American Narcissism: A Much Needed Discourse

The richness and variety of responses to the two papers suggests considerable interest in the issue, a development that can have only a salutary impact. While most of the commentators agree with my and Dr. Elovitz’ contention that American exceptionalism has had destructive consequences, many respondents accentuated fresh aspects of the issue. Dr. Petschauer brought out our failure to learn from experience and, quite properly in my view, draws a parallel between our obliviousness to the results of environmental destruction and the fall of the Roman Empire. While Dr. Beers’ emphasis is on the political utility of the myth of American exceptionalism, an even harsher response comes from Dr. Marvasti, who contends that American exceptionalism is a cover for naked imperialistic greed. In this context, I can only express the hope that such positions will launch a fruitful discussion about the relationship between American exceptionalism, greed, and imperialism.

Other respondents, such as Dr. Turken, are quick to add that American narcissism is not only pathological, but has also had positive effects, such as in establishing the League of Nations and raising the living standards of poor nations. I question this view not because I doubt that the United States has implemented some healthy policies, but because I do not believe those salutary interventions emanated from a position of exceptionalism. We do not help out poor nations because we think we are exceptional, but because we are a powerful nation that can aid less fortunate countries while benefiting ourselves in the long run.

I now turn to a brief consideration of the primary critiques of my paper set forth in this symposium. Dr. Langer opposes the nation/individual analogy because he claims that the therapist can assume stable dynamics in the patient, whereas foreign policy is a product of a group of individuals with differing dynamics. I am

Page 82

sure Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and many others have their own individual reasons for their investment in American exceptionalism, but that is of little moment given their shared view of American entitlement. Dr. Langer also opposes the view that one can diagnose from outcomes without personal information. In fact, my argument is not based on outcomes, but on the effectiveness of the political rhetoric of American superiority. The evidence of American exceptionalism comes not from the dynamics of George W. Bush, but from the rhetoric used by Bush to get the American people to acquiesce to the invasion of a sovereign nation. The same rhetoric of exceptionalism was used to convince the American people to support the Monroe Doctrine, Manifest Destiny, and other justifications for American expansion.

Dr. Young-Breuhl offers three criticisms of my paper, two of which are attacks on positions I do not take. First, she attributes to me the view that “no lessons can be learned from the interventions justified by the city on the hill.” I did not say that no lessons could be learned from such interventions, but that the lessons have not been learned. In fact, my position is that lessons could and even should be learned from attempting to control events of nations we know little about. However, that we do not learn from history, as Dr. Petschauer put it, is easily demonstrable from the fact that we continue to make the same mistakes. Dr. Young-Breuhl’s second point is that I seem “to think that if a grandiose image is available, people will go for it and become determined by it.” I do not know where in my essay she finds this theory because I said nothing of the sort. In fact, in the brief references I made to the explanatory issue, I note that American grandiosity is a defense against vulnerability. I did not address the explanatory issue in depth, but that was not my purpose, and it is certainly not grounds for attributing to me a theory that I do not hold and did not propose. In the space allotted me, it was not possible to address the complex issue of explanation with any degree of thoroughness. If I have made a contribution toward a dialogue about the role of American grandiosity in foreign policy, I have succeeded in my task.

Dr. Young-Breuhl also states that my “sense for the macrocosm” misses the fact that societies, unlike individuals, are mixtures of groups that differ from one another. First, individuals are

Page 83

also mixtures of traits, so the analogy holds even here. More importantly, her point is irrelevant. The prevailing attitude of exceptionalism has led the American people to accept interventions that have needlessly caused the deaths of millions of people. The fact that some do not adhere to this notion did not stop the invasions of Vietnam or Iraq nor have any influence against the establishment of torture as an avowed foreign policy tool. The dominance of American exceptionalism in the nation’s self-representation is demonstrated by the fact that no politician runs for national office on the basis that America is a country of strengths and weaknesses. Relevant to Dr. Katz’ point, Obama repeats the refrain that America is the greatest country on Earth at every opportunity. The fact that some Americans oppose unilateral policies does not alter the fact that narcissism motivates and justifies the imposition of our will on other countries, just as the complexity of an individual personality does not diminish the legitimacy of a narcissistic diagnosis.

Dr. Landes accuses me of a “syndrome” that includes the contradictory vices of moral relativism and moral perfectionism as well as all manner of unsavory traits. Not a word in this diatribe is a substantive response to my essay. The attack is entirely ad hominem and guilt by association: because I critique American exceptionalism I am accused of taking absurd positions, including equating Nazis with Israel as well as the failure to tolerate disagreement. Dr. Landes, who knows nothing of my positions on any of these issues, displays the very intolerance and inability for self-reflection he claims to decry in others. Furthermore, his insulting assault on Islamic people opposes even George W. Bush, who took pains to emphasize that America is not at war with Islam, but only with its fringe terrorist element. This distinction seems to escape Dr. Landes. Such insults to one billion people show nothing more than Dr. Landes’ inability to tolerate views and beliefs different from his.

With the exception of Dr. Landes’ intellectually bankrupt attacks, the responses have all contributed to a fruitful discussion of American exceptionalism and its impact on the country’s behavior, and, above all, what can be done to curb it. It is the latter issue that troubles many of the respondents, and the concern is understandable given the intransigence and refractory nature of narcissism.

Page 84

While none of us has the answer at this point, we must continue this type of discussion so that we may undertake the journey that has the potential to provide a solution to one of the most perplexing issues of our time.

Page 85