This is the first in a series exploring the concept of American exceptionalism. On Monday, we examine areas in which other countries lead the way.
By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor
(CNN) – It’s safe to say the first European arrivals to New England wouldn’t recognize today’s debate over whether America is exceptional.
Though the United States wouldn’t be born for another century and a half, the Puritans arriving in the early 1600s on the shores of what would become Massachusetts firmly believed they were on a mission from God.
In other words, they had the exceptional part down pat.
Fleeing what they saw as the earthly and corrupt Church of England, the Puritans fancied themselves the world’s last, best hope for purifying Christianity - and for saving the world.
The Puritans never used the word “exceptionalism.” But they came to see Boston as the new Jerusalem, a divinely ordained “city upon a hill,” a phrase Massachusetts Bay Colony founder John Winthrop used in a sermon at sea en route from England in 1630.
“They were reinterpreting themselves as God’s new Israel,” Boston University religion professor Stephen Prothero said. “They were essentially playing out the biblical story.”
To modern ears, that literal exceptionalist thinking could sound at once both exotic and quaint, which makes the idea’s staying power and influence throughout American history all the more remarkable.
Photos: Faces of citizenship
Nearly four centuries after Winthrop uttered the words “city on a hill,” President Barack Obama finds himself responding to charges from Republican challenger Mitt Romney that he has insufficient faith in American exceptionalism.
“Our president doesn’t have the same feelings about American exceptionalism that we do,” Romney said at a campaign stop this year. “You have an opportunity to vote and take the next step in bringing back that special nature of being American.”
Obama has pushed back on that claim, saying in a recent speech that “the character of our country … has always made us exceptional.”
Though the particulars surrounding the idea have changed, the bedrock belief that America is exceptional when measured against the arc of history and against all other nations has helped forge the nation’s defining moments, from the American Revolution and the country’s dramatic expansion west to the Civil War and both World Wars.
More recently, arguments about American exceptionalism have helped elect and unseat presidents – and have fed a debate about whether the phrase still has any meaning.
'An asylum for mankind'
For New England’s Puritans, exceptionalism was a religious idea with big political repercussions.
They thought the Protestant Reformation, which had been set into motion a century before, hadn’t gone nearly far enough in rooting out the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church.
Puritans saw the pomp and hierarchy of the Protestant Church of England as too much like another papacy.
My Take: How I constructed 'The American Bible'
In New England, Winthrop and his fellow travelers established a theocracy that they hoped would be a model for English Christianity.
“They had to succeed to bring about this promised apocalyptic history that would culminate in the second coming of Christ, hopefully to New England,” said Deborah Madsen, an American studies professor at the University of Geneva.
“To fail would be to fail the world on this grand, transcendent scale,” said Madsen, who has studied the idea of American exceptionalism throughout U.S. history.
With the stakes thought to be so high, there was intense social pressure among Puritans to adhere to a strict moral code.
Everyone looked for signs that they were among the elect destined for heaven and kept a watchful eye out for neighbors who might be backsliding. The starkest example: the Salem witch trials of 1692, in which 19 people were hanged in Massachusetts for allegedly practicing witchcraft.
“If the members of the community fulfilled their part in the work of sacred history, not only would the individuals find salvation, but the whole community would be saved,” Madsen said, summarizing Puritan thinking. “But if any individual failed to live up to this grand destiny, the entire community would be denied salvation.”
Being God’s chosen people, it turned out, wasn’t all roses.
America exceptional? Not by the numbers
As new arrivals and subsequent generations enlarged colonial America, the Puritans’ faith-based ideas were gradually secularized.
By 1660, it had become clear to the Massachusetts theocrats that they wouldn’t be exporting their ideas abroad anytime soon. That was the year the British monarchy was restored after a decade of rule by the Cromwells, putting an end to Puritan rule in England and re-establishing the Church of England as a political power.
And with new Enlightenment ideas making their way from Europe about a rational universe knowable through reason, the Puritans’ quest for perfect religious institutions gave way to a colonial quest for perfect political institutions.
My Faith: Why I don’t sing the ‘Star Spangled Banner’
The democratic ideas that made up this new political exceptionalism owed plenty to Winthrop & Co.
