The Bush Administration’s War for Freedom

George W. Bush obtained the presidency with the expectation that he would have the opportunity to reform education and strengthen the economy. Instead, the events on September 11^th thrust him into a presidency primarily dealing with foreign affairs.  Unlike his father, who was director of the CIA prior to being president, Bush 43 had no experience dealing with American diplomacy. The spike of nationalism that transpired in American culture following the attacks created a nearly universal sense that something must be done about Islamic radicalism. The nationalism that propelled the United States into a global war on terror was a side effect of the concept of American exceptionalism that many citizens hold to be true. This is evident in the rhetoric that Bush and other leaders, as well as the media, used in the post 9/11 era. Though many of the decisions Bush made in office are now seen as tragic, the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum erases the farces of his presidency, while focusing on the idea of American exceptionalism to justify those decisions.

 

When observing the financial situation that is necessary to create a presidential museum, it is not difficult to understand why George Bush is painted in such a flattering way. A small portion of the funds come from taxes, but the majority of the money is given by people who believe Bush was a great president. These are people who, like Bush, have a strong belief in the notion of American exceptionalism. Rather than the subjective picture of his presidency being intentionally disingenuous, it is likely that it is the way Bush and his supporters actually see his presidency and the global war on terror.  To any person willing to be critical of the decisions that propelled the United States into a single-handed decades-long war against an ideology, the museum comes off as misleading and a denial of the true nature of the United States’ global war on terror, especially the Iraq War.

 

Before presenting visitors with the United States’ war on terror, the museum cleverly evokes empathy for Bush as a person and leader. The hallway that introduces the exhibit portrays Bush’s upcoming as both modest and inspirational to his character as leader. It describes the love he has for his family and the conservative values of hard work, patriotism, and neighborly love attributed to any white suburban family in the 40s and 50s. Next is Bush’s No Child Left Behind legislation. Though controversial, it is portrayed as one of Bush’s most prominent successes. It also effectively places visitors in a position of compassion for children and their importance in the future of the United States.

 

When one turns around after viewing this shrine to America’s children, complete with a cute miniature school bus for kids to sit in, they are confronted with an ominous circular room with low lighting. In the center are two beams, twisted and mangled, pulled directly from ground zero. They serve as a morbid center piece, with most of the lighting focusing on them. Along the walls of the room are four televisions embedded in the wall, covering each tower, the pentagon, and United Airlines flight 93. They depict the impact of each plane, the urgency and anxiety that filled every news organization’s coverage, and the tearful reactions of New Yorkers watching it unfold. Even as a person critical of the justifications 9/11 gave to irrational and impulsive diplomatic decisions, this section of the exhibit effectively recreates the mood felt during 9/11 and the days that followed. I was filled with combined feelings of anxiousness, sadness, resentment, and even a desire for retribution. Of course these feelings are justified for any American experiencing a recreation of that day’s events. However, the sensational depiction of them serves the same purpose in the museum as it did in the post 9/11 Bush presidency.

 

Following this section is a timeline of Bush’s actions in the following days, ending with a quote by Bush in 2006 invoking Alexis de Tocqueville “[who] saw that the secret to America’s success was… our willingness to serve a cause greater than self.”[1] This idea is much more apparent today than in the 1830s. When applying it to the United States’ actions in the war on terror, it becomes almost comical considering much of the results achieved have been self-serving. Next is an enormous global map labeled “Fighting the Global War.” The map illustrates Afghanistan and Iraq in red, “state sponsors of terrorism” in orange, labels nuclear threats, terrorist attacks, and prevented terrorist attacks. The problem is that it depicts terrorism as a unified movement rather than a complex, disorganized, and scattered culmination of extreme ideologies. Littering an entire section of the globe with red and orange caution signs places blame on millions of people who instead of participating in the violent response to westernism and globalization, live normal lives. Most are not wearing masks and carrying AK-47s. They are going to work every day to support their families, participating in their communities, and cooking supper while their children play with their friends. All of this while dealing with the minority of extremists that plague their states with disorder and violence.

