Obama and the Limits of American "Exceptionalism"

[This essay was published in the Lethbridge Herald on Dec. 1, 2008]   

   I enjoyed Professor Harrison's recent article (Herald, Nov. 27) on the prospects and dangers for Canada of an imperial Obama presidency. His concern about Canada being seduced by an Obama-led U. S. government only to see Canada, "crash on the shores of the faltering American empire," seems, at this time, more phantom than real. In any case, Canada has already generously submitted to American desires by taking on some of the "heavy-lifting" for a largely American war in Afghanistan. Can we be more seduced?

   It is worth noting that American military power and international influence is limited at this time. It is true that Mr. Obama's saber rattling in the campaign, in his pledge to have Bin Laden found and killed and in his threat to invade the Pakistan territories without Pakistan's consent, were the most troubling promises of his campaign. Tough guy rhetoric was necessary, of course, to combat Mr. McCain's exclusive claim to being firm in foreign affairs. But Mr. Obama is not alone in wanting Bin Laden killed, and incursions into the Pakistan territories have been taking place for several months already. In fact, as events of the past few months have strongly suggested, the impending end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by the United States and its "allies" will not be decided by the U. S. alone but by Iraqi and Afghan governments and by events beyond the power of any state, including the U. S., to control. If politics is "the art of the possible," international affairs and war in the current world are even more constrained by "what can be done" over "what any state, even the United States, wants to be done."

   Professor Harrison is most troubled by Mr. Obama's appeal to American "exceptionalism." Some of us who have taught American History have tried, over long careers, to eliminate the "exceptionalist" perspective in American History. The fact is, however, that I cannot think of a single American president or candidate, and regrettably only a very few American historians, who have not raised the banner of American "exceptionalism" to explain the American past and predict its future. Insofar as this mythic claim in American politics and history supports democracy and civil rights in the U. S., it has some small value. But "exceptionalism" has not been solely the handmaiden of empire; it was promoted in some periods of American History as readily by isolationists as it has been by imperialists in other periods. "Exceptionalism" is not, and never has been, primarily a foreign policy call to arms.*

   Professor Harrison is right that the United States is a "faltering" empire, and the vast majority of those who are writing on how this end will unfold are themselves American. There is no increasing support for empire in the U. S., and the Cheney-Wolfowiz-Perle crowd who promoted American exportation of these neo-con ideas is now disgraced (as these ideas were among all progressives long before now).

   I predicted in an earlier submission to the Herald that we should hope Mr. Obama embraces a pragmatic progressive approach to politics. So far he has suggested that he will do so. As Canadians we should hope, as our best ally against imperialism, that truly pragmatic progressive politics become the fashion both south of the border and in all political states.

________________________________

*On my position see, James Tagg, "'And, We Burned Down the White House, Too':  American History, Canadian Undergraduates, and Nationalism," The History Teacher, 37 no. 3 (May, 2004). Also, the same as James Tagg, "American History, Canadian Undergraduates, and Nationalism," in Carl Guarneri and James Davis, eds., Teaching American History in a Global Context (New York, 2008).