equal parts "Do great things" "Do, even if there's no evidence it's good" and "Gosh, no one has ever been inhumane enough to charge money for THAT before"

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I think you absolutely can divorce greatness from goodness. Think of Genghis Kahn, Stalin, Alexander the Great, and even Hitler. These are humans who have had an outsized impact on the course of humanity. Perhaps similar historical events would have come about with a different person, but they were the human that made massively impactful decisions. Their personal whims and experience decided the fate of large portions of the world. They had a great impact. If that is not the same as greatness, perhaps we need an alternative term to describe great impact without moral connotation.

WalterBright 4y ago

A nation founded on the principles of all men being created equal, along with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is indeed exceptional. The results have been exceptional, too. The US does indeed have plenty of problems, but those problems are usually traceable to neglecting those founding principles.

Hammershaft 4y ago
> A nation founded on the principles of all men being created equal, along with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness Isn't the legacy of these 'founding principles' tarnished from the fact that many of the founding fathers owned hundreds of slaves? We are still within a living generation of segregation in southern states, an injustice that owes directly to how the founding fathers applied those principles.
- mhh__ 4y ago
  The principles may not be although I think it's a strong argument against the already silly concept of originalism
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  No, it isn't. Those principles are things to be strived for, both when the words were put on paper as well as now. The fact that not all of those who put those words on paper totally embodied all of those principles does not make them any less worthy, they are a guiding principle after all - not a description of the state of the nation or the world in the 1700s. Under that guiding principle the USA has gone from a state which inherited slavery to one which, together with the United Kingdom, abolished slavery as well as the trans-Atlantic slave trade. While this did not totally end the practice of slavery - it existed long before the first slave was brought to the shores of the colonies and kept on existing long after the last slaver was boarded by the Royal Navy, indeed it still exists today in many countries in the middle east, Africa and parts of Asia - it did set in motion the cultural shift which made the concept of enslavement to be something which is unreconcilable with democracy [1]. There have been several ugly episodes in the history of the USA after slavery was abolished but this is one of the few cases where the arc of history indeed has tended towards justice. The wheels of justice may move slowly but move they do - unless obstructed. This is why the rise of identity politics - which aims to derail justice into ${identity_category} justice - is so harmful since prefix-justice is not justice. [1] this did not use to be the case, the Athenian democracy had no qualms about slavery

zmmmmm 4y ago

I wonder how many of the conclusions would change if the EU is considered as a "country"? Which is to say, it's a little bit of a definitional problem around what the word "country" actually means. The US, being a federalist collection of semi-autonomous states is sort of a hybrid country. There are some clear aspects (a single military, federal laws, a common currency, a commonly elected president). But then there are other aspects such as that the autonomy given to states is such that they invent local laws to the extent that for a huge range of areas you effectively have to deal with the US on a state-by-state basis.

ncmncm 4y ago
Historians distinguish "nation", "state", and "country". The US is a State, but not a nation, and not a country. EU approaches the status of a State, but also neither of the others.

usrn 4y ago

It was but the progressives destroyed it in the mid 60s.

dang 4y ago
Ideological flamewar is not what this site is for, and the site guidelines specifically ask you not to do it. You've been doing it repeatedly, unfortunately. If you'd please stop that, we'd appreciate it. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

cat_plus_plus 4y ago

The missing part of the story is that US may be exceptional, but also very vulnerable right now. People keep saying "guns/abortions are my right" (with equal extremes from opponents), why should I compromise at all? Well, framers of constitution compromised quite a bit on things they believed in and that caused problem later, but it's only through compromise that the nation came to exist and it's only through continued compromise that it can continue. Otherwise if living in an exceptional country is not making anyone happy, even morally it's better to have 50 less exceptional countries where people can come to some understanding rather than fighting all the time.

