Sarah Palin, Exceptionalism, and Lipstick on a Pig

In the Sept. 25 edition of The New York Times, Roger Cohen had an op-ed piece about Sarah Palin's version of "American exceptionalism," a version for which he coins the term "Palinism." (Just as an aside, if you replace the "P" in "Palinism" with an "St," you get "Stalinism"—a rather odd coincidence, don't you think?)

While Cohen pointed out the danger of Palin's brand of American exceptionalism, he did not go far enough. It is people like Palin who bring home to us the fundamental nonsensicality of the notion of "exceptionalism"—American or otherwise. Before the Americans latched on to the notion, the Jews had already been toying with it for over 2,000 years. And look where that got us—Zionism and the whole bloody mess that is the Middle East today. The Americans simply secularized the notion of "God's chosen people" and recast the rhetoric of religious exceptionalism into that of political exceptionalism. The Jewish "light for the nations" (Isaiah 49:6) became the American "beacon for democracy." The full verse in Isaiah reads: "I will also make you a light for the nations so that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth." Americans are no less into "salvation" than the Prophet Isaiah; however, they are going to save the world from itself, not from the worship of false gods. And their means are accordingly political, not religious. Democracy is the new antidote that replaces Yahweh's strong arm.

As Jewish exceptionalism has shown, the notion of exceptionalism leads inevitably to a sense of entitlement. The Jews claim title to the land God allegedly promised them, and when that title is challenged, they go berserk. Likewise, Americans feel entitled to a position of supremacy in the world (so much for democracy!) and when that supremacy is challenged or threatened or lost, they respond with "rage"—the "angry exceptionalism" that Cohen sees as the hallmark of Palinism—and outrage. How dare anyone challenge American supremacy! And when countries such as Russia or Iran or North Korea have the temerity, even the audacity, to stand up to the doctrine of American supremacy, there is a great deal of bluster, and talk of an "axis of evil," and threats of sanctions, and a great deal of righteous indignation, and even invasion and illegal occupation (as in Iraq), all under the guise of spreading democracy.

But here is the irony: exceptionalism is the very antithesis of democracy. The fundamental tenet of democracy is that no one can claim exceptionality; everyone is equal. Being exceptional (in the ordinary sense of the word) confers no special privileges upon the exceptional, and exceptionality is therefore irrelevant in the political process. In a democracy, no exceptions can be made for anyone, not even the exceptional. This applies no less to nations than to individuals. No matter how exceptional Americans may be in the ordinary sense of the term, they cannot claim exemption from the requirements that apply to all nations, they cannot place themselves above international law. This is what the notion of democracy would demand. However, the United States tramples democracy in the dust when it comes to dealing with other nations, and has consistently pursued a sort of "shadow imperialism," from Haiti and the Philippines (under Marcos) to Iran (under the Shah) and the Banana Republics of Central America. Not surprisingly, it has been repeatedly dismissive of the United Nations, which, for all its faults, is at the very least an honest attempt at establishing democratic (as opposed to imperialistic) relations among nations. America's disdain for the International Court of Justice is yet another instance of the arrogrance that comes with exceptionalism. It seems that in the international political arena democracy is fine for Americans as long as it promotes American interests—and if it does not, then democracy be damned! This is the underlying psychology of the bully. Bullies know they are exceptional and are proud of their exceptionality (this is what gives them the power to be bullies), but we would hardly use their exceptionality as a justification for their behaviour. America's lip service to democracy is thus a visible manifestation of America's underlying insincerity and hypocrisy.

So what can we say about American exceptionalism? The term "exceptionalism" is a rather transparent and ineffective euphemism for "jingoism." It is a pathetic attempt to put lipstick on the pig of American foreign policy and America's view of its place in and relation to the rest of the world. A turd by any other name would smell as shitty (to paraphrase Shakespeare), and American exceptionalism, no matter how nice-sounding that phrase may be, stinks of conceit, arrogance, and hypocrisy. It is all very well to be a beacon of democracy, but when you spread it at gunpoint and trample upon the democratic rights of other nations you show your true colours. The lipstick comes off the pig, and the pig "goes back to her wallowing in the mire" (2 Peter 2:22).