Michael Moore, Hero or Rogue

Perhaps pride cometh before the fall, but I don't know that pride is at the root of American Exceptionalism. Difference certainly is, and in many ways that difference can be a source of pride, but not simply for a state of dissimilarity, but rather for what actually makes America different from the rest of the world.

This issue of American hubris is, I think, a lot more complicated than what you would suggest. There is nothing inherently superior about Americans in respect to the rest of the peoples of the world, but there is something quite definitely superior about the ideals America was founded and developed upon, and which has figured greatly in the making of Americans.

America is not blind to its faults. On the contrary, I sometimes think we are fixated on them. Positive change in America can be slow within human time frames, but quite speedy from the perspective of history. Part of this is because America's entire history rests within a period when time began to speed up for the whole world, but it's also due, in large measure, to the fact that the American culture is not weighed down by hundreds of years of comparatively static history.

However, the most vocal critics of America are not historians who have developed an historical perspective.

Folks outside of the United States are, for any number of reasons, offended by American confidence, and American pride. They would like their superpowers to be a more humble lot, which, given self-interest, is perfectly understandable. That just isn't how it works though. The meek may eventually inherit the world, but in the meantime, they will not become a superpower.

When one considers how many truly outstanding minds were present at one time and in one place to father this nation, and the odds that were overcome to establish the United States, it's difficult to not consider that America is uniquely blessed.

When one considers the role the United States has played in the history of the world over the last 100 years, it is difficult not to consider that not only does it have a manifest destiny, but that destiny is in essence to be a force of good in a rough world.

Of course this is a romantic take on history, and people will, rightly, point to the dark side of America if their purpose is to restore a balance to one's perspective.

It is puzzling, but interesting, to me that some Americans, not only reject the romantic vision of America, but cast aside the balanced view as well and focus so sharply on the darkness. This simply doesn't seem to be consistent with human nature. What is the psychological profile of a person who only sees the worse in the groups within which he is a member? Typically, they will lay claim to clear vision and the courage to point out flaws, but this seems rather self-serving to me. Clear vision sees both the light and the dark, and there is nothing courageous about spouting the rhetoric of a particular clique with which one wishes to associate.

Hubris is of no value, but neither is self-loathing.

In any case, from a perspective of comparative history, the United States comes out, if not shining, a good bit brighter than most of the world's nations - particulary when compared to major powers. One might even say...exceptional.

At least Camelot was not self-declared. A shining city of the hill surrounded by a thousand points of light. Poetic platitudes.

finn

That's a really nice post.

Elsewhere here, on a number of occasions, I've forwarded my personal opinion that what the US has achieved in the sciences and the arts, in philosophy and political theory, and in technologial creativity will be appropriately seen as a golden age, given that folks are still around to make such judgements.

I wouldn't shortcut a description of American Exceptionalism by placing pride at the bottom of it. There are fundamental aspects of political organization and self identity which are unique to American history that spring from unique factors: the geography of the place, from the frontier situation, from the mix of folks who came and in those who established the design of the place, from the revolution, from the fortuitous time when the country began as the industrial revolution was just underway, from having the fresh opportunity to organize itself without a lot of restrictive history and through utilizing the hard-won civic tools developed in England, etc.

But pride is in the mix, which isn't anything but normal, of course. It's the precise nature of that pride (how it has evolved, the shape of it, and how/where we might see its manifestations) which seems the relevant aspect to consider. You manifest an aspect of it with the claim that American ideals are superior. Superior to England? Denmark? Polynesia? Haida Gwai? You've made the shift from 'differerent' to 'superior', and I think you can do that but only in limited and specified ways. Where it becomes a blanket statement is where the danger sits because reflectivity and learning cease immediately. There's a wonderful phrase from an old book on cults..."thought-terminating cliches". Mythologies function often in exactly this manner. Wherever there is the whiff of 'sacred', is I think where we ought to be alert. Imagine the kerfuffle if I was to pen a book on Johnny Appleseed but portray him as an itinerant child molester. Or one might point to the resistance in certain quarters to acknowledgement that Jefferson fathered children with one of his black slaves.

I like what you say about the varying perceptions of change between that of the historical perspective and that of folks eager to speed things up. This is relevant also to the conflict between the conservative or reactionary urge and the progressive or liberalizing urge.

One can profitably view the first party, I think, as typically the ones who turn towards the mythologies and decry any messing about with the truths to be found in them. The progressive urge on the other hand, commonly points out how those mythologies are false. And also, it's not terribly difficult to draw further parallels between supporters of mythologies (and status quo) with positions of power and wealth. It's no coincidence that Antonin Scalia would be upset if I wrote that book on Johnny Appleseed.

We are agreed that America is exceptional. One of the reasons I find America so interesting to study and view is precisely how this exceptionalism is multi-faceted. And the reason I keep lobbing grenades over the sacred 49th parallel is because I think there are elements of America which do represent some of the best things we humans have gotten up to, but also, that the seeds of your own demise are smack in the middle of all that.