“Puritans had mapped out the relationship between church and the community that included the seed of democratic participation,” said Madsen. “The idea was that everyone had rights but also responsibilities.
“By fulfilling their responsibilities and respecting the rights of others, they would achieve happiness through the social contract.”
That egalitarianism helped lay the groundwork for the American Revolution, though Madsen notes that “the terms of reference had changed from salvation to democracy.”
America’s revolutionaries were keenly aware that their calls for democratic government in the face of English rule were exceptional for their time.
“Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression,” Thomas Paine wrote in 1776 in “Common Sense,” which helped galvanize colonists toward the Revolutionary War.
“Freedom hath been hunted round the globe,” Paine wrote. “Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger. … O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.”
The Puritan vision of America as world’s godly beacon had been replaced by the image of the nation as the world’s workshop for political and social progress. America’s founders wanted to break with what they saw as the corruption of European politics and society, where a person’s status was mostly a matter of inheritance.
By contrast, the founders proposed in the Declaration of Independence “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
While other republics had come and gone, many of the founders who signed the Declaration - and, later, the Constitution - wanted the American Republic to endure forever.
This was city on a hill 2.0.
Reading the founders’ paeans to American exceptionalism - about aspiring to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” as the Constitution puts it - can put a lump in your throat.
But their vision excluded huge swaths of the population, like women and slaves. And other applications of the idea had their own dark sides.
Take Manifest Destiny.
As the nascent United States strove to expand westward in the 1800s, its leaders faced major problems, including how to justify taking land that belonged to Europe or that was occupied by Native Americans.
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
Manifest Destiny – the idea that it was God’s will for the U.S. government to occupy North America or all of the Americas – offered a big part of the answer.
“A civilization that has the sanction of God is always the ultimate justification,” said the University of Geneva’s Madsen. “The idea was that God had made it manifest that the U.S. should expand. … It’s not much different than the idea of American exceptionalism.”
Like many facets of exceptionalism, the notion of Manifest Destiny wasn’t entirely new.
In the 1500s, Queen Elizabeth of England had established herself as a divinely ordained monarch whose reign had been presaged by the Bible. That mythology, which inspired Puritan exceptionalism, had helped English plantation owners justify forays into what is now Northern Ireland.
In the same way, Manifest Destiny helped justify the United States as it laid claim to European land and forcibly removed tens of thousands of American Indians. Many asserted that the campaign was meant to civilize or Christianize the natives, making good on America’s “chosenness.”
And the American image of a continent brimming with virgin land – which denied the presence of American Indians there – synched nicely with long-held exceptionalist visions of an unspoiled and utopian New World.
“Our manifest destiny (is) to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions,” American newspaper editor John S. O’Sullivan wrote in 1845, arguing for the annexation of Texas, in what is believed to be history’s first mention of Manifest Destiny.
It’s hard to know how much America’s leaders truly believed in the idea versus how much they employed it for purely political ends. Manifest Destiny certainly had high-profile critics, including Mark Twain, who declared himself an “anti-imperialist.”
“If you’re a cynical person and you see something like the Mexican-American War as a land grab, you can say this idea of Manifest Destiny was construed to create a moral tissue for a war of aggression,” Boston University international relations professor Andrew Bacevich said.
The westward expansion was driven largely by Southerners who wanted to farm the land and expand American slavery.
But abolitionists like Frederick Douglass also appropriated American exceptionalism, arguing that the nation’s “peculiar institution” was evidence that America was falling short of its Christian mandate.
That abolitionist line foreshadowed a key argument of 20th-century liberals: If America is exceptional, it’s because of the decisions we make around justice, not because of innate “chosenness.”
By Douglass’ time, American exceptionalism was so deeply entrenched in the American psyche that it transcended religion. Abraham Lincoln, often described as a deist - believing in a distant, uninvolved God - was nonetheless a hearty exceptionalist.
“He believed that America was leading the way in history toward democracy and equality,” said Dorothy Ross, a history professor emeritus at Johns Hopkins University. “At that time, Europe is still steeped in monarchs and failed revolutions, and America was still the only mass democracy in the Western world and believed that it was leading the historical way.”
