American Exceptionalism: Theological, Philosophical, and Legal Views

I was delayed blogging about this most of the weekend (had to shepherd 24 first-graders to the zoo for a birthday party earlier this afternoon) ... but this past Friday, the University of St. Thomas Law Journal hosted a symposium on "American Exceptionalism in the 21st Century," with an interesting set of philosophical, theological, and legal perspectives on the concept of America's supposed uniqueness in the world.  Walter Mondale gave the keynote address.

The panel of philosophers/theologians all criticized, more or less sharply, America's recent actions in the world.  Leading natural-law theorist Joseph Boyle (Philosophy, University of Toronto) gave a review of the basic texts and principles of the just-war tradition.  I didn't catch all of Professor Boyle's remarks, but he expressed doubt that the Iraq war could be justified under just-war standards.

My St. Thomas colleague (and my compatriot in team-teaching a "Christianity and Politics" course to undergrads and law students) Bill Cavanaugh, a terrific theologian, gave a powerful "theological critique of American exceptionalism."  He traced how the Puritans' identification of their purified church as the New Israel morphed into the frequent assertion of America the nation as the New Israel, God's chosen nation.  This, he argues, has been a theological mistake with catastrophic consequences, especially for the Church, whose members tend to follow the assertions of political leaders about a "just war" rather than following any lead from the Church's shepherds.  (Bill applied this critique to the Catholic supporters of the Iraq war in this 2003 article.)  My reaction to Bill's symposium paper was first to agree that we Americans often sacralize the nation, committing idolatry and letting the nation rather than the Church form our judgments -- but also to think that one can many times defend America on the more modest ground that it is a relative force for good in the world, better than many of the alternatives (at the same time that it often merits criticism for arrogance, naivete, and other wrongs).  I've wondered if and where the Scriptures provide any model of such a relatively beneficial (though far from perfect) regime:  not the chosen nation (like Israel) or the minimally justified keeper of order (like the Roman Empire as portrayed in Romans 13), but somewhere in between.  One possibility, raised briefly at lunch after Friday's panel, is the Persian emperor Cyrus, who was scarcely a follower of God but comes off well for letting the Jewish exiles return to Palestine.

Claes Ryn (Politics, Catholic University) argued his thesis that today's neo-conservatives are neo-Jacobins, convinced that their values are universally valid and should be imposed on the rest of the world however recalcitrant it is.  They have forgotten, Ryn argues, that the American founders, even as they set forth universal values, also believed deeply in original sin and the need for humility and restraints on power.  Ryn adds that in the name of universal values, the neo-conservatives ignore or denigrate historical and traditional differences among societies.  Ryn's argument that both original sin and historical-traditional differences call into question the simple pursuit of universal values closely traces themes that I've argued (here) are very important:  those in the "realist" tradition of Christian social ethics.  For what it's worth, it seems to me there's a strong case that the Iraq war reflects, if not "neo-Jacobinism," then considerable American arrogance:  for example, one of the main reasons the administration gave for committing what proved to be inadequate numbers of troops to Iraq was the claim that Iraqis would simply rally to our side, understanding that we simply wanted to free them from tyranny.  That was classic American moral hubris, assuming not only that our hearts are pure, but that no one else could fail to agree about our purity.

Still, it is a little more complicated than that, it seems to me.  After all, in the reconstruction of Iraq the administration has in some ways been quite attuned to the historical-traditional particularity of Muslim societies.  From the start, American was ready to accept an Iraq that, although democratic, was officially founded on Islamic values and also reflected a conscious division/sharing of power among ethnic/religious groups -- both arrangements that are quite different from how we do things in America (where religious disestablishment, color-blindness, and the melting pot are strong ideals).  The administration has supported the right to vote and other basic freedoms in Iraq while raising no objections to these other features that would diverge substantially from our practices.  Even though the administration has displayed arrogance and hubris in many respects concerning Iraq, hasn't it made a pretty decent stab at distinguishing between nonnegotiable universal values and acceptable historical-traditional particularities?

Since this post is already long, I'll blog separately about the law professors' panel at the St. Thomas Law Journal symposium, which included MOJ friend Paolo Carozza.

Tom B.