Origins and Future of U.S. 'Exceptionalism'

MIKE PESCA, host:

The historian Richard Hofstetter once remarked, "It has been our fate as a nation not to have ideologies but to be one." We're not a collection of tribes here in America we are a collection of ideas and that had never happened before the United States. The content of the ideas and the very fact that America was founded on ideas is sometimes called American exceptionalism. America is different, unique, better? That is an implication from some people, let's find out what Peter Schuck who's an editor and a contributor to a new collection of essays thinks about that. The collection is called "Understanding America: The Anatomy of an Exceptional Nation." And Peter Schuck is a Yale and NYU law professor. Thanks for joining us.

Professor PETER SCHUCK (Law, Yale, NYU): Thank you for bringing me here.

PESCA: So this idea of American exceptionalism, where was it born?

Prof. SCHUCK: Well, it goes back to the 18th century, at the very least, and perhaps the earlier colonists, the "City on a Hill" idea, John Winthrop.

PESCA: So, what - 1630, the very first Americans. Yes. And de Tocqueville gets, I don't know if it's saddled with it or credited with it, for popularizing it, I guess?

Prof. SCHUCK: Well, there was an 18th-century author also, St. John Hector de Crevecoeur, who also wrote a book, sort of like de Tocqueville's, but anticipating it. But de Tocqueville in 1835 and "Democracy in America."

PESCA: So, you know, de Tocqueville toured America, tried to explain it to Europeans who were saying, essentially, what is going on over there? What was his take on - he used the phrase "American Exceptionalism" itself, he did?

Prof. SCHUCK: Yes.

PESCA: And what was his take on it? Did he puzzle over it? Did he embrace it?

Prof. SCHUCK: Well, this is the first mass democracy in the world. And he was trying to explain it to his French countrymen in order to justify a broadening of democracy in France. He saw it as a great liberation of all sorts of important values and energies in people, and he hoped it would travel to Europe as well.

PESCA: Well, if he was trying to expand democracy onto the Continent, why would he call America exceptional? Wouldn't he make the case that, we could be exceptional too?

Prof. SCHUCK: Well, that's fair enough. He, I think, wanted to depict America as a possible model for Europe. But he didn't really address the question as to whether it could be exported. I think he thought that it could, but only in ways that were tailored to European sensibilities.

PESCA: Today if you type the phrase American Exceptionalism into Amazon, as I did before, the books almost all have titles like "The Myth of American Exceptionalism," "Regaining American Exceptionalism," unlike your book "Understanding America: The Anatomy of an Exceptional Nation," which is embracing it and trying to define it. So many people, maybe it's just in academia, seem to have a problem with it. Why is that?

Prof. SCHUCK: Well, I think that a lot of that has to do with foreign policy and the belief that America has thrown its weight around in ways that are inappropriate, and that countries either can't do it, can't get away with it, or don't do it. We do not address foreign policy and national security in this book. We're focusing on the domestic institutions and policies and cultures. And it certainly has an effect, I think, on foreign policy, but a lot of the criticism on American Exceptionalism has to do, as I said, both with criticism of foreign policy or belief that the United States is what is sometimes called a "welfare laggard." And so the social programs in the United States are not as large or as extensive as in Europe.

PESCA: Well, is embracing American Exceptionalism or letting that be a guiding principle into how you conduct your government, what laws you pass, is that an - what policies you take overseas, indeed - is that an invitation to hubris?

Prof. SCHUCK: No, I don't think so. The - we try to emphasize that this exceptionalism has lots of advantages and some disadvantages. And that we have failed in certain respects, probably as a result of our exceptionalism, particularly with regard to the structure of family life in the United States and the large and seemingly intractable underclass. That can be tied to American exceptionalism as well.

RACHEL MARTIN, host:

Because that word doesn't mean, better. Exceptionalism just means you are the exception to what is the norm.

Prof. SCHUCK: It means that you're different, but not just different, very different. It means that, as we put it, the United States is more different from the European democracies than they are from each other.

PESCA: Right. So let's be a little bit tangible. There are so many chapters and so much to talk about, but, our government system versus a parliament. What - is that really exceptional? Are we the only government that is structured like this, with a real separation of powers, and what does it bring for us?

Prof. SCHUCK: Well, we are certainly the only government that has the extensive separation of powers that one observes in the United States, and it makes a huge difference, a huge difference. Of course, it also reflects some differences and not merely causes differences, but it reflects underlying differences, such as our suspicion of government, our desire to fragment power, our desire to have competition at the political level in a way that parliamentary systems don't. And parliamentary systems like Westminster in the UK, the parliament, as it has sometimes been said, can do anything it likes besides change a man to a woman or a woman to a man. Today it could probably do that as well.

(Soundbite of laughter) ..TEXT: Prof. SCHUCK: But in the United States, our system sets up an arena in which there is an enormous amount of space. And that space is filled by private action, private initiative, in a way that in European countries it's not.

PESCA: Right. So if you read the statistics on how much America officially gives as a percentage of GDP, we're fairly far down on the list, especially when compared to Scandinavia. But as you were pointing out, or as one of the authors in your book points out, when you add private giving we do much better. We rely on - we don't think of philanthropy as, it's nice if you engage in it. It's essential to American Exceptionalism.

Prof. SCHUCK: That's exactly right. The - there is no analogue to American philanthropy, private philanthropy. It just doesn't exist. And I want to emphasize, as the chapter does, that this philanthropy is a result of a vast number of people in the United States, including many low-income and moderate-income people giving a rather significant portion of their income, in relative terms, not foundations and bequests and simply the wealthy. In fact, low-income people give a larger percentage of their income to charity than people who are up the income scale. And another finding in this chapter, that goes not just to religious charities, but it goes to secular charities as well. And that the poor people's and modern-income people's contributions to secular causes greatly exceeds that of wealthier people.

PESCA: A European government would look at private philanthropy and say, well that's nice, but you can't rely on it. Even a liberal American would say, government has to be in this role. You can't just rely on the goodwill of others. Do you think that's wrong?

Prof. SCHUCK: I do think that's wrong. But certainly there's an argument that these benefits ought to be a matter of entitlement that people can rely on and can claim from the government as a matter of right rather than being a matter of beneficence on the part of people. There's a long debate in this country about that. The 19th century saw a lot of belief that uplift had to be accompanied by engagement with the poor and moral instruction, moral example and responsibilities, rather than simply conferring as a matter of right. And of course, many people disagree with that.

PESCA: Who's the target audience for the book?

Prof. SCHUCK: The target audience really is well-educated people who have an interest in learning more about their country. This book is filled with, sort of, astonishing surprises for people who simply read their daily newspaper but don't understand more than that. It's also targeted for European audiences who...

PESCA: You think it will convince them? You put exceptional America on the cover. I don't know how many people will buy it in France.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Prof. SCHUCK: Well, we think that there's going to be convergence toward the American model in the future, on a number of areas, including welfare state design. And part of that's because of the demographic changes. America is exceptional demographically. We are the only leading democracy that has a fertility rate that is replaced - at a replacement level. The other countries, France has just increased it slightly.

PESCA: And they all rely on immigration to replenish their population, if anything.

Prof. SCHUCK: Yes. But they don't accept much immigration.

PESCA: Right. We got to - we have to leave it there. It's a huge book and a huge topic. And I want to thank you Peter Schuck, one of the editors of "Understanding America: The Anatomy of an Exceptional Nation." Thank you.

Prof. SCHUCK: Thanks very much.

Copyright © 2008 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio.