AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

"American Exceptionalism" was a term first coined by German communists in the 1920s to reference how the rise of communism in the U.S. was an exception to how communism arose in Europe.  Some thirty years later it became an expression of a patriotic belief in the United States being providentially destined to be "A City on a Hill."  This was based on sermon written by John Winthrop called a "Model of Christian Charity" delivered in 1630. 

As an Englishman, American exceptionalism was not onWinthrop's mind when he wrote his sermon.   He referenced a "City on a Hill" to reflect what Jesus taught in his Sermon on the Mount as recorded in Matthew 5:14.  Winthrop used the concept of "City on a Hill" as a metaphor for establishing what he considered a community governed by Christian principles.  Winthrop's sermon metaphor went largely ignored until the end of the 19th Century.

It wasn't until the Cold War that Winthrop's sermon used as the historical basis for what was originally a 20th century communist term.   There is no small amount of irony in a communist term becoming a primary patriotic article of faith by staunch anti-communist politicians; especially, those currently associated with red hat MAGA Republicans.   

American Exceptionalism is part of a mythic belief system that includes other terminologies; such as, Peace Through Strength and Manifest Destiny.  I have addressed Peace through Strength in my previous post and will address Manifest Destiny in the my next post.  These terms form a credal trinity of what one can consider the United State's national religion, "Americanism."  American exceptionalism is its core tenant.    

The fact is the United States is no more exceptional than any other nation in the world.  Every nation is unique with regard to its history and culture. Every nation can point to exceptional moments in its history.  This is true of the United States also.  As such, it is worth looking at one moment which, in my opinion, was a most exceptional moment.  

A MOST EXCEPTIONAL MOMENT  

A truly exceptional moment in U.S. and world history took place shortly after the end of World War II when most of Europe was in shambles.  Eastern Europe was largely under Soviet control with communism on the rise in Italy and  France.   The threat of a communist takeover of western Europe was imminent, as was the possibility of needing military action prevent it; something no nation could afford, including the United States.  Yes, it is true the United States had the only nuclear weapon at the time, but the awesome destruction it wreaked on the people of Japan created a new reality that was seared into the minds of the world's political and military leaders.  

There was one U.S. military and political leader who came up with an extraordinary idea of rebuilding war torn Europe including the United States' former enemies, Italy,  Germany, and its emerging nemesis, the Soviet Union.  That person was five star General George C. Marshall, one of the most decorated generals in U.S. history who was Chief of Army under President Roosevelt and Secretary of War and of State under President Truman.

In a speech delivered at Harvard University on June 5, 1947,  then Secretary of State Marshall delivered in what was described as a low monotone voice and what most considered an unremarkable speech at the time a proposal to rebuild Europe.  No one picked up on it in the U.S..   The New York Times made no mention of it nor did other news outlets give it thought.   The person who picked up on it was the British Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin who was listening to Marshall's speech on BBC radio.  Without Bevin's attention, Marshall's suggestion of rebuilding Europe might never have been realized, since Marshall did not discuss his proposal with President Truman prior to delivering his speech.  

The Marshall Plan, as it became known, changed the history of the world by saving Europe from self-destruction after the war by an extraordinary requirement that relied on all European nations participating in to get along, including with their sworn enemies like France and Germany, England and Germany and so on.  The plan was very complicated.  Most U. S. citizens today are largely ignorant of the plan or its role in saving Europe and making the United States one of the most powerful nations in world history. 

I personally remember growing up hearing people say that the European nations owed the United States financial remuneration for all the help we gave them after World War II.   The fact of the matter is the Marshall plan consisted of complex financial arrangements in which the the U.S. backed the currencies of the participating nations.  So that when citizens, cities, and nations purchased American goods, they paid in the currencies they were familiar with, which would then be converted back to U.S. dollars and paid directly to U.S. corporations who manufactured the goods needed to rebuild Europe.     

In part this approach was a face saving method for those nations participating to preserve the national pride of its citizens.  U.S. corporations and manufactures profited by receiving U.S. dollars for their products.  In turn they were taxed, at a rate of 30% to 50% during the Eisenhower administration, which allowed the Eisenhower Administration to build the United State's twentieth century infrastructure.   It was a win/win/win for all parties concerned.  