America is exceptional but not always correct in its course. Otherwise, there would have been no Civil War, no segregation (no slavery in the first place, for that matter) no Vietnam war, no incarceration of the Japanese, no pull out from Lebanon, no attempted assassination killing many innocent people of a Lebonese Muslim cleric, no loosening of airport security to save corporate money, and on and on. There's negative and positive in all governments but hopefully ours is self-correcting and we'll see if that happens in November.

Both blatham and Lightwizard tell it like it us. There's nothing uniquely wonderful -- or horrible -- about the US, in terms of moral rectitude, or whatever American Exceptionalism really connotes. The whole thing started with Europeans wiping out the native population (of which, despite my avatar, I'm not one). Nowadays, we call that "ethnic cleansing."

I'm not saying we should feel unmitigated shame about all this, but I do get tired of the misty-eyed sense of self-importance, especially when it's invoked for political reasons....

America's mind makes dates its body can't often keep.

I finally got to see F-911 last night.

Whoa!

I suggest anyone who has anything negative to say about the movie see it first, before they start talking crap. Of course Moore has his own spin on things, but even if you took all of that out, whats left is still amazingly powerful stuff.

In all, a great flick.

You got that right but in some cases you are writing for blind eyes.

Blatham--

I didn't find a writer about American Exceptionalism that spent much time on hubris or pride.

The gist of what I read focused on why we are not so much like other countries, and it was due to when we were born, and the five principles we were founded on, in their opinion. We hadn't suffered through (ie) serfdom, though we had a famous run in with slavery, which lasted relatively breifly to other countries' experiences with class-- Oother countries existed through deeply entrenched class systems, which really did brand their nations' souls with deep social divisons, which demanded redress. They wonder why socialism doesn't work here, and answered because our brief history and birth were seen as unique. We don't embrace socialism, or the lean toward it because we are ingrained with individualism--rather than the community taking precedence over individualism--and we (largely) reject quotas, because we are ingrained with real equality of all.

As I've proposed before, our founding fathers were able to learn from the mistakes and successes of many other nations, and our success is partially resultant.

I plan to read further, but what I take from it so far, is that American Exceptionalism is not an indictment, but an explanation.

What isn't realized is that one can be strongly individual, yes even to the point of iconoclastic, and still be liberal in thought. Left and liberal are not synonyms. What makes anyone think that super corporations are looking out for the individual? They can be just as authoritarian and dangerous as a government gone awry. It always reminds me of Pohl and Kornbluth's "Gravy Planet" in which a future congress and Senate is made up by representative sent by corporations. Hmmm...is that satire that is really already come true but remains arcane to the average person? I've worked for a large corporation and it was more like you were an employee number -- individuals didn't really count as anything more than units. That's actually what the director of sales said in a private meeting and it got out. I confronted him with, "Did you say units, or eunuchs?"

sofia

As you've seen, this is subject with an extensive breadth and depth of study going back to the Puritans and de Tocqueville. And you are right to suggest that the subject is in great proportion dealing with the nuts and bolts, if you will, of determining how the unique geography and history of the US has produced a unique nation.

But if you continue to read on the subject, you'll discover that modern scholarship has increasingly begun to address the manifestations of exceptionalism we see in statements such as "the greatest nation on earth", or in claims from people like William Bennett who state that "American values are superior", or in active state policies which are founded on the notion that America is uniquely (exceptionally) deserving of sole world power status because of its inherent superiority (this is not a nod to the factual military superiority, but rather to civil and a moral superiority).

And, if you do read further, you'll begin bumping into the correlations between notions of civil or political exceptionalism (best system going, it's our duty to see it duplicated) and evangelical notions of exceptionalism(we have the best version of the faith, and it is our duty to evangelize) and how both of these facilitate America's economic/corporate outreach into the world.

Here's a page that might assist you. The lower end of the page may be most helpful.

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/american-exceptionalism.htm

I will read further. You have happened upon a subject I've entertained personally, without benefit/interest in others' scholarly ruminations. Finally, I am a willing, interested student of one of the various subjects you've sought to teach. A star for the ever-vigilant tutor.

Perhaps tomorrow, as I'm hopelessly snockered today. The day's goal--to be defiantly irresponsible.

To the side--I have been reviewing the zeal in which some in my country hang on to our God-subscribing origins. They say we owe our 'good' foundations to our incorporation of Judeo-Christian underpinnings. I've often thought we, like Europe et al, could do as well without them. (Enhanced division, doncha know...) I wonder if we would, in fact, be the same had we kept God out of the mix. Even though I have argued we would do well to erase God specifically--I must say I think they may have a valid point.

Anyhoo, a Merlot-saturated thought. Serious follow-ups may appear tomorrow.

<exposed round breast to teacher>

Ah, a gal after my own addiction. A good Merlot can send one off to their own personal heaven. I'm sipping on the St. Francis Vineyards right now with cheese sticks and rye crackers from Bristol Farms. Say bye bye.

Damn.

Do I have to go? I've got a good hour of being sloppy and maudlin yet.

But you do sloppy and maudlin so well. Have another snort and look out for that glass top coffee table. I have the scars to prove it.

