The Fire This Time, Part 2

The protesters in Seattle's "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" (CHAZ)* might want to read George Orwell's masterpiece about the Spanish Civil War, "Homage to Catalonia," to learn what happened to the anarchists who took over the town of Barcelona.  Or read about the members of the French Commune in 1870. Or the Bolshevik creators of the Munich commune in the aftermath of the First World War. It didn't end well for them.  Given the choice between anarchy and order, most citizens opt for order.  And the worse the anarchy is, the more brutal the strongman who restores that order. Witness Napoleon after the chaos of the French Revolution.

Orwell admitted that he was at first exultant over the anarchists in Barcelona eliminating money, private property, and all class distinctions, with people from all different backgrounds serving as waiters and sanitation workers. But his enthusiasm quickly dissipated when he saw how the anarchists were being executed by their ostensible allies, the Soviet-backed militias who took over the Republican cause. Orwell never fully got over his disillusionment from the Spanish Civil War, and his bitterness led to the writing of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-four.  The protesters who are now pulling down monuments and attempting to eliminate history may well have been inspired by the bureaucrats of Orwell's Ministry of Truth in the latter novel. More likely they have not read the book and are simply following the natural pattern of all totalitarians who disguise themselves as liberators.

* Now renamed "Capitol Hill Organized Protest" (CHOP) 6/25/2020

David Ryder / Getty Images

Exceptional? Or "Indispensable"?

(Painting: "Spirit of America," Norman Rockwell, 1979)

On Friday afternoon, CNN reported that, during his press conference at the White House earlier that day, President Obama declared that America is "indispensable" to the world in such crises as the current ones in the Middle East because "we're willing to plunge in and try where other countries don't bother trying." 

This may come as something of a surprise to those who remember Obama's view of "American exceptionalism" as something he, well, took exception to; who remember him saying at the NATO summit in France last year that "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism," and other occasions when he seemed to play down or dismiss the "myth of American exceptionalism.  Certainly many liberals, leftists, and Obama supporters have voiced the same disbelief in a uniquely American exceptionalism, and in fact many essays on the pervasiveness of this "myth" have been penned by fierce critics of the idea, who worry that it breeds chauvinism and an attitude that "America doesn't have to play by the same rules" as other nations. So Obama's recent comments may cause some to wonder: Is there a difference between being "indispensable" and being "exceptional'? Is the former word just a softer, more  utilitarian way of expressing the latter?  Is "indispensable" simply a more down-to-earth sounding notion, conjuring up a vision of an America ready to roll up its sleeves and help the world (but only when called-upon), while "exceptional" implies an almost metaphysical sense of entitlement?  Perhaps Obama has been reading James Flexner's 1994 biography of our first president, Washington: The Indispensable Man.  (If being indispensable was good enough for Washington, it must be good enough for America.)   You can be sure the White House speechwriters have mulled this over during more than one brainstorming session.

Actually, Friday wasn't the first time Obama moved away from his previous skepticism about the idea of American exceptionalism. In the video clip above, taken during Obama's speech to the graduating class at West Point in May, he pointedly said, ""America must always lead on the world stage. If we don't, no one else will" And in the final debate of the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama stated "America remains the one indispensable nation, and the world needs a strong America." Needless to say, Obama also told the West Pointers that military action is not always necessary or wise, that we must "act with restraint," and that collective action is preferable to America going it alone; and he added after his debate remark about America's strength the admittedly self-serving comment "and it is stronger now than when I came into office." But Obama has been saying this sort of thing for some time now.  Is it pure politics, a convenient way to wave the flag to get re-elected in 2012 or to get fellow Democrats elected in 2014?  Or has he really come to appreciate that there's something America brings to the table that no other nation does, that it is indeed, exceptional -- or "indispensable,"  If so, it would be a major leap in Obama's thinking -- exceptionalism suggests far more than merely being indispensable ("Jim is an indispensable part of our corporate team.")  Has Obama become -- shut the barn doors, Mabel -- a neoconservative?  Or is his rhetoric, as is the way of politics, a mixture of both?  Skeptics should rightly remain skeptical -- especially of political language.  Time for us all to reread George Orwell's essay, "Politics and the English Language."  For the time being, our president has designated America as indispensable, but not inherently exceptional.  At least the Greeks -- not the ancients, but the modern ones -- will be relieved.

In any event, I have no doubt that the debate about American exceptionalism will continue for a long time, not least among those who believe that America is exceptional for its wickedness, not its goodness. I suspect that you, gentle reader, lean towards one or the other. For myself, I'll paraphrase a line from Pauline Kael's famous essay on Orson Welles: "In a less confused world, its glory would be greater than its guilt.