Even the relatively unreligious Lincoln came to see the hand of God actively participating in American history through the Civil War.
“He gives to both North and South this terrible war,” Lincoln said in his second inaugural address, referring to God. “American slavery,” Lincoln said, was something that “He now wills to remove.”
The first president to say it
Despite its centuries-old influence, the term "American exceptionalism" didn’t emerge until sometime in the past 100 years.
Some historians say it’s unclear who coined the phrase, while others credit Joseph Stalin with doing so in 1929, when he admonished American communists for suggesting that the United States’ unique history could make it immune to Marxism.
In his reprimand, the Soviet leader decried “the heresy of American exceptionalism.”
Ironically, American intellectuals and eventually the broader public came to embrace the term, especially in the years following World War II, even after communists used the Great Depression as evidence of Stalin’s alleged "heresy.”
Just like President Woodrow Wilson had done in World War I, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman justified American involvement in World War II largely on the basis that the country had been chosen to lead and transform the world.
After the Second World War, “the United States had emerged as the strongest country,” said Johns Hopkins’ Ross. “Social scientists began studying things like national character and what makes America unique.”
American affection for the idea grew during the Cold War, as the U.S. attempted to distinguish itself from the “godless” Soviet Union.
“Our governments, in every branch ... must be as a city upon a hill,” John F. Kennedy said in a Boston speech just before his inauguration in 1961, citing John Winthrop by name.
In the ’60s and ’70s, however, American scholars and others began challenging the idea of American exceptionalism, mostly from the left and especially after the Vietnam War, which liberals criticized as a costly exercise in American hubris.
Historians began to see exceptionalism as a scholarly construct, a way of interpreting American history rather than as accepted fact.
Ronald Reagan illustrated the partisan gap around the idea, speaking of America as a “city on a hill” and attacking President Jimmy Carter for allegedly showing weakness on the world stage, including in the Iran hostage crisis.
“We cannot escape our destiny, nor should we try to do so,” Reagan told the first annual Conservative Political Action Conference in 1974. “We are today the last best hope of man on Earth.”
President George W. Bush employed similar rhetoric in his global “freedom agenda,” even after initially pledging a “humble” foreign policy.
Despite greater Republican than Democratic support for the idea (91% vs. 70%) , a 2010 Gallup poll found that 80% of Americans subscribed to the notion that the U.S. has a “unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world.”
Boston University’s Prothero criticizes that definition of American exceptionalism, which he says is how most American politicians use the term today.
For John Winthrop, the shining city was an aspiration that depended on the righteous behavior of the Puritans, Prothero says, part of the social contract that laid the groundwork for democracy. Whether the city would in fact shine was an open question.
If the Puritans dealt falsely with their God, Winthrop had said in his 1630 sermon, there will be “curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going.”
In contemporary American politics, by contrast, Prothero says the idea of exceptionalism has been stripped of its conditionalism, becoming “a kind of brag.”
“Today, it’s ‘of course God blesses America,’ ” he said. “It’s presumptuous.”
Others have attacked the idea as little more than the kind of nationalism felt by citizens of countries all over the world.
“I believe in American exceptionalism,” President Obama said in France in 2009, “just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
But the president has since sounded a different tune. In his Air Force Academy commencement speech in May, Obama repeatedly expressed support for American exceptionalism.
“The United States has been, and will always be, the one indispensable nation in world affairs,” Obama said. “It's one of the many examples of why America is exceptional.”
In fact, Obama appears to be the first sitting president to publicly use those words, political experts say. Given their place in the modern American political lexicon, nearly 400 years after Winthrop first gave voice to the idea, he is unlikely to be the last.
Andrew Jackson is one major exsample not only as to this manafest destiny genoside but a true revalation on the hypocricy of " the rule of law " where he told the United Ststes Supreme Court that those old guys to come down and force their decesion regarding the Cheroke Nation. This says it all as to our exceptionalism and having him on the 20 dollar bill is all the proof anyone needs globally.
indeed America is Exceptional. it is the only country ever to use atomic bombs against humankind
Yes, Do you know why? – had they not been dropped the Pacific side of the war would have continued into 1946. Casualty estimates ranged from 500k to 800k allied casualties and 1.8 million to 4.5 million+ Ja panese killed or wounded. As horrific as they were, those two bombs changed the mindset of a country willing to die by the millions. They saved lives.
