The Informationist

Daalder and Gelernter, Obama and Disraeli

I wandered out of Matt Yglesias’s domain today into another of the TPMCafe blogs, America Abroad. Ivo Daalder posted an interesting thought playing off Barack Obama’s recent statements about American exceptionalism:

The neocon’s version of exceptionalism—and certainly the one propounded by our commander in chief—is a triumphalist one, suggesting that America is morally superiot to everyone else. Because our motives are pure and superior, the justice of our actions must go unquestioned—or so this form of American exceptionalism appears to imply.

I’m not particularly comfortable with this kind of muscular certitude of our supposed moral superiority. I much prefer the way Barak Obama talks about American exceptionalism. Here’s what the junior senator from Illinois had to say on this subject in his really quite extraordinary commencement address at Knox College last week:

[America is a] place where destiny was not a destination, but a journey to be shared and shaped and remade by people who had the gall, the temerity to believe that, against all odds, they could form “a more perfect union” on this new frontier. And as people around the world began to hear the tale of the lowly colonists who overthrew an empire for the sake of an idea, they started to come. Across oceans and the ages, they settled in Boston and Charleston, Chicago and St. Louis, Kalamazoo and Galesburg, to try and build their own American Dream. This collective dream moved forward imperfectly—it was scarred by our treatment of native peoples, betrayed by slavery, clouded by the subjugation of women, shaken by war and depression. And yet, brick by brick, rail by rail, calloused hand by calloused hand, people kept dreaming, and building, and working, and marching, and petitioning their government, until they made America a land where the question of our place in history is not answered for us. It’s answered by us.

I never quite know why folks feel the need to take potshots at neocons, but I’ll rise to their defense elsewhere. Meanwhile, Daalder’s thoughts on Obama gave me an excuse to post a thought that I’ve been bottling up since I read David Gelernter’s excellent article about Benjamin Disraeli in the Weekly Standard a few weeks ago. Gelernter’s article was terrific--likely the best explanation of the difference between philosophical liberalism and philosophical conservatism that I’ve seen in a long time. Unfortunately, it needed a companion piece to be complete. Gelernter treated liberalism as a respectful conservative. A companion piece amplifying the distinction and treating conservatism from the point of view of a respectful liberal would have enhanced the presentation.

I’ve been noodling over this stuff ever since. Daalder’s post was something of an excuse, but I did get to post some thoughts in response:

The distinction between these two types of exceptionalism encapsulates the difference between philosophical liberalism and philosophical conservatism. Conservatives (in any society) believe in the sanctity of traditional institutions, and in the importance of preserving them. Liberals (in any society) believe in the sanctity of the principles of liberalism: individual freedom, autonomy, and responsibility. As a result, liberals around the world may rail at even institutions they value for deviating from the cause of liberalism. To a liberal, values make institutions worth preserving. To a conservative, institutions preserve values.

This distinction explains a number of issues. First, it explains why liberalism can cross borders, while conservatism rarely does. American conservatives elevate American institutions, French conservatives French institutions, Iranian conservatives Iranian institutions, etc. All liberals, on the other hand, share a commitment to individual rights and responsibilities. Second, it explains why conservatives will always appear to be more patriotic than liberals. Third, it goes to the heart of John Stuart Mill’s admonition that, despite his distaste for conservatives, they remained a necessary ingredient in a liberal society. In the Anglo-American tradition that he had in mind, conservatives tend to deify liberal institutions.

In a nutshell, the debate over American exceptionalism remains whether strong institutions best guarantee their underlying values, or a focus on values leads to strong institutions. Clearly, the truth lies somewhere in between. A successful America (or any other nation, for that matter), must preserve both its values and its institutions.

(A note to those reading the above paragraphs: Philosophical movements and eponymous political movements align only imperfectly. Many in the political realm who call themselves “liberals” are philosophoically illiberal or anti-liberal. Many in the political realm who call themselves “conservatives” favor conserving almost nothing).

Posted by Bruce Abramson from on 06/11 at 05:24 PM in Foreign Affairs and the World beyond Our Borders