Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

May 21, 2008 |  5 comments |  Print | E-Mail Your Research  

Peter H. Schuck

Journal Article: Understanding America

Peter H. Schuck: As in de Tocqueville’s time, American culture, politics, and economics stand apart from the rest of the world. Examining American institutions, public policies and cultural patterns would help the world understand America’s exceptionalism compared to other liberal democracies.

America sets itself apart from its partners in the democratic world foremost in its social structure. Lacking a socialist movement of European proportion or centuries of class-based struggle has contributed to the creation of a welfare system that some would describe as pitiless. But using trite descriptions does nothing to further one's understanding of what has been one the best examples of robust democracy in the modern era.

In this endeavor, one must consider distinct traits of American society within its historical, sociological and institutional context. The article attached below considers American patriotism within its historical context, as an experience not shared by many European and Asian nations. Its individualism is revered as the driving force for American success. Skepticism of the beaureucracy and insistence of personal freedom in every area of social life is based on a rich constitutional heritage.

Rather perplexing for observers of the American media is its enduring religiosity. Understanding the important role religion has assumed in popular movements outside of (and sometimes opposed to) governmental control, demonstrates its commitment to the separation of temporal from spiritual authorities. Economic enterprise enhanced by a decentralized economy and a tradition of social cohesion in spite of historically unprecedented diversity are yet more features that enhance America's exceptionalism.

Understanding these factors, among others, may help the international community contextualize America's sometimes more negatively viewed attributes, such as isolationism, consumerism, and its addiction to popular culture. Of course, no nation is perfect, but every nation has earned the courtesy of being understood.

Peter Schuck, a law professor at Yale, is the author most rece ntly of Targeting in Social Programs (Brookings) and Meditations of a Militant Moderate (Rowman & Littlefield).

Peter Schuck: "Understanding America" in: The American Lawyer, May 2008:

 
  • 6
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
Tags: | free trade | Diversity | religion | democracy | America |
 
Comments
Donald  Stadler

May 28, 2008

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
An excellent opinion piece. It's difficult to disagree with anything Professor Schuck wrote. It's America the exceptional, not America the evil or stupid or all the other things which form a increasing proportion of what passes for analysis among much of Europe. One point which sticks out:

"religiosity. a far higher percentage of americans attend religious services than do Europeans (except in Ireland and Poland). Nearly half of americans attend religious services each week, compared to 4 percent of the English and 5 percent of the French. Church leaders and their
flocks have led almost all of the reformist causes in american history: abolition, women’s suffrage, temperance, civil rights, opposition to unpopular wars, and environmentalism. One
reason for this pronounced religiosity is that creating and sustaining churches was never in the hands of the federal government and only briefly in those of the first states. Instead, unlike in Europe, religious development was promoted by spiritual entrepreneurs engaged in competitive marketing, vigorous proselytizing, and doctrinal and liturgical innovations. Immigration, moreover, has fortified
this religious commitment throughout american history."

Superb. I think European anti-clericalism has been heavily driven by established state churches which historically have been used as instruments of state oppression. The exceptions (US, Ireland, and Poland) I think occurred because the state religion was not the religion of the people, particularly Ireland and Poland. The UK had a state religion but it was never Catholicism, therefore the Irish Catholic clergy has never had a reputation of opression to live down. Similarly for most of Poland which was mostly occupied by Russia (Orthodox) and Prussia (Lutheran I believe). Since WWII Poland has been oppressed by Marxists who also oppressed the Polish Catholic Church. In these countries the native religion has never in memory been an instrument of opression & sometimes an instrument of liberation.

The US doesn't have a state religion but many immigrants to the US came from oppressed religious groups like the Moravians, Anabaptists, Scots Catholics, Hugenots, Spanish and German Jews, many more. Other strains of immigration came from Dissenters in the UK, who had a legal right to dissent but lacked many legal rights afforded only to adherents of the Church of England.

The 'weakness of religiosity' in most of Europe is in fact something quite different - weakness of the historical state churches because they discredited themselves by being tools of the State.


 
Donald  Stadler

May 28, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
And this:

"A more worrisome feature of the american economy is the pace and shape of social mobility. The iconic horatio alger rags-to-riches myth that inspired so many americans in the past may be increasingly just that: a myth. Mobility in the U.S. today—perhapsbecause of the school system’s failures in educating children from low-income families—is no longer particularly high when compared with mobility in some European states, and may be declining over time. This is a cause for grave concern."