The Marshall Plan was an exceptional; in that, it not only made the United States exceptional but also every nation who participated in it.  It took a great deal of diplomacy, commitment, and determination on the part of all the nations involved to make it a success.   As a result, the Marshall plan built lasting alliances between the U.S. and its European partners.  It helped to the create NATO.   It also planted the seeds of the European Union by realizing that putting aside both old and recent rivalries nations can work together to build a brighter future.

The Marshall Plan was also a rare moment in United States history; in that, it resulted in a bipartisan effort on the part of Democrats and Republicans to see it realized.   The Truman administration sought the best diplomats and corporate leaders in the United States regardless of their party affiliations to make.  In some cases, corporate leaders gave up their lucrative positions and made personal financial sacrifices in order to help lead and make the plan work.  What made the Marshall plan exceptional is that it not only demonstrated a spirit of international cooperation but also a spirit of bipartisanship in the U.S..  

 THAT WAS THEN, WHAT ABOUT NOW?

That spirit did not last long.  Political fear-mongering during the McCarthy era in which Sen. Joe McCarthy from Wisconsin played on fears of Communism becoming a political threat in the United States by promoting the idea of "the enemy within."  The notion of American Exceptionalism became a part of the United State's patriotic lexicon and an article of faith associated with Christian Nationalism and the MAGA movement.  

American Exceptionalism is tainted with a divine purpose akin to the notion of the divine right of kings.  This is particularly evident in the current Trump regime.  Whereas the Marshall Plan connected the United State's national welfare to the welfare of other nations and whose spirit survived through programs like the Peace Corps in the Kennedy era and  USAID, the Trump regime utilizes the concept  of its "divine mandate" to do whatever the President Trump's gut tells him to do.

Within the first year of President Trump's second term, the United States is finding itself isolated from its former allies, not through in accordance with MAGA platform of avoiding entanglement with foreign affairs but by distancing our allies the opposite by dictating his desires to annex Canada and take Greenland.  President Trump not only believes he can tell United State's citizens what they must do but also he can dictate what other nations in the world must do, including our enemies.  American exceptionalism is coming to mean something ominous on the world stage.  Secretary Hegseth and President Trump do not have a microbe of compassion between them for the suffering of others they are causing.  American Exceptionalism, as understood today by the nations of the world, is an ideology to fear, not embrace.  

THE NEED TO DEBUNK AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

The immediate solution to this exceptionally bizarre and tragic situation is for the Republicans in Congress to set aside business as usual and put an end to President Trump's tyranny by funding agencies that truly protect the United State's and our allies interests, to stop terrorizing U.S. cities and towns with masked ICE agents, to end a war that they did not approve, and by paying TSA employees who are critical to our national security, etc..  I cannot and do not believe that all congressional Republicans are so naive and so duped by his audacity as to think they can continue to carry out President Trump's gut-born plans without permanently damaging our relations with long-standing allies and putting at risk our constitutional republic they are sworn to defend.  

Congressional Republicans helped create the very bogeyman they are scared of by not speaking truth to power.  Likewise, they are afraid of him because they are afraid to speak truth to their constituent, unlike Sen. John McCain did in his presidential bid against President Barack Obama during the 2012 presidential election.  During a campaign stop in Lakeville, Minnesota, on October 10, 2008,  John McCain addressed the concerns of a man who did not trust Obama and an elderly woman who believed President Obama was an Arab.  McCain gently and respectfully told the man he could trust Obama if he was elected president and told the woman that she was incorrect.  McCain exemplified personal integrity and a commitment to truth regardless of the personal cost.  John McCain was a truly exceptional person who will be long remembered for his integrity.  

It is up to the Republicans in Congress to put aside their fears of Donald Trump and his vindictive sycophants.  They need to inform their constituents by telling them the truth that they have been bamboozled by a bogeyman.  Instead of avoiding town hall meetings where they are faced with questions they cannot truthfully answer, they should sincerely listening to all their constituents and be committed to asking for their suggestions and solutions and carrying them back to congress.  That would be a truly exceptional moment.

