On Chris Matthews' weekly news show on NBC this evening, Richard Stengel of Time magazine pointed to the similarities in style between Ronald Reagan, ever the sunny optimist and political "evangelist" for America's favored position as a beacon of light as the "shining city on the hill," and Obama's "Winning the Future" State of the Union address Tuesday night. It's an intriguing comparison, especially given the parallels in political time between early 1983 after Republicans took a shellacking in the 1982 midterms and 2011 after Democrats suffered the same fate in November. The economy was in tough shape then as now, and Reagan had been forced by the failure of his tax-cut enactment of 1981 to produce expected federal revenues to agree to the biggest "tax increase" -- mostly in non-income tax fees so as to keep his reputation alive as a tax cutter -- in history until then. In part, this "move to the center" on Reagan's part was dictated by the Fed's policy, under the direction of then-Chair Paul Voelcker, of tight money--which was pursued to curb inflation--was directly at odds with the stimulus effects of fiscal policy. In part, it was pure politics: a result of the substantial losses Republican candidates for the House and Senate incurred.
Obama's so-called "move to the center" -- signalled initially by his concession to Republican demands that the Bush tax cuts on the high end incomes be extended -- is arguably anchored in similar circumstances now. The new and substantial Republican majority in the House is certainly a strong political presence. The precarious state of the economic recovery and the painful persistence of "structural" -- as opposed to cyclical -- unemployment is loud music on the policy side. The real point, however, is the political appeal of the president's upbeat SOTU in current circumstances and whether this can accurately be characterized as an echo of Reagan. That Obama's speech was popular is undeniable: polls had it rated positively by majorities ranging from 84% to 91%, virtually unprecedented approval levels in recent history. And given the actual state of the union -- bulging deficits, crumbling infrastructure, partisan rancor, unrelenting unemployment, poor performances by our youth on standardized math and science tests, lurking suspicion about the role of investment bankers in instigating the financial meltdown, talk spurred by a presidentially-appointed deficit commission of the need to scale back entitlement spending -- the President's call to "seize this generation's Sputnik moment" and act as the country that we are: The home of big dreams, big ideas, and big accomplishments -- this, well, it had a ring of Reagan's undaunted optimism, if not outright denial, reverberating throughout. The bright and sunny tone was made all the brighter for listeners who took in the rebuttals of Republican Paul Ryan and Tea-Party spokesperson Michelle Bachmann. Both cast the state of the union as perilous and its future as dark unless drastic measures are undertaken in the near future.
The Obama speech made no mention of the poor, despite the fact that we now have record numbers of households falling beneath the federal poverty threshold. And despite calling for government reform, it contained no reference to campaign finance in the wake of the Citizens United case. Granted, the President did promise that seed money from the federal government would go to converting to a post-petroleum energy policy by curtailing the subsidies to big oil and transferring them to efforts to innovate in green technologies. But the corporate subsidies benefitting the big oil companies are embedded in the mountains of loopholes carved out by corporate lobbyists in the tax code. In all, it was a strange speech: delivered with a kind of upbeat, can-do spirit that would appeal to the true believers in American exceptionalism. But isn't our current sorry state of the union in no small measure a consequence of American ignorance and arrogance regarding our exceptionalism? We can't be like the European socialists. Nor can we embrace a non-profit healthcare system despite the fact that all other OECD countries do with better healthcare at half the price as a percentage of GDP. In brief, isn't the whole notion of "American exceptionalism" at least partly to blame for our ills? Why is that? Or maybe it's not the case after all. What say those of you who've considered this too?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Though it's not kosher to comment on your own post, I'm doing so anyway. Why? Because I'm truly intrigued by the notion of American exceptionalism and its political uses. There's no question that, psychologically, it is attractive to most individuals -- at least in this country -- to be able to consider themselves "special." Indeed, the loudest critics of our educational shortcomings over the past couple decades virtually always end with the sarcastic comment that, despite the failures of our young people to compete in math, reading, and science as was once the case, at least our students have been "rewarded" with educators' reminders of their "special-ness." Gen-Y students, the critique goes, lead the world in "self-esteem," despite trailing way behind in measurable academic skills.
ReplyDeleteThe parallel with "American exceptionalism" is pretty straightforward: By most objective measures, we lead the world only in military strength; no longer do we dominate in the percentage of college grads, per capita wealth, average life expectancy, infant mortality rates, etc., etc., etc. Yet when a president dons the cheerleader cap and pulls out the "Americans are special" card, isn't he or she doing exactly the same thing as our subpar educators? Aren't such Presidents in effect handing out "gold stars" to boost our collective self-esteem while denying that our national performance in so many critical areas is, frankly, dismal?
While I would probably not want to trade places with citizens in other countries -- unless it was Canada, Denmark, or Norway -- and I am grateful for the opportunities afforded me and members of my family by being born in this country, I believe that when citizens of a given nation, like individuals convinced of their legendary status in their own minds, buy into the idea that they are exceptional, then there is something unsavory, perhaps even sinister, going on. Why do we need to be told that "we're the top dogs?" If we truly were, would we need to be publicly reminded of it?
And if there's a discrepancy between our achievements and our self-image, what good does it do (for whom?) to deny evidenceto the contrary regarding the former while inflating our collective sense of the latter? Is not the very same thing going on with evidence of a downward spiral in achievement on the part of American undergrads at the very same time that the average GPA of this crop of college students has climbed to 3.2? If our students "isn't learning," as Presdident Bush 43 worried, don't teachers handing out such high grades bear an ethical responsibility for failing to maintain standards that are genuinely high? Is is not the same matter of dubious ethics when our president plays the "exceptionalism" card in the midst of what almost any objective analysis would consider a subpar state of the union?
I believe the exceptionalism card gets played so much because the society in the US is overly individualistic. This creates an environment where no problem is seen as a nation's problem, but instead an issue affecting a certain segment of the population.
ReplyDeleteIn a country that neglects fiscal and personal responsibility, there will be room to not be held accountable for one's actions. There is always someone else to blame (parents, teachers, politicians) for our problems.
Americans want someone to tell them they are doing a great job to reinforce their false image of themselves. Unfortunately leaders, whether they are in education or politics, are pressured to do so because there are not nearly enough people who want to face constructive criticism because they will take it too personal as a result of our individualistic society.
I agree to some extent that the "American exceptionalism" is to blame for the ills. I too think that the American society has become way too individualistic. I thought that aspect of Obama's state of the union speech was kind of cheesy (though Americans are cheese fanatics) and a cliché. I found myself chuckle a little once I heard "the world's shining light" analogy because it is so "American". The question I want to pose it the following, how can Obama spark competitiveness when America/ns are already the world's best people/nation/workers/innovators? This attitude is not just an American problem...although it is the most evident here, but it seems like a lot of the West has this sense of ethnocentrism/arrogance in their attitudes...
ReplyDeleteI believe that in an increasingly globalized world, exceptionalism will not last a long time. With changing dynamics in the world arena, there is a shift of power and wealth. The US should learn to adapt itself to this change. Of course, each country has its unique features but holding on to older ways to fulfill emotional security or more so being different wouldn't really be a smart thing to do.
ReplyDelete