Again right on target. The US thinks of itself as 'the class-less society', but increasingly I see this as an illusion. The 'underclass' came first but now I'm seeing the symptoms of soclai classes creep higher on the socio-economic ladder. we still have our success stories but most of the msot famous ones began in the upper cohorts of the middle classes. Not always in the US, immigrant success stories tend to follow the same pattern. Even the Hungarians who arrived with nothing came from the middle classes in that country.

Perhaps the most attractive thing about Barak Obama is that he is the first President since Bill Clinton with direct experience of being poor and working with the underclass, and his experience is more directly connected with the worst pathologies facing the US. Reagan grew up in straightened circumstances. Harry Truman had to learn to squeeze a buck till the pips squeeked, and Abraham Lincoln grew up VERY poor. Most of these men rank among the best of the Presidents; clearly experience with poverty may have some connection with that. If nothing else I hope Obama can change some of the factors keeping the underclass down, by example and by being who and what he is as much as by direct legislation.
 
Ilyas M. Mohsin

May 30, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
De Tocqueville' America with its unique institutions appears to be history
now a days when one looks around to discover what havoc was spread by her Administartion in the last 7 years. In 'occupying' and destroying Iraq/ Afghanistan with almost 2 million deaths etc, it has hurt her own laws/ ideals etc.While bulk of the Americans remain goodguys, it is their benign ignorance of the world, generally, which has made them believe, what McClellan of White House fame calls, 'propaganda' by the Bush Administartion. Apparently it has harmed US itself in addition to playing
hell with smaller countries.
Today's America is more of the projection of what President Eisenhower defined as 'Military Industrial complex' in 1960. It is a strange coincidence that the Administration is dominated by members/ beneficiaries of the same interest-group including the US oil-lobby. Nobody can dispute the superioity of US instituions of De Tocqueville' days. Unfortunately Gitmo/Abu Ghuraib/ Bagram and Chu' Memo make her look like,almost, the master of Gulag, the brave voices of dissent
notwithstanding.
 
Donald  Stadler

June 1, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
So is the France of the 1830's or the Germany or the same era. But certain national charateristics remain.

In the US case one might want to look back prior to WWII to see how the US might turn. There is an awful lot of disenchantment with post-WWII US-style 'internationalism' and that is not confined to Europe - there is a lot of it in the US. Before WWII the US traditionally geared up for big wars and then stood down. Demobilised almost completely and left the rest of the world to sort out it's own affairs.

After a 'low and dishonest decade' (as George Orwell phrased it) there is a strong temptation for the US to do just that - focus on it's own hemisphere and it's own affairs and let the Middle East and Europe go hang themselves in their own fashion.

BTW, the argument that the past seven years have been uniquely bad and had the US only done as it was told everything would have been great lacks a certain sophistication and historical insight.

Countries like the US have tremendous powers of recovery because of their strategic position. The US occupies a 'corner' position strategically - that is the US is not very physically vulnerable to military actions of other countries. So even major blunders have limited consequences. The UK occupied a similar position for many years, and La Serissima (the Venetian Republic) before it.
 
Ilyas M. Mohsin

June 15, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
As a friend of the US, despite the odds, I still have hope that it will turn around. However, the next President/ Administartion, must work on the American principle of 'whatever it takes'; not for waging more sneseless wars for unknown considerations etc but for redeeming their country' image/goodwill. It is going to be a long haul but the next Administartion would lay the ground work for such rapproachement. Luckily both the cadidates know that Mosul is not in Nicrargua as used to be case so far.
George Orwell' description may fit in if you consider the the current mess in detail and how the MNCs/ oil lobby etc have benfitted from US misadventures and by design.
BTW may lack 'sophistication' but so did about 2 million killings of 'lesser human beings', destruction of 2 countries, Gitmo, Abu Ghuraib, Bagram and Chu' memo/ Macllalen' account in about 7 yeras in the name, finally, of democracy.
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Anna  Przybyll
Anna Przybyll
"A wise old owl lived in an oak The more he..."

Poll

Should NATO intervene in Syria?