The idea that the atomic bomb ended WWII and saved lives is the ONLY withstanding argument used by the US for breaking customary international law and even war ethics, and fed to the American public. This argument is really not without it's criticisms. It's not a universal fact that the Bomb saved lives, it's just how the US justifies itself in using the bomb.
"The idea that the atomic bomb ended WWII and saved lives is the ONLY withstanding argument used by the US for breaking customary international law and even war ethics"
What was 'customary international law' in 1945? What were the rules governing the use of nuclear weapons in 1945? - oh that's right – THERE WERE NONE.
Fat Man and Little Boy were that latest weapons to be developed at the end of the war. like the V-1 and V-2 rockets, the ME 262 and Germany was working on a nuclear program itself....If you don't think they had already envisioned a V-2 carrying a nuclear warhead I ve got a bridge to sell you – fortunately the war ended in Europe before they could realized that scenario. You apparently have no idea about the Ja panese and their Bushido code – They knew the war was lost by early 1944 and rebuffed all attempts to negotiate a surrender.
We dropped Little Boy on Hiroshima – a major industrial hub, on Aug 6th...and followed it up with a demand to surrender...The Ja panese remained silent! – continued to fight on....we dropped Fat Man on Nagasaki on Aug. 9th,
and Finally the second bomb shook them. Between the two, up to a quarter million eventually died.
it took something they had never seen before to rattle them....they shook off 200k deaths in the Tokyo firestorm, they didn't flinch at similar occurrences at several other industrial centers.
its easy to sit back and second guess and 'arm chair quarterback' decisions made in history 75+ years after the fact. I also think it's funny how the anti American crowd dredges up the Bombs as if Ja pan was completely innocent...didn't kill, maim, torture, invade or attack anyone, the Big Bad Americans just struck them out of the blue.
*estimates for a 1946 invasion that is*
There is a lot of posturing in all these comments and a lot of self hatred about American exceptionalism. Perhaps to express a different opinion I will say that not a day passes where I don't thank God that I was born in the United States. With all due respect to Mr. Putin, my family escaped Russia in the early 1900s and landed in New York and San Francisco. My grandparents surely would have been killed otherwise during the relentless pogroms and the killing fields of Russia's ethnic villages and vicious Czars.My grandparents didn't speak English well and labored as tailors in a tenement so that their children would do better. My father was the first to be college educated and went to medical school on the GI bill after World War 2 service in the 82nd Airborne Division. My generation has done well and are professionals and also have served our country. I challenge Mr. Putin to show that Russia has accepted millions of immigrants with the chance for a better life. I challenge Mr. Putin to show that my family would have had a better life had we stayed in Russia? For all our flaws, and there are many, no other country in the world is this diverse and free and continues to accept millions of immigrants for a chance at a better life. Yes free to argue our own stupidity, politics and tactics without fear of being killed and going to jail. Just look at all the comments! Yes this is exceptional and all of us Americans would do well to remember this.
As a Russian descent, you of course aware of the fact that Russia's number of immigrants was only second to the USA in 2002, and now it maybe higher. Or is it a shock?
"For all our flaws, and there are many, no other country in the world is this diverse and free and continues to accept millions of immigrants for a chance at a better life.."–Norway, Australia, Canada, even India to some extent (India being much more diverse than the U.S.), etc
Likewise, if you were born in Russia you might have thanked your god for being Russian, might have ended up in one of the ruling clans. Same way, your grandparents could have been born Mexican/Hispanic/Asian in the 1900s in America, and could have been shot to death or sterilized for your ethnicity.
Also, Snowden, Manning, etc...political dissent in the US is not as welcome as you might think. Back in the 60s the anti-war activists and feminists and whatnot were considered terrorists.
