Christian L. Allaire

Professor Thomas Burke

Foundations in Adult Learning

11 December 2010

American Exceptionalism and The Bush Doctrine

In this essay I discuss the concept of American exceptionalism from varying

perspectives. I analyze a unique American exceptionalism, connected to American

individualism, and assert an emphasis or de-emphasis on exceptionalism, that shifts with

the ideology of the American president. I take aim at a Euro-centric attitude, and point to

one inconsistency, pundit’s overlook when criticizing the “Bush Doctrine,” resulting in

an unfair blemish to America’s global reputation in the foreign policy arena.

American exceptionalism is an idea that runs deep within American culture, but

suffers under an intense push back, beginning with academia in the 1960’s. Resistance

continues today, in part, due to its perceived connection to America’s War on Terror, the

invasion of Iraq, and policy codified in the Bush Doctrine. American exceptionalism

resides in the belief that America’s birth, and subsequent achievements are qualitatively

superior, imbuing a comparative uniqueness upon the United States. This “American

Creed can be described in five terms: liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism,

and laissez-faire” (Lipset 19).

An even-handed analysis of history clearly leads a student to conclude America is

unique. The concept of American exceptionalism was not created by Americans, but was

first observed by Alexis de Tocqueville, described in his book Democracy in America.

Political sociologist, Seymour Martin Lipset, has described American exceptionalism as

1

“a double-edged concept” (18). He analyses Tocqueville’s writings in light of critics,

such as historian Howard Zinn, who contend that America is morally flawed and cannot

possibly be exceptional. The difficulty in accessing American exceptionalism boils down

to semantics. Does exceptionalism mean better than? In my view, America is exceptional

in a unique way, and does not presuppose a cultural superiority. In terms of Lipset’s

“double-edged concept,” he says “We are the worst as well as the best, depending on

which quality is being addressed” (18). A leftist such as Zinn seem to always point to

flaws, whereas a neoconservative such as Newt Gingrich, himself a historian, will

counter with an acknowledgement of American shortcomings, but emphasizes America’s

overwhelming contribution to humanity.

America is exceptional because of the nature of its founding, and how it evolved

differently than the European model. Most critics have a decidedly “European”

worldview, and become upset when America strays from that worldview. Case in point,

is the blowback from Europe when the Bush Administration exercised a unique American

individualism, a “go it alone” strategy when dealing with Iraq in 2002-03. This should

come as no surprise. America resists a European approach on most things. America’s

place in the world when viewed through the European lens looks to be selfish. However,

the unique American strain of individualism should be defined in terms of the following

quote: “American culture is not individualism but voluntarism”, and “Individuals pursue

their personal goals through voluntary association” (Fisher 368). This philosophy extends

to American foreign policy and accounts for many American’s distaste for the United

Nations model. To a Marxist like Howard Zinn, an entrenched perceived individualism is

a moral failure. The fact that socialism has never gained traction in the U.S. is another

2

feather in America’s exceptional cap, and clearly America’s system of free market

capitalism is far superior to anything this planet has ever seen. This may be coming to an

end, as a more centrally planned, European style of economics, continues to strangle the

laissez-faire style originally adopted in America.

European critics will roll out the American exceptionalism as hubris card

depending on the political ideology of the American president. Again, this highlights a

polarity between a European centric-view favored by Democrats versus a more American

centered foreign policy favored by Republicans. The differences between the two parties

in actuality are limited, but the reaction to a move by the U.S. is either muted or

amplified, depending on which president triggers the event. When President Clinton set a

war in motion in Kosovo, he was considered a humanitarian by halting genocide. When

President Bush did the same in Iraq, he was an imperialist bent on hegemony.

The Bush Doctrine outlined in the National Security Strategy for 2002 states:

“We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able

to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies

and friends” (Delahunty, Yoo 844). This is the doctrine of preemptive war, and it created

a significant uproar when crafted and acted upon. The question is, did this policy flow

from a moralistic foundation seated in American exceptionalism, and how did this impact

America’s place in the world?