 

Once reaching the map, the left side of the hallway opens up into the rest of the exhibit. In this section, one is allowed to move freely and observe the individual displays in whichever order they please. At this point the museum has effectively built the visitors empathy, disheartened them, pin-pointed the enemy, and created the justification for a global war on terror. This section, which outlines the war during Bush’s presidency, attributes his administration with spreading democracy, and especially “the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq.” One wall in particular portrays an assortment of justifications, as well as exaltations of freedom, peace, free trade, and democracy. Several quotes from Bush appear on the wall including “the best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world,” and “America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.” These summarize Bush’s attitude throughout the war; a common belief most clearly traced back to Wilson’s “make the world safe for democracy” speech. [2] They believed that the spread of democracy and free trade equates to prosperity and liberty in America.

 

In a statement of denial or pure naivety, a panel expresses one part of Bush’s freedom agenda as the attempt to “Expand Free Trade to bring people out of poverty and to undercut the despair that fuels extremism.” However, the United States’ attempt at globalizing a free trade market is precisely what led to extremist backlash, and continues to do so, not “poverty and despair.” This is apparent in Bin Laden’s 1996 fatwā entitled “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.” [3] His initial reason to declare Jihad was the United States’ occupation in the Islamic world —which existed for the purposes of protecting free trade­. Post 9/11 extremists are motivated by what, to them, is a forceful and violent attempt at spreading Western values that are at odds with their ideological conservatism. For years the United States has fought to keep the world open for free trade. The result is often the exploitation of citizens and resources, all for the economic interests of United States’ businesses. But when it comes to American interests in the Middle East, the resistance is religious and ideological. This creates opposition far more meaningful to those fighting to resist. The Bush administration’s belief that introducing more of what caused the problem in the first place is the solution serves as a testament to why Iraq was such a farce.

 

An interactive globe presented in the exhibit highlights the democratic states of the world over a period of fifty-eight years. For 2008 it lists 121 democratic nations (including Iraq and Afghanistan). Defining democratic states however, is more complicated than drawing a line. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of  Democracy 2008 illustrates this by ordering democratic nations in a particular order based on categories that that characterize democracies. [4] Additionally, it places proposed democratic nations into four types of regimes: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, and authoritarian regimes. In this more realistic definition Afghanistan ranks at 138, and Iraq at 116. This positions Iraq in the last state considered a hybrid regime, and Afghanistan as an authoritarian regime. Furthermore, though the Bush Museum categorizes Iraq at the end of Bush’s presidency as “able to govern, defend, and to sustain itself,” the EIU’s index gives Iraq a .07 out of 10 on “Functioning of government,” far behind every other nation listed. The effort to illustrate the Bush administration as effectively spreading democratic values to the nations where it concentrated all of its efforts is a reflection of its notion of American exceptionalism. If America is exceptional because it is willing to spread democracy, liberty, and prosperity, as well as challenge anything that opposes those standards, than the global war on terror ­­— which was justified on this effort and the United States’ obligation to fulfill it — must have resulted in the triumph of the United States’ determination.

 

Observing the Bush Museum from a more critical perspective exposes the denial of the United States’ true characteristics in the global war on terror. Considering the same disingenuous justifications present during the Bush administration are also present throughout the exhibit, perhaps the museum is a more accurate depiction of Bush’s term than regularly considered. Bush used the United States’ notion of American exceptionalism — which was stronger than ever post 9/11 — to propel the country into two wars. Involving the United States in decades of combat, the disruption of an already tumultuous region of the world, wasting trillions of dollars, and causing the deaths of nearly 7,000 American soldiers, somehow only strengthens the cause for some. For them, it is the United States’ obligation to spread its ideals that make it exceptional. Though it undermines true American values, (actually established in the Bill of Rights) the Bush administration detaining and torturing prisoners without trial was even justified by the same people that cry for preserving the constitution. For others, like me, justifying the means of war on the United States so-called obligation to spread its values, when the attempted spread of those values is the primary reason conflict exists in the first place, comes off as absurd. If anything is exceptional about the United States it is its ability to sometimes perceive its actions exactly opposite of what they truly are. When the liberation of other states fails, but the economic interests succeeds, the action is not seen as a farce, but an ongoing struggle to free the world of structures that oppose everything that makes the United States exceptional.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. From the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum in Dallas, Texas. All quotations were observed on November 1, 2014.
2. From speech given by Woodrow Wilson on April 2, 1917. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4943/
3. Bin Laden, Osama, “Declaration of War against American Occupying the Two Holy Places,” August 1996, PBS News Hour, retrieved 10 November 2014. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military-july-dec96-fatwa_1996/

