American Exceptionalism Is Not Benign

I welcome the opportunity to respond to these two papers on a topic which I feel is immensely important for understanding many recent events in which the United States has played a major role, as well as the future course of international relations. America is indeed exceptional in a number of ways. The most salient is that we have significantly more military power than any other country, and a lack of inhibition about using it. In today’s world our actions carry more weight than those of any other nation.

Frank Summers has written an excellent, concise account of the problems with American exceptionalism. In particular, he points out its roots and long history—that it goes back to colonial times and that its military and imperial aspects have grown stronger over our three hundred year history. Dr. Summers cites the large

Page 54

number of military and political interventions this country has made directly or indirectly throughout the world since WWII and the fact that, at the present time, we have more than 750 military facilities in 159 countries. The manifestations of American exceptionalism are everywhere. Dr. Summers also pointed out two other crucial aspects of our exceptionalist identity: as de Tocqueville observed, there is no room for failure; and not unrelated, the appearance of anything that could be characterized as “weakness” is forbidden.

Both articles mention one of the most egregious aspects of American exceptionalism, namely, the profound hypocrisy in the United States’ stance with regard to international treaties and agreements such as the Kyoto protocol, the treaty banning land mines, and the jurisdiction of the World Court. The United States refuses to be bound by them while simultaneously expecting other countries to adhere to them. There is also the hypocrisy involved in objecting to other countries acquiring nuclear weapons while feeling that there is nothing wrong with granting ourselves the right to have, threaten with, and actually use nuclear weapons.

Both papers compare the problematic aspects of American exceptionalism to the narcissistic psychopathology of an individual. I think this analogy is quite useful and that the character traits of individuals with narcissistic personality disorder have much in common with the behavior and psychology of the nation when operating under the thrall of its exceptionalist identity. However, I think the analogy breaks down when it comes to talking about change. Summers refers to the self-psychological treatment of people with narcissistic pathology which has been known to result in the individual giving up, or at least diminishing, excessive narcissism. The problem is that when it comes to countries like the United States, there’s no one on the current scene to take the part of the empathic therapist. There were many who felt that Obama had the potential to be such a “transformative” leader, but these hopes have been largely extinguished.

Paul Elovitz’ paper speaks to one of the “resistances” to this country giving up or modifying its exceptionalist identity. In addition to having an overdeveloped military, America is exceptional in comparison to most other nations in that it has an abundance of

Page 55

natural resources, protection from external enemies by two huge ocean buffers, and has had technological and military superiority over the native people and neighboring countries in the Western Hemisphere. When reality is such that it gives support to a fantasy or even a delusion, it becomes hard to dislodge the fantasy’s grip.

It is acceptable discourse in some mainstream political circles in this country to be straightforward and shameless about saying that the United States should not submit to any international authority because that would constitute an unacceptable infringement on our sovereignty. At the same time, their position is that we have the right, in fact, a duty, to not allow others to engage in a variety of activities we deem unacceptable—like having a communist government, acquiring nuclear weapons, or treating some of the people in their country too harshly, as in Libya.

If we look at American exceptionalism from a psychoanalytic or psychohistorical perspective, it is hard not to see the operation of a good deal of splitting. We have a set of positive ego ideals and an identity as a good people who hold to and try to live by the alleged American political and moral virtues of democratic governance and individual liberty, along with the benign wish to encourage others to adopt these values. Simultaneously, we have the darker aspect of American exceptionalism—the grandiosity, entitlement, arrogance, and need to never be weak or anything other than victorious.

Whenever we see a rhetorical presentation of the more positive and idealistic side of the split, we should be on the lookout for the other side, the side which is being disavowed or denied. Beware of Greeks, or Americans, bearing gifts.

Finally, I will share some of my thoughts on the sentence in Elovitz’s article: “All nations view themselves as exceptional,” with its implication that there are relatively harmless forms of exceptionalism. Seemingly acceptable expressions of exceptionalism such as national pride, a love of one’s country, and a willingness to sacrifice for the sake of the nation, may not in actuality be so benign. For example, consider the chanting of “USA! USA!” in celebration of United States’ victories in athletic competition at the Olympics, making a great show of honoring those who serve in our

Page 56

armed forces, and 4^th of July parades filled with displays of military symbols and weapons. When presented publicly in view of the rest of the world, this has the potential for generating shame, humiliation, and narcissistic injury in others. We are essentially gloating, proclaiming that we are better athletes and are militarily stronger than you. It is the stance of the bully. These kinds of displays increase the likelihood that others may seek to avenge their narcissistic injuries by doing harm to us.

Page 57