mudlus 4y ago

Yes. It's one of the few countries where citizens are protected from the government. This means anyone can make huge mistakes, and it's viewed as immoral to stop them. Myopically, it drives a politics of fear and control ('Won't someone please think of the children [who we don't consider people with rights, so as to individually choose not to go to school, for example]'). Long term, America has provided more progress to the world in terms of ideas, technology, knowledge, than any other community in human history. It also means that they are free to make ideological mistakes, no one is embraced to say their opinion even if it's wrong. This is a Tradition of Criticism, and it extends to the West in general, but is exemplified by America (Hollywood, US media, etc). All progress comes from criticism. America is 'exceptional', but with that power comes great responsibility--something recent generations don't seem to want. So, giving up rights, puts the responsibility in some other's hand--an appeal to authority. This has lead to a great culture of pessimism. I hope that will end soon and more American's will be optimistic and proud of their responsibility to infinite knowledge growth through a Tradition of Criticism.

randcraw 4y ago
Conversely, the EU is one of the few economies where citizens are protected from abuse by corporations. In America, mostly we're not. Choose your poison. Does that make the EU exceptional too?

snake_plissken 4y ago

So there are a number ways in which people define the phrase "American Exceptionalism". I didn't realize there was a debate about it until the phrase became part of the popular vernacular over the past, 5 years? All this time I've been stumbling around thinking it was our ability to run twin deficits (trade and budget) for like 40 years, without any appreciable increase in Treasury yields.

ncmncm 4y ago
The claim of "American Exceptionalism" was a cornerstone of the Bush Jr. presidency. Notably, the Obama presidency continued it, both in word (speeches) and in action (death from the sky).

Barrin92 4y ago

First off I think it's good that the author distinguishes between 'greatness' and subjective preference but I think the entire analysis is overly quantitative. It's a very long piece so I'll just take one example, the power and influence across the world: >"One may of course argue that this situation is changing, albeit slowly, but at the moment the contrast is startling: the sphere of Russian influence does quite reach Kyiv (about 150 miles from the Russian border) and the sphere of Chinese influence does not quite reach Taipei (about the same distance, but over water), but American influence evidently reaches both despite the former being 4,300 miles and the latter 6,500 miles away from American shores." While that is true one can't talk about influence without talking about depth and quality. Russia and China have more limited reach, but the countries where in particular Russia has had an influence, Russian culture deeply permeates. One only needs to visit Kazakhstan to see the influence from its very system of politics at the top and well into the private homes. US influence around the world is wide but often times quite shallow. It's mirrored in military disappointments despite overwhelming power. Vietnam, Afghanistan recently, and so on. Same in the sphere of culture. Despite the overwhelming dominance of the US and the UK as well and, the Chinese haven't all become American, as people are noticing now, despite what they thought in the 90s. Even South America diverges pretty widely from the US compared to say, Russia and its direct periphery. And I think this is to an extent true within the US as well. The author rightfully points out the dominance of US education in sheer numbers, but the US also seems to have unique troubles to translate this into social tools. For all the high quality of top tier American education and money, it hasn't necessarily created exceptional outcomes broadly, even compared to much poorer nations. There's a thinness to American exceptionalism that is often masked by the focus on numbers and size. While the country is exceptionally rich, the life expectancy is not exceptionally high, but lower than in Cuba. And I think articles like this which pretend to be objective do intentionally wave that aside.

jaqalopes 4y ago

All the facts here are fine but I'm left wondering, what are the stakes of "proving" how great America is? What good do all those aircraft carriers do me? Holding down the Chinese, I guess. But then, isn't holding the rest of the world down while the "American way of life" carries on the whole point of all this "greatness"? At the end of WWII, America was the last rich country standing and proceeded to go round the world kicking out left-wing governments (unfriendly or not) and installing right-wing ones. The result was unprecedented profits and security for American corporations, and some of that wealth undoubtedly trickled down. But I'm left thinking about the cost. Is it any wonder Russia, Iran, South America, etc. would distrust us and want us out of their business? The comparison at the end to the Mongols feels apt, since while their empire was undeniably great, it is very difficult to argue that they were a force for good in the lives of the people on whose backs that greatness was won.

