D’Souza’s View of American Exceptionalism, Essay Example

While I agree with the notion of United States exceptionalism, I do not agree with D’Souza’s argument in this article. D’Souza’s assertion of American exceptionalism is flawed because he relies on fallacious arguments and attributes qualities of democracy and freedom to America that are not necessarily unique to American government or ideology. He points to the United States as an oasis, and he takes great care to point out the differences between the United States and our enemies abroad. However, he fails to make a convincing case that we should believe his version of American exceptionalism.

D’Souza defines the concept of American exceptionalism as the belief that America is unique in the world and that people from the United States are different from others in the world, in a positive way (D’Souza 769). His point is that the combination of American power, humanitarianism, and liberalism has developed the United States as a unique leader in the world that enables our citizens to view the world differently and shape it in a way that is better than it was in the past. He does not argue that the United States is free of problems, just that we are an example of a successful society that can serve as an example in the world to people who would seek a more comfortable life with a higher degree of self determination.

I agree with D’Souza on many points. It is hard to avoid swelling with pride when D’Souza describes the accomplishments of America. Freedom, democracy, and self determination are at the heart of our moral and political lives, and it is moving to read them described. However, D’Souza makes a number of mistakes in his argument that serve to weaken his point, insult American allies in the world, and make his points seem shortsighted and clumsy rather than expressive of his ultimate conclusion. In particular, he misrepresents the arguments against American actions, minimizes the efforts of our allied nations in Europe and the rest of the world when it comes to humanitarianism and progress, and oversimplifies the conflicts in which we are currently embroiled. In all, his argument is unconvincing and his reasoning is flawed.

In the beginning of the reading, D’Souza argues that the United States is held to a standard that does not apply to other nations. He contends that the United States is accused of pursuing its own interests and ignoring the needs of others in order to advance its own interests. Specifically, he mentions the American tendency to ignore international atrocities that do not directly involve the interests of the United States, Specifically, he talks about prewar sanctions against Iraq and failures to act against certain governments that have performed atrocities.

D’Souza mischaracterizes this argument as an argument against the United States acting in its own interest, when it is really a condemnation of American rhetoric in the international system. D’Souza claims that Americans are held to a standard that does not apply to other nations. However, at best, D’Souza is neglecting the principle of charity and attacking a straw man argument that is meant to expose hypocrisy of rhetoric, rather than immorality in action. For what it is worth, D’Souza may still be correct in his assessment that other nations are not held to the same standard as the United States in that sense, like when he gives his example of the Pakistani government whose shifting national interests prompted them to assist the United States (D’Souza 769). D’Souza has failed to make his point on this subject, and subsequently fails to further differentiate America from other western nations in his other points.

D’Souza argues that The United States, despite its power, is humane and kind to the world in a way that other nations are not. He illustrates this point by explaining that The United States has twice saved the world in the twentieth century and emerged as the lone superpower. He further argues that the United States is a nation that does not seek to conquer or abuse its power but, instead, encourages world peace and ideals of freedom and democracy. Despite his goofy oversimplifications, he does have a point. The United States goes to great lengths to provide humanitarian aid to foreign nations and goes to great lengths to improve the world through use of resources. The problem is that D’Souza makes no distinction between the biggest humanitarian nation in the world, and the only humanitarian nation in the world. For America to be exceptional in our efforts, we would need to either be alone in our efforts, or far beyond the efforts of other nations. Unfortunately for D’Souza’s argument, the United States is not alone in its humanitarian efforts.

Other countries are committed to humanitarian aid and raising the standard of living around the world as well. According to the BBC, the United Kingdom has pledged millions of dollars of aid to Afghanistan, and worked tirelessly, not only in assistance to the United States military mission, but to the Afghan humanitarian efforts (BBC 2008). When D’Souza poses the question to the reader in this essay asking what other nations drop food to prevent starvation among the Afghani people, he intended it to be a rhetorical question (D’Souza. However, the actual answer undermines D’Souza’s point when a reader finds that Spain, Poland, the United Kingdom, and all of the other nations with air assets in Afghanistan are involved in humanitarian aid. D’Souza does not seem to imply that this is a practice that is due to American influence, but I think that he would have a hard time defending that position if he did. He does not go far enough in defining American Universalism to imply this, so it can be safely assumed that he meant to imply that the United States alone engages in this sort of practice, which is simply a misrepresentation of reality.

D’Souza ends his essay by contrasting the United States with Islamic culture. His main point is that Islamic extremists differ from Americans in that they are mainly opposed to the principles that Americans hold as central to our government. He simplified it by saying that the members of radical Islam view the proper role of government as one that removes the ability of citizens to make their own choices and live as individuals. Instead, he argues, they would like for the government and religion to make all of the choices for people, in order to root out the necessary ugliness and obscenity that accompanies a free society (D’Souza ). He ends his argument by claiming that this government which lacks freedom undermines the ability of a populous to be virtuous. In a sense, D’Souza is correct. The United States is involved in a war against radical people who would implant a government that is different from the United States government if victorious. It would be absurd to argue a relativist point of view against D’Souza, and I do not think that anyone could do so with a straight face. However, he has still failed to make a good point.

While D’Souza is technically correct, he still fails to provide an argument that clearly illustrates his point. Just as he did early in the essay, he has gotten wrapped up in rhetoric and left nuance and intellectual understanding out of his argument. The situation with terrorists and insurgents in the Middle East is not simply one of ideological disagreements, but of cultural reactions to the world. Specifically, many of the terrorists fighting against Americans are spurned by poverty as much as religious fervor. The causes of the war run deep, and it is no sufficient to simply claim that ideology, however diametrically opposed it may be, spurns the insurgents to war.

In conclusion, I do not agree with D’Souza because of how he argues. His case for American exceptionalism is based on misrepresentation and hubris. In honesty, I do not believe that he meant his arguments to be taken as convincing points. Instead, he was preaching to the choir, reinforcing the views of a political group. While that may make him money, it does not make him very convincing.

References

BBC Report (2008) “UK pledges £3m Afghan food aid”  BBC. Retrieved from  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7286307.stm on May 19, 2011.