Hurrah for Putin!!!!!!!! He may have a hidden agenda, but Mr. Putin spoke the TRUTH that all the world knows, and that Americans refuse to hear. There is no such thing as "American Exceptionalism". Americans are good people. But there is also good people all over the world. This concept of "American Exceptionalism" is the modern version of the old imperialist and racist concept of "manifest destiny" created by American politicians in the 19th Century to pander and gain favor and power with the public through flattery and to justify their aggression towards indians and smaller countries, just like Hitler used the concept of "master race" with the German public in order to gain political power in Germany. The undeniable fact is that WE ARE ALL CREATED EQUAL, AND WE ARE ALL THE SAME BEFORE GOD.
exceptionalism: the perception that a country, society, instltution, movement, or time period is "exceptional" (i.e., unusual or extraordinary) in some way and thus does not need to conform to normal rules or general principles.
segregation: the action or state of setting someone or something apart from other people or things or being set apart.
The belief that America or any nation is exceptional promotes the concept of segregation, some are better than others and thus don't have to play by the same rules. This fallacy has been used to abuse other humans for thousands of years, let's not continue this sad and disgusting practice any longer.
If you translate this into German it rhymes beautifully with the philosophy of the Third Reich. The brownshirts never learn, do they? Arrogant till the grave.
Exceptional , God blessed , Special needs.
Whats the diff?
This concept is probably true to a degree, however, we are only one part of the world, so we cannot confuse exceptionalism with arrogance or thinking everything is our business, or our right. Can we guide the world, of course. USA is the place where many people come, so our country is made up of many countries, and that is our biggest strength. The rest is history.
We have to remember, though, that the same can be said of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and most other countries of the New Worlds.
As a born again Christian with a Mennonite heritage, a descendant of some of the original settlers in Pennsylvania from the 1690's, and a lover of America (I am currently wearing my Team USA Hockey Jacket) I have a big problem with American Exceptionalism.
We are not the new Jerusalem. We are not more blessed by God than other nations. We are not a Christian nation. We never have been and we will never be one.
Putin (who is a slim ball) is correct in saying when we pray we need to remember that we pray to the same God and we come on equal footing.
Putin is right in saying that we need to stay out of Syria, but so do the Russians. They need to stop arming Asad and we need to stop arming the rebels.
Both sides are bad and committing war crimes. There is evidence that both sides have gassed each other
We need stop trying to police the world and start policing our country. Our murder rate is 4X that of Canada, our gun murder rate is 8X higher. Lets get our house in order before we try to get other's people houses in order. That too is a biblical principle.
We are the most generous country in the world, we have not used our amazing military strength to create empires as the British and French have done. We have many many good things going.
America is a GREAT country, but exeptionalism is a lie and it keeps getting us into trouble.
You're right, being imbued with purpose from God must be the reason we are here. It makes perfect sense after all. God encouraged that Canannites be swept aside for the Israelites to have that swath of land for themselves, so the Native American tribes being meaningless in a loving benevolent Gods eyes makes perfect sense as well.
If America is not interested in building an Empire, what was the US government doing intervening in China, Italy, Greece, the Philippines, South Korea, Albania, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Indonesia, Vietnam, Guyana, Cambodia, Zaire, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Chile, East Timor, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Libya, El Salvador, and Haiti since WWII?
As I mentioned to Vic in another thread, please take the time to read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" by The Project for the New American Century.
They were a thinktank comprised of high level politicos like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton and other Bush era figures – all dedicated to spreading a global "Pax Americana".
Read my quote again: "we have not used our amazing military strength to create empires as the British and French have done."
I did not say that we have not engaged in empire building, but in comparison to the other super powers of history we have been better.
Counties like Russia have been among the worst for empire building.
I am against the Empire building of the past.
And I hold men like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Bolton as the worst things to have happened to the Republican Party.
At one time the Republican party was the party of civil rights and freedom. Oh how things have fallen!
(America) "has a “unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world.”
Yes, it's called acute ignorance. Ignorance on a massive national scale. "Proud to be ignorant" should be the national motto.
But Hey, 400 Greedy American Hero sociopaths own most of the wealth in the entire nation.
That IS exceptional !
Hitler started with the same idea ...
Exceptionally stupid. Exceptionally fat. American exceptionalism. woot woot
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.