osigurdson 4y ago
I don't think any historical power (Assyrian, Persian, Roman, Mongolian, Japan and even Britain) can be compared to the modern US. Those were just different and far more brutal times across all of humanity. If the US had been even remotely like one of these powers at the end of WWII, they would have dominated the entire world as the only nuclear power. Yet, they choose not to do so and allowed their enemies to develop nuclear weapons on their own. Stop beating yourselves up. The US has been an incredible force of good in the world for the most part - though not perfect of course. Russian, Iranian and Venezuelan governments on the other hand have been objectively horrible. I don't believe the "American way of life" is keeping anyone down other than those that wish to oppress others.
- srvmshr 4y ago
  > Yet, they choose not to do so and allowed their enemies to develop nuclear weapons on their own. If they had a choice to not allow them develop lethal weapons, they would by all means. McCarthyism executed a few, incarcerated several & targeted scores on charges of defense espionage, over a decade, including Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb. Not a great example. If the world has misunderstood this grandiosity, US should be willing to let Iranians & Koreans build their nuclear weapons, no? > The US has been an incredible force of good in the world for the most part. Reference needed to make such "exceptional" statement. The natural status quo would have inadvertently kept some power balance with or without US. International policing has just made the waters murkier. AFAIK US has meddled with politics of dozens of countries for political & economic gains. Count almost the whole of Latin America in it. Confessions of an economic hitman is a good read (it exaggerated several claims but the theme is consistent & accepted to be major US policies) Middle East is a quagmire, and hard to comment in this post - but what was the rationale of pitting Pakistan against India militarily for decades & now India against China. This is setting up a war of attrition on someone else's expense. As an Indian by birth, I know the numbers run into thousands of soldiers & civilians killed in conflict, mostly funded by arms & assistance to Pakistan over 80s & 90s. Could you forget Nixon sent 7th Fleet to Arabian sea with an intention to nuke India if IndoPak war persisted to favor a dictator in Pakistan [1,1a, 1b]? Not to forget Taliban was propped up by US [2] & ISIS was created in the vacuum of lawlessness left behind after Opn. Iraqi Freedom [3]. > I don't believe the "American way of life" is keeping anyone down other than those that wish to oppress others. Space is a constraint for a full scale diatribe, but the Hispanic part of the world would like to have a word about it at least. Trade protectionism & political bullying has affected Latin American countries for several decades. Hispanic workers suffer lower wages in general than Americans, although working harder on most menial jobs [4] 1. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-indian-international-law-and-us-assertion-7266917/ https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-indian... 1a. https://www.firstpost.com/world/the-1971-war-when-richard-nixon-and-henry-kissinger-failed-to-scare-off-the-indians-10200661.html https://www.firstpost.com/world/the-1971-war-when-richard-ni... 1b. https://www.nytimes.com/1985/07/22/us/nixon-says-he-considered-using-atomic-weapons-on-4-occasions.html https://www.nytimes.com/1985/07/22/us/nixon-says-he-consider... 2. https://www.agoristnexus.com/taliban/ https://www.agoristnexus.com/taliban/ 3. https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/iraqs-power-vacuum-counterfactual-analysis-saddam-husseins-authoritarian-rule https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/iraqs-power-vacuum-cou... 4. https://universitybusiness.com/press-release/study-hispanic-workers-wages-less-than-whites/ https://universitybusiness.com/press-release/study-hispanic-...

Tainnor 4y ago

IMHO, the article boils down to the fact that the US is the top superpower in the first fully globalised era, and that to me explains why it seems to be "exceptional". It doesn't mean that it is more exceptional than earlier superpowers, like Rome, or Spain or Great Britain, if we account for the increased interconnectedness of the world. It also doesn't imply that all of these statistics may not one day apply (even more so) to a completely different country, such as maybe China. But most of all, I don't think any of it implies that this is fully due to any intrinsic qualities of the US per se. While those certainly played a role, so did accidents of history. Had Europe not been so dumb to go to war twice in the 20th century, maybe we would think of Great Britain as "exceptional". I also don't like how the author continues to use the adjective "great", despite acknowledging that it might be confused with "good". It's probably problematic that we speak of "Alexander the Great" too, but we do so due to historiographic tradition. There's IMHO no need to carry over this baggage to contemporary history. We can just call the US "important" or "a superpower", which is what it is, without using adjectives which so clearly imply moral judgement that the author immediately has to distance themselves from it (and IMHO in a rather half-hearted manner).