My answer is an unsatisfying maybe. It is true that the U.S. uses phrases such as

“Operation Iraqi Freedom” and “Operation Enduring Freedom” as campaign naming

conventions, leading some to view America as up on its moralistic high horse. There is

nothing wrong with this approach, as all war should be fought for moralistic reasons. I

3

can also link exceptionalism to the Bush Doctrine from the standpoint that America has a

truly powerful military. In 2009, the U.S. accounted for 46% of the entire worlds military

expenditures. China comes in second at 6.6% (globalissues.org). No other country could

adopt a Bush like policy, as they simply don’t have the military muscle to back it up. In

the wake of the collapse of the former Soviet Union, America has shown a distinct

propensity for military action as the world’s only superpower. This has caused a slide in

America’s global reputation. I would caution critics that America’s actions provide an

immediate result, creating substantial fodder for criticism. However, we can’t know what

would have happened if America did not act. I refuse to completely link the Bush

Doctrine with American exceptionalism, as other American presidents and countries have

acted preemptively. The Cuban Missile Crisis being one example, and Bush never hinted

we were “better than” or some “master race.”

The Bush Doctrine was hated so badly by the Europeans, and other Euro-centric

thinkers, simply because they hated George W. Bush. Europe’s revulsion for American

conservatism has a long history. This is relevant in terms of American exceptionalism, as

it seems Europe likes to call upon the U.S. when it suits their purpose, and reject some of

America’s core values when the political winds shift. America is exceptional in that

104,000 American soldiers are buried in Europe due to American intervention during

World War 2 (Wikipedia). A doctrine of preemption acted upon by Europe in 1938

would have checked Adolf Hitler, preventing the 60 million casualties caused by the

Third Reich and its allies (Wikipedia). Europe still enjoys a U.S. provided blanket of

American military protection, and yet some have the gall to point the “dirty end of the

stick” at America for being a “hyper-power.” America would never transfer the

4

responsibility for our nations defense to another power. In my view, it’s an abrogation of

Europe’s responsibility to defend itself by relying on the U.S. for protection. Also, I say

shame on the U.S. for allowing this situation to continue. Europeans fancy themselves as

diplomats of the highest caliber, but lack military capacity, which is a basic component of

diplomacy. I see the European-centric view as duplicitous in the extreme. For an

example, lets briefly again visit the issue of preventive war and the Bush Doctrine.

In 2002-03, the Bush Administration failed to prod the United Nations to act

against Iraqi defiance, and subsequently the U.S., and its allies acted alone. The Euro-

centric population exploded in protest. However, in 1999, President Bill Clinton, along

with our “NATO allies fought a major war in the center of Europe against Serbia”, and

“acted neither pursuant to Security Council authorization nor in individual or collective

self-defense” (Delahunty, Yoo 844). In this case, worldwide reaction was muted. Why? I

posit because of Clinton’s ideology. The Kosovo war was a war of choice, and

preventative in nature. “There are deep and pervasive similarities between, on the one

hand, a preventive war undertaken to protect American or allied civilian populations from

an emerging threat that weapons of mass destruction might be used against them and, on

the other hand, a humanitarian intervention” (847). It is an issue of motive. It seems “the

key difference is that in preventive war the intervenors protect their own populations,

whereas in humanitarian intervention the intervenors protect the target state’s population”

(848). If the Bush Doctrine is to be taken off the table, then logically by extension, any

humanitarian intervention must also be removed as an option.

In this paper, I covered the idea of American exceptionalism by linking it to

individualism, and other elements that may lead one to connect the Bush Doctrine to

5

American exceptionalism. I discussed my distaste for the Euro-centric worldview, as I

have no embarrassment for America’s resistance to collectively bargaining away its

security. America’s place in the world may be suffering because of its individualistic

tone. However, collectivism in all its forms, has always delivered failure. As America

and Europe have expanded social safety nets, and other progressive like policies, we have

been suffocated. As China and India throw off the chains of Marxism, and adopt

economic models grounded in the original American tradition, they excel. American

exceptionalism is a force for good and a wonderful example of achievement. Wake up

America.

6

Works Cited

Delahunty, Robert J., and John Yoo. "THE "BUSH DOCTRINE": CAN

PREVENTIVE WAR BE JUSTIFIED?." Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 32.3

(2009): 843-865. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 9 Dec. 2010.

Fischer, Claude S. "Paradoxes of American Individualism." Sociological Forum

23.2 (2008): 363-372. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 10 Dec. 2010.

Lipset, Seymour M. American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword. New

York: W.W. Norton, 1996. Print.

"World War II casualties." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The

Free Encyclopedia, 2 Dec. 2010. Web. 10 Dec. 2010.

“World Military Spending.” Global Issues, Social, Political, Economic and

Environmental Issues That Affect Us All. 08 Dec. 2010. Web.

http://www.globalissues.org/

7