American Exceptionalism Threatens Civil Liberties

As I’ve clearly argued before, American exceptionalism has been a major justification in nearly every conflict the United States has entered. Many United States’ representatives and political voices would argue that the United States’ selfless obligation to protect freedom around the world is what makes it exceptional. For them, American interference has been a burden that it has taken on for the sake of preserving all that is good. If I was to attribute anything positive that has made the United States exceptional, it would be the individual rights guaranteed in the constitution. The contemporary notion some American’s have of American exceptionalism have slowly been used to whittle away these individual rights.

A characteristic often attributed to the United States as being unique is the belief that it was formed on the principals of Christianity. Sure, many of the founding fathers identified as Christians, (though most of the popular ones were deist) but what would you expect from 18^th century, upper-class, white males? Yes, many of the indignities defined in the Bible are illegal in the United States, but they are also illegal in every other civilized country. The founding fathers were explicit in their determination to separate church from state. They were all learned men that understood the endorsement of a state religion meant the suppression of individual liberty. The belief that the United States’ Christian foundation is under attack has caused a huge amount of pressure to insert Christianity into every form of society. Things like teaching Creationism in schools, state organizations participating in group prayer, “In God We Trust” stamped on currency, and “Under God” crammed into the Pledge of Allegiance are all efforts to define religion as part of the American way. If they were so apparent in the country’s foundation, efforts to fulfill them would not have all surfaced in the last hundred years. The determination to jostle Christianity into American life only opposes American’s individual liberties.

Many of the same people would also argue that the United States has always fought for democracy and freedom and all of the clichés that are most noble in the world. The first settlers’ illegitimate claim to the continent, the cruel treatment of Native Americans, slavery, Jim Crow, opposition to Women’s suffrage, and (currently) opposition to the equality of all sexual and gender identities are each characteristics of the leader of the free world. The United States’ ability to overcome each of these things is great, but it is not the result of American exceptionalism. It would be remarkable to attribute the United States as the leader of progressing individual liberties. Instead, it has taken the lead of other nations, accepting progress to preserve its legitimacy as a free nation.

The type of liberty the United States has fought for is characterized by American businesses having the largest global market possible. Liberating other countries and introducing democracy is a selfless deed, never mind the benefits to American economic interests. Many Americans like to believe that all of the United States’ wars are indications of American exceptionalism. I would argue that many of the conflicts the United States has entered since WWI have directly transgressed against American individual liberties. In the name of national security, American citizens have been treated as criminals for expressing their right to freedom of speech. Eugene V. Debs was sentenced to ten years in prison for criticizing the Wilson administration and the war. In 2013, Chelsea Manning was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison for exposing atrocities carried out by United States’ soldiers. The United States’ global war on terror has brought the Patriot Act and the NDAA, both threats to American civil liberties.

Some American political voices spend time worrying whether there is a war on Christmas, or if certain groups of people will have the same rights as them, but also argue that United States’ military intervention is necessary and noble. These people confuse the liberties they should be fighting for. They believe that treating everyone equal somehow destroys the constitution, but support the conflicts and the movements that have directly contributed to the corrosion of American liberties. Rather than American exceptionalism being defined by American military might and economic superiority, it should be defined by the Americans that have fought to create a more equal society. What is a more impressive result of the “Great American Experiment”: a final realization of “all men are created equal? Or the world’s strongest military being used to protect the investments of the world’s most successful businesses?

No Means No!