<noting sharp objects with suspicion>

Some from Seymour Lipset--

Born out of revolution, the United States is a country organized around an ideology which includes a set of dogmas about the nature of a good society. Americanism, as different people have pointed out, is an "ism" or ideology in the same way that communism or fascism or liberalism are isms. As G. K. Chesterton put it:

**"America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence. . . ." As noted in the Introduction, the nation's ideology can be described in five words: liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissezfaire. **

The revolutionary ideology which became the American Creed is liberalism in its eighteenth- and nineteenth-century meanings, as distinct from conservative Toryism, statist communitarianism, mercantilism, and noblesse oblige dominant in monarchical, state-church-formed cultures.

Other countries' senses of themselves are derived from a common history. Winston Churchill once gave vivid evidence to the difference between a national identity rooted in history and one defined by ideology in objecting to a proposal in 1940 to outlaw the anti-war Communist Party. In a speech in the House of Commons, Churchill said that as far as he knew, the Communist Party was composed of Englishmen and he did not fear an Englishman. In Europe, nationality is related to community, and thus one cannot become un-English or un-Swedish. Being an American, however, is an ideological commitment. It is not a matter of birth. Those who reject American values are un-American.
----
For me later, to remind me what I was thinking if Blatham fusses later about my previous blatherings about God re American Exceptionalism....

round breast noted, and preferred to other shapes.

sofia
Try this piece from Foreign Affairs...it speaks to central issues in this discussion. By all means though, leave it until tomorrow.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2582&page=0

I am a German who liked "Bowling for Columbine" when I first saw it, and who was part of the above-mentioned "rapturous throng in Munich". Speaking as such, I can confirm how Brooks described Moore's style of talking about Americans to European audiences -- at least to the particular audience here in Munich. Subtle differentiations, like the ones Blatham wants to read into Moore's rants, weren't apparent to me from listening to him.

Moore's sneering comments clearly referred to Americans as a whole, not to the subset of those Americans who govern the country. As an excuse for Moore -- admittedly a weak one -- you could argue that he was carried away by his enthusiastic audience. You see, we Germans have egos too. So when a prominent American tells us that Americans suck and that we are morally superior to them, we are flattered, we applaud, and we edge him on. Same dynamics as when a crowd of people watches a ball game in a pub, and someone starts trash-talking about the other team and tellíng us that our home team is the greatest. Those reflexes are hard-wired. So yes, American liberals may discount Moore's quotes for this mob factor. But they'd be willfuly ignorant if they pretended that he didn't say what he actually said.

Immediately after the event, I was as enthusastic about Mr. Moore's performance as everybody else in the audience. Moore does have lots of charisma, and he has a very captivating stage presence too. But now that I look back at it from a certain distance, Moore's remarks in Munich come across to me as a self-serving form of grovelling. My respect for him as a person is now smaller than it was before the event, and so is my trust in the honesty of his movies. Moore is a great showman, no question, and I still think his heart is in the right place. But I'm getting wearier and wearier about his substance.

Just one datapoint from someone who has actually seen the show.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/opinion/02KRUG.html

thomas

This post follows yours by chance (that's today's column). Krugman, as usual, gets the balance right here.

I won't argue much with your personal impression that Moore 'grovels' or 'sneers' or that he speaks of Americans 'as a whole' because you acknowledge that this impression is subjective and that it is held in retrospect. Over here (Canada and US), we've had the opportunity to have seen two TV series by the man as well as his movies. The negatives he points out in broad aspects of American culture or its political realities and presence in the world is placed in contrast with all that he does not sneer at, which is most everything else. Though I'll add that I have absolutely no idea how you could pull 'grovelling' out of your hat on any of this.

As to 'willful ignorance about what he actually said', you are speaking of uncareful generalizations. True enough that we all ought to be careful of that, but at the same time, Brooks perceives what Moore's words mean in a manner quite predictable for Brooks. And one wouldn't have to look very far back in Brooks' columns (particularly before he went to the Times) to find such uncareful generalities about the French, for example. I disagree with Brooks more often than not, but I think him a smart and thoughtful fellow, and even where he might make such a generalization, I know him well enough to understand that he isn't including Pierre the window cleaner from Avignon in his brush stroke. In other words, willful ignorance can point in two directions as regards what a person actually is referring to when he/she makes a generalization.

You all know, of course, that this is from an article which quotes Moore with their own characterization of who the pronoun "they" refers to and is from November 2003. I'm not willing to give total credence to an "interview" where quotes are inserted obviously out of context with the journalists own commentary leading the reader. I'd like to know if Moore has ever addressed this. Again, it could be easy to realize that this could easily be addressed to the entire population of the world considering what has happened throughout history.

"We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing. National Geographic produced a survey which showed that 60 per cent of 18-25 year olds don't know where Great Britain is on a map. And 92 per cent of us don't own a passport."

If one explicitly trusts journalist and their reporting they can swallow the spin on the Internet including changing the referral to "American soldiers."


MIRROR ARTICLE ON MOORE