美國卓異主義
歐巴瑪的就職演講，在國際間引起普遍正面的反應，世界各國，也都期待著美國外交新頁的展開。但是歐巴瑪在這篇演說中呼籲美國人民齊心「重造」美國，使之能再「領導世界」的訊息，聽在其他國家領袖耳中，恐怕仍然有點刺耳。美國憑什麼就一定是世界的領袖？
德國總理默克在禮貌的恭賀之後，也忍不住加上一句：「沒有一個國家能獨力解決世界的問題。」法國總統薩克齊也說：「有歐巴瑪總統的合作，我們 (法國) 必能改變世界。」在布希極不受歡迎的執政期後，任何美國「領導世界」的言辭，都難免引起猜忌。
歐巴瑪的言辭，其實是根植於「美國卓異主義」(American Exceptionalism)的傳統 。所謂「美國卓異主義」，也就是認為美國有著不同於其他國家的「卓越」與「特異」，在精神與政策上，都是世上獨一無二的政治個體。而沾染「美國卓異主義」色彩的，也並不只有這句有關外交的講話，歐巴瑪的整篇演講，都是建立在復興「美國卓異主義」的訴求上。
「美國卓異主義」應溯源至開國的清教徒。十七世紀初期，清教徒為了宗教的自由，不惜離開英國本土，漂洋過海建立新國。(清教徒信仰的改革教派，也就是現今的基督教，在教義與儀典上都與英國國教，也就是現今的聖公會，有著極大的不同。在清教徒眼中，英國國教無異於他們一意要反對的天主教。) 清教徒「不自由毋寧死」的堅持，在一開始，就為美國立國精神，樹立起了鮮明的獨立旗幟。而宗教意識強烈的清教徒，更在政治之外，為此追求自由的行為添加了神學與宗教的意義。他們認定飄洋過海是天昭神命，既是神的旨意，他們 (美國人) 也就是神的「選民」，而他們所移居的美國，也就無異於是神所應允的伊甸園了。這是「美國卓異主義」的宗教向度。
1630年領導清教徒移居麻薩諸塞州的約翰溫斯普 (John Winthrop)，曾在渡海的船上，發表著名的〈基督徒慈悲典範〉(A Model of Christian Charity) 的佈道演說。演說中，他引用馬太福音第5章 14節：「城立在山上，是不能隱藏」的經文，而以「山上之城」(city on the hill) 的意象，描述自己對新地的理想。「山上之城」從此成為「美國卓異主義」最重要的象徵，經常出現在政治家的演說之中。1989年雷根總統在任滿告別國人的演講中，就用了「山上之城」的意象，更進一步地將之變奏為「閃耀的山上之城」，以炫耀自己任期內成就的繁榮與富庶，更以此強調美國是舉世嚮往的燈塔。
雷根總統過於自信的語氣，其實十分違背溫斯普的原意。「山上之城」這個意象所昭示的，並不只是一個高高在上的模範城市，卻更是城市居於高位所應引致的戒慎恐懼。溫斯普說：「這座山上的城市，將引起人們注視的眼光。我們若對上帝虛假，不僅將遭祂遺棄，更將成為世人的笑柄。」 溫斯普強調的，是聖經所說的「不能隱藏」的警示。
甘迺迪總統在就職前十一天發表的演講中，也引用了「山上之城」的意象，旨不在誇耀美國的優異與特殊，卻在強調美國尚應努力的目標──勇氣、判斷、正直與奉獻。雖然同樣根植於「美國卓異主義」 ，甘迺迪的演說似乎比雷根更忠於溫斯普的原意。
通篇以「責任義務」為主旨的歐巴瑪就職演說，遵循了甘迺迪的傳統。在強調自我反省與自我改進的主題之下，歐巴瑪與甘迺迪所意指的「美國卓異主義」，並無傲慢的自負，卻只有謙遜的自許。「美國卓異主義」並不等於「美國優越主義」，更不是具有侵略性的「美國帝國主義」。「卓異」的所在，是美國對民主自由不懈的希望與執著，也是歐巴瑪呼籲國人重振的傳統價值觀。而他所說的「領導世界」，指的也是精神的感召，而非霸權的延伸。這當然是「美國卓異主義」唯一可被合理化的途徑。
(世界周刊, 2009-2-8)
But none of the warfare (including an Indian attack in 1675 that succeeded in butchering a full one-fourth of the white population of Connecticut, and claimed additional thousands of casualties throughout New England) on either side amounted to genocide. Colonial and, later, the American government, never endorsed or practiced a policy of Indian extermination; rather, the official leaders of white society tried to restrain some of their settlers and militias and paramilitary groups from unnecessary conflict and brutality.
Your descriptions of wrongs done by certain extremists does not erase the spirit of plight, just as the Americans has the courage to rectify many wrongs in her past including slavery. I am amazed however, that you can only exemplifies the wrong but failed to see the more important issue. And for your own information, American has never practiced "imperialism!" The so called "cynics"...are including people such as yourself?
For most of my life I have believed, in what I now regard as wishful thinking, that the right and left wings have essentially the same vision for America, that it's only about ways to get there in which the two sides differ. Right and left share the same ends, I thought.
That is not the case. For the most part, right and left differ in their visions of America and that is why they differ on policies.
Right and the left do not want the same America.