In terms of literature, a tragedy is typically defined as a drama that depicts hardship often as the result of the protagonist’s fatal flaw. In tragedies, the audience is often aware of the misfortune that awaits the characters, creating a sense of irony. Fortunately, for William Appleman Williams, the retrospective act of studying history allows a sort of omniscient perspective. His use of “tragedy” in The Tragedy of American Diplomacy perfectly establishes his argument against The United States’ idea of frontier-expansionism and the Open Door Policy he felt resulted in the deterioration of American domestic and foreign prosperity.

Williams’s most apparent example of the tragedy of American diplomacy, as he points out, is in the United States’ relations with Cuba from 1898 through 1961. [1] In freeing Cuba from Spanish tyranny, America’s supposed intentions were to give Cuba independence, encourage economic success and reassure its development into a democracy. One can easily understand through Williams’s argument that the defining incentive for American influence was instead always motivated by domestic capital gain. The United States dominated the island’s economy resulting in control over the sugar industry and prevention of any deviations from its one-crop economy. [2] Furthering that argument is America’s acceptance of corrupt Cuban leaders, but immediate response to civilian transgression to the “economic and political restrictions established by American leaders.” [3] The tragedy that Williams finds is America’s gracious idealistic intentions juxtaposed with its actions’ devastating consequences. The irony in place comes from the obvious expectation — especially apparent when reexamining history — and repetition of these failures.

Though Williams never uses the phrase, a feature of American social and political thought that only enhances the tragedy of American diplomacy is the concept of American exceptionalism. This notion is a self-righteous assertion of American superiority to other less developed, or economically different, states. While the motivation for expansion was always economical, the philosophical justification, recognized by American citizens, business leaders, and policy makers, was the idea of spreading democracy, self-determination, and American ideals. This idea can be seen first in the concept frontier expansion. In his Frontier Thesis, Frederick Jackson Turner argued that “prosperity and representative government were tied casually to expansion.” [4] Thus, part of the American character relied on the nation’s ability to grow.

The irony of America’s idealistic self-conception and its need to spread this idea is in the reality of its effects.  Americans promoted self-determination and laissez-fair capitalism —which implies personal responsibility — in rhetoric, but in practice denied these freedoms to other societies. Williams provides the reforms made in Morocco, China, and Nicaragua as examples to this argument. The process of making fundamental changes in these societies created unrest. Rather than allowing these places to determine their own path and participate in a type of free market they chose, the United States wanted to “stop or stabilize such changes at a point favorable to American interests.” [5] As Williams goes on to criticize: “That attempt can only be describes as a selfish violation of the idea and ideal of self-determination, and even an evasion of the moral obligation to accept the consequences of one’s own actions.” [6]

American exceptionalism begins to play an even larger role beginning in Woodrow Wilson’s presidency. Despite a history of ineffectiveness in United States’ foreign policy, Wilson did not consider a different system. [7] He continued in America’s tradition of the Open Door Policy, which as Williams points out, was “America’s version of the liberal policy of informal empire or free trade imperialism.” [8] Rather than reassessing the best approach to participating in the economic development of the global market, Wilson’s attempt was to adhere to traditional American economics and apply those to the global market, which he believed would lead to prosperity. [9] This strategy, which combined “American supremacy with the political theory of classic liberalism,” was manifested in Wilson’s idea of the League of Nations. [10]

The Bolshevik Revolution on 1917 is important in understanding American diplomacy in the 20^th century, though Williams suggests it is for reasons not traditionally considered. [11] Williams’s observations focus more on American rhetorical and political reactions to the revolution. He argues that because of Wilson’s fear of “the general feelings of revolt,” “The Bolshevik Revolution became… the symbol of all the revolutions that grew out of that discontent.”[12] The tragedy of this, according to Williams is the revolutions Wilson speaks of were reactions to the policies the West had been imposing.

