The United States Is Exceptional (In Both Good & Bad Ways)

(Cartoon image is by Mike Judge in The Kansas City Star.)

It is not uncommon to hear that the United States is exceptional among all the nations of the world. It is especially common among those on the right -- who would have us believe this country is the best and does not need to change.

The truth is that America has been exceptional -- in both good and bad ways. We have not always been on the right side of history, and we are still struggling to become a better nation. The following is just a small part of an excellent article on America and its history by Nebraska school teacher Tim Royers. I urge you to read the whole piece.


The reality is that there is a fundamental duality underlying American political history, and until we fully acknowledge this duality in current public school curriculums, our classrooms will continue to offer only a partial glimpse into the past. This is not an either/or proposition — America is exceptional — but just in ways that have done both good and bad.

We can trace this duality in American history to a conundrum that dates back to the very founding of the United States: When the leaders of the Revolution chose to seek independence, they launched a movement that espoused conservative ideals, but which used radical means to achieve them. Here, I am using “conservative” in the nonpolitical sense — the goal of the leaders was to return to American colonial society as it was before the increased interference of the British crown. . . .

As much as we celebrate the profound rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence and similar documents, we should clearly acknowledge that their original purpose was to restore liberties, control over property, and access to political decision making for a privileged few. Indications of this fact are in the documents themselves — the very same document which famously affirms that “all men are created equal,” with women intentionally omitted (the thinkers of the Enlightenment era felt that politics was exclusively the realm of men), also contains a passage that decries the “merciless Indian savages.”. . .

In short, while the founders utilized radical new means to achieve their ends, those ends remained fundamentally entrenched in an effort to restore a romanticized colonial past. They wanted to access the tools of social contract, natural rights, and consent of the governed, but only for themselves and with no intention to share those tools with everyone else.

Needless to say, this is why the same person who writes about the equal standing of all men can legally own slaves. It is why the same people that decry a lack of representation would also put in place institutional barriers to mitigate the influence that direct elections could have through the Electoral College. It is why most states limited voting to white male property owners and no one else. This was a revolution based in Enlightenment-era principles, both positive and negative. . . .

This sets up the great paradox of our country: the constant battle between the Two Americas. One America seeks to uphold the ends of the Revolution, by maintaining a society dominated by a ruling elite. The other America seeks to uphold the means of the Revolution, extending the promises of liberty and participation in government to an ever-increasing percentage of American society who demand an end to their marginalization.

The tug-of-war between these two Americas has defined our country from its establishment to the present era, through the quandaries that arise between those who comfortably have their rights, and those on the margins seeking to be included in that group. . . .

Throughout history, this has created an interesting phenomenon: As the sphere of those who do enjoy rights expands, those newly-included groups have ideologically joined the entity seen from the margins as oppressive. In many ways, they have been seen to begin seeking to maintain a romanticized status-quo version of America which keeps them in a position of privilege, especially as a new wave of groups challenges and protests their excluded status in society.

The same members of the working class that would have been denied the vote in the early 19th century fought against expanding suffrage to women or minorities. The same skilled laborers that fought for collective representation resisted the extension of the same privileges to unskilled labor. The same women that sought to give themselves the vote at the turn of the 20th century sought to actively deny its extension to minority women. As the mission of earning legal rights was accomplished for each specific group, similar missions for other groups seeking to achieve the same thing were seen as dangerous enough to jeopardize the social order each prior group had had fought so hard to obtain. . . .

We must continue to teach the vision of the United States as the work of forming a shining city upon a hill, built around “the great principles (of the Declaration of Independence) and the genius of American institutions,” as Frederick Douglass once described. But we do a grave disservice in teaching this vision while hiding the fact that various groups and individuals (and at times even the vast majority of the American population), have historically sought to undermine the very democratic institutions that serve as the foundation of our civic life. This has been done, and continues to happen, in order to pull the country towards an America built on policies that restrict the liberties and rights of those who are marginalized, and in order to preserve the perceived power of the privileged in our society. . . .

We can never forget that the same America which oversaw the gradual expansion of rights that we celebrate today has a darker side. This is the side that sought to erase the culture of indigenous people, worked (and in many ways, still works) to prevent black families from owning homes or moving into certain neighborhoods, and which led an imperial conquest of the Philippines. Acknowledging this “other America” is not only needed for a healthy civic life in the present, but actually strengthens the accomplishments of the better, “more democratic” America through strength in opposition.