The left wants America to look as much like Western European countries as possible. The left wants Europe's quasi-pacifism, cradle-to-grave socialism, egalitarianism and secularism in America. The right wants none of those values to dominate America.
The left prefers to identify as citizens of the world. The left fears nationalism in general (this has been true for the European left since World War I), and since the 1960s, the American left has come to fear American nationalism in particular. On the other side, the right identifies first as citizens of America.
The left therefore regards the notion of American exceptionalism as chauvinism; the United Nations and world opinion are regarded as better arbiters of what is good than is America. The right has a low opinion of the U.N.'s moral compass and of world opinion, both of which it sees as having a much poorer record of stopping genocide and other evils than America has.
I have a fairely good idea of the kind of ideology that you hold, and you sir, fits very well to the description of what I called the "leftist" in my two posts. It disgusts me that after all the terrible things happened in china for the past 60 years, you sir, are still here prostituting your socialist leftist agendas...especally here in the good ol' US of A.
These will be my last comments regarding your column and yourself. Such a disappointment!
No wonder reaction runs the whole gamut from sneering cynicism to absorbed idealism whenever American exceptionalism is mentioned. To the cynics, American exceptionalism is nothing but a disguise for American imperialism with which America launches wars unilaterally, dictates world order, and messes up other countries. For the optimistic believers, America is still a special place where idealism thrives, possibilities abound, and people all over the world dream of coming. Obama said again and again that his story can only happen in this country. He was testifying for that sense of possibilities, which is truly the legacy of American exceptionalism. The hope expressed in his inaugurate speech that America will lead the world again is also rooted in the idea of American exceptionalism. What he meant of course is not military dominance but human aspiration.
Hodgson is a British journalist and historian. His "makes clear that the Pilgrims embarked on the angry north Atlantic in storm season not because they wanted to impose their strict ways on anyone, but to avoid being bothered by anyone.
It was not until the Cold War in the 1950s that American historians, seizing upon John Winthrop's sermon ("we shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us"), suggested that the Pilgrims pioneered "American exceptionalism" by adopting a universal mission to cure this fallen world of corruptions. An American cold warrior, Ronald Reagan, would, 30 years later, wield that "city upon a hill" trope while ending the Cold War.
What is American exceptionalism? The belief that America often knows better than the world what is right and wrong. This belief drives most of the world's opinion-makers crazy. And it particularly infuriates the American Left, that part of America that trusts what is called "world opinion" more than it trusts the American people.
And from where does this belief in American exceptionalism derive? Mostly from the religious beliefs that underlie American values. That is a major reason the current culture war is about the place of Judeo-Christian values in American life. Those who believe that America must remain a Judeo-Christian nation (in terms of values) are far less respectful of international institutions than those who wish to make America a secular nation.
On the other side are those, like the ACLU, who regard even the smallest cross on any county or city seal as a religious threat to the secular republic, who think it America's fault that this country is not highly regarded in public opinion polls from Canada to Germany to South Korea, who passionately opposed John Bolton becoming ambassador to the U.N. because he is highly critical of that institution, and who believe that other nations' laws should be cited in U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Particularly significant is the difference between the two sides' views of law, especially international law. For the Left, i.e., the opponents of American exceptionalism, law is the highest good; for the Right, especially the Judeo-Christian Right, morality is higher than law. This difference is easily observed in the way the two sides view the war in Iraq. For the opponents of American exceptionalism, generally the secular Left here and abroad, the greatest sin of the war is that it allegedly violates international law. Had it been authorized by the United Nations Security Council, as was the first war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it would have been considered legal and not have elicited nearly as much opposition as it has. But because the U.N. Security Council did not authorize this war, it is deemed illegal and therefore deemed wrong.
For the secular world, law has to be the highest definition of the good. Because it does not believe in a universal and objective morality as the Judeo-Christian world does, it has no choice but to put all its moral eggs in the legal basket. For the Judeo-Christian world, law is very, very important. But God-based morality is even more important.
Of course, such a belief has dangers. But the greater danger is thinking that law embodies morality. Rosa Parks just died. She is venerated precisely because she knew a morality higher than law. Too bad more Europeans did not place a Judeo-Christian morality above secular law. There would not have been a Holocaust.
As far as Obama goes...Obama is definitely not running on American exceptionalism, but we knew that when he told the seven-year old that "America is no longer what it could be, what it once was."
“American Exceptionalism”, with its multi-layered implications to different people and different disciplines, has been subjected to zillions of interpretation throughout history. It certainly connotes the ideas you have listed here. But it does not speak exclusively to the issues of policy, political organization, value or even power. More fundamentally, it resonates on a spiritual and humanistic level. What I try to explore in the short 1300-word column is the spiritual/religious origin of the notion that America is exceptional -- Puritans’ belief that Americans are God’s “chosen people” and the land of America is the second Eden given to them by God. From that tradition, “City on the Hill’ has thus become the poster metaphor used by politicians to invoke American Exceptionalism.
I welcome your comments and appreciate that you read my column. I believe that to deepen our understanding on any concept, we have to be inclusive and open-minded, especially on a concept as fluid as this one. To accuse someone who looks at things from different perspective as lacking understanding is not the most effective way to go about expanding our knowledge.
I believe in American exceptionalism, meaning that (a) America has done more than any international organization or institution, and more than any other country, to improve this world; and (b) that American values (specifically, the unique American blending of Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian values) form the finest value system any society has ever devised and lived by.