With F.D.R came the conception of the New Deal. Williams argues that the New Deal only strengthened the traditional system of diplomacy by operating within the outdated order of business and politics, emphasizing trade expansion and the Open Door Policy, and worsening the arrangement of free trade imperialism. [13] According to Williams the New Deal’s policies contributed to the tragedy in that defining “overseas economic activity as essential to the welfare of the United States, American policymakers were exceedingly prone to view social revolution in those countries as a threat to the vital national interests of their own nation.” [14]

Where American exceptionalism acts as the enabler to America’s tragic foreign policy, the need for constant growth in a capitalist market serves not only as the purpose for continuous interference in foreign affairs, but as the catalyst to those states’ reactions. Many small conflicts the United States has participated in throughout its history has been in response to radical revolutions. Williams suggests that perhaps America carries more responsibility in this than previous thought. This is apparent in his description of the relationship between informal empires and their weaker counterparts. While nations were allowed local rule, it was within the limits set by imperial power. [15] This meant, in practice, that one part of society ruled, leading the proletariat more inclined to join a cause that promised them a greater influence in their economic welfare. [16]

Williams argues that United States’ diplomacy is tragic in that its complacency and determination to maintain traditional economic policies have been the detriment to its foreign and domestic welfare. Beginning with frontier-expansionism and manifesting itself in Open Door Policy, America’s relentless hunger for wealth — behind the guise of its supposed exceptionalism — has attempted to spread American economics, democracy, and ideals across the globe. It does this while, at the same time, inhibiting foreign economics, governmental policy, and self-determination — all in the expectation of maximum financial gain for the United States. Williams suggests many foreign political movements have been reactionary to American diplomacy. Thus, through the distribution of “freedom,” America has unintentionally manufactured its own enemies, which it must then destroy to protect the “freedom” it produces. The tragedy of American diplomacy is in the ironic, and America’s inability to perceive it.

1. William Appleman Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy ( New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, 1959, 1962, 1972), 1.
2. Ibid, 2.
3. Ibid, 2
4. Williams quoting Turner, 32
5. Williams, Tragedy, 67
6. Ibid, 67
7. Ibid, 96
8. Ibid, 97
9. Ibid, 97
10. Ibid, 101
11. Ibid, 104
12. Ibid, 106
13. Ibid, 173
14. Ibid, 174
15. Ibid, 96
16. Ibid, 96

American Exceptionalism as a Rhetorical Devise

A large part of American political rhetoric since before the constitution was even formed has been built around the concept of American exceptionalism.  For centuries Americans have believed that the part of the North American continent eventually chiseled out to be The United States is a gift from god. This rhetorical device has come in handy over the years starting with European’s “right” to live here in the first place. Up until the constitution however, this concept could be attributed to Europe’s general sense of superiority that was used to justify imperialism. The concept of eurocentrism that existed then could be seen as a precedent for American exceptionalism.

When the constitution was first written, early American’s felt they had accomplished something without model.  They had started a new nation on what they felt like was essentially an uninhabited continent, with much of it still not even explored. This new nation was meant to be true democracy and support individualism, laissez-fair capitalism, and egalitarianism. One often hears it called “The American Experiment.” From manifest destiny, to the Cold War, to the War on Terror, American exceptionalism has long been used as an excuse for action, even when the action is in contrast to popular American opinion. To me, the concept of American exceptionalism is no more than a nationalistic rhetorical devise implying that those in support are “true Americans” while those indifferent (or with more realistic global expectations) are considered unpatriotic. This inhibits free thought in a nation supposedly built upon libertarian ideals.

Although the concept of exceptionalism is used by both political parties in American, it is particularly endorsed by the right. In 2006, when Obama was asked if he believed in American exceptionalism, he stated “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” This received considerable backlash from pundits on the right including Sarah Palin who stated that perhaps because of his lack of faith in American exceptionalism “we see a president who seems to be much more comfortable with an American military that isn’t quite so dominant and who feels the need to apologize for America when he travels overseas” Apparently America’s ability to kick anyone’s ass is what makes us exceptional.

It is not just our military that is cited as what makes us exceptional, it is every positive thing that one could conceive to attribute to a nation including, but not limited to: liberty, upward mobility, healthcare, education, innovation, and culture. The truth is, political rhetoric and unbridled patriotism blind many Americans from seeing the world as it is. Perhaps distancing itself from the tradition of religious and military superiority, and instead looking objectively at global relations, American could find a reason to be exceptional. Most political or historical qualms leave me thinking of particular folk songs. In the case of American exceptionalism, this song comes to mind, though i prefer the Bob Dylan version more.