A CLOSING THOUGHT

American Exceptionalism is a vacuous ideology that is used to promote the old notion of "My country, right or wrong" as one's proper patriotic attitude.  As an ideology, it does not produce exceptional moments.  Beliefs in ideologies are like trying to think something into existence.  Being exceptional in the world in which we live must be measured by a commitment to realizing the common good for all. 

Norm

PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH

The United States has a history of justifying its unilateral actions based on beliefs in American Exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny, and Peace through Strength.  In spite of the semantic argument over whether the relentless bombing of Iran and the growing conflict in the Persian Gulf arena is a war or a military action, it is a unilateral decision on the part of the United States with the aid of Israel to take such action that has and will continue to result in immense suffering and destruction.   The pragmatic reasoning for initiating such a preemptive strike is based on the theory of securing peace through military strength. As pragmatic as it sounds, is it rational?  It certainly sounds like it is until one takes a closer look at the terminology and examines its  history.  First, we need to know whose peace we are talking about, the world's or a nation's?   If  it is not for world peace then there will be no peace.  

The expression of  peace through strength has varied through the centuries.  The Roman Empire had a version of it in the Latin statement "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum" ("Therefore, whoever desires peace, let him prepare for war").  George Washington in a State of the Union address in 1793 said, "If we desire to secure peace...  it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."  Neville Chamberlain in dealing with Germany also advocated peace through strength.  NATO was created on the basis that the United States and its allies in Europe could preserve peace through combined military strength.  Ronald Reagan famously made it the foundation of what is known as the Reagan Doctrine.  President Trump and Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth have used it to justify military actions taken this year. 

 AN OXYMORON

When it comes to peace through strength, the message is clear; strength equals military power.  The objective of peace through strength is to maintain peace through fear of military action.  If that is the case, we cannot be talking about a sustainable peace.  Peace through instilling in others a fear of military aggression or war is simply an oxymoron.  In other words, a lasting  peace not only requires the absence of fear on the part of the strong but also a shared absence of fear between all parties concerned.   

In the nuclear age in which we live, peace through strength has led to a tentative sense of peace through the fear of mutual destruction.  Mutual self destruction is not merely a case of two or more nations destroying each other, it is a matter of destroying the entire world.  The bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II were small compared to the nuclear weapons of today.  Nevertheless, this reality has not stopped wars.  

Since the end of World War II, the Super Powers of the United States, Russia,and China have developed sophisticated weaponry; as in, non-nuclear missiles carrying powerful bombs, drones carrying explosives, and the use of cyber, chemical, biological, and other, unknown types of weaponry.  Peace through strength has not been able to keep peace for anyone or for any length of time.  Rather it has served as a pretext and rationale for developing more sophisticated weaponry.  It is a nothing more than a militant adaptation of  the Darwinian theory of only the strong surviving.

History has proven that peace through strength does not work.  Americans should know this.  The United States didn't come into being because it has a mighty army.  At the start of its revolutionary war, the only military it could count on were colonial militias. There was no standing army.  The continental army relied on paid volunteers for relatively short periods of time.   This ragtag army was up against what was considered the greatest military force in the world at the time, the British army and navy.  What led to the defeat of such a mighty force was great determination by the colonists and the skillful tactics by General George Washington.  A nation or a people do not need military power to defeat its enemies.  All it needs is patient determination. 

Genocide and complete destruction of a people or nations capacity to survive will only plant the seeds for another war.  Wars beget wars. The mother of all modern wars is World War I.  We are still fighting wars whose seeds were planted during that war.  It was a war fought because the countries involved felt that strength was on their side.  It was later believed that it was a war to end all wars.  How long did that last?  Peace through strength is a lie.

ALTERNATIVES

Peace is not only a worthy cause but also an essential goal to the world's survival.  If strength or the fear of war is not a means to peace, what might be?   Peace through...

Worldwide Diplomacy?

Worldwide Economic Security?

Worldwide Disarmament?

Worldwide Understanding?

Worldwide  Commitment?

What would you add?  

Why we need peace worldwide is self-explanatory, the how we attain it is complicated.  Peace requires trust.  Worldwide peace requires worldwide trust.  Not easy during the times we are living in.  

Worldwide peace requires a seemingly unworldly determination on the part of every every nation and every religion to rummage through its beliefs and get rid of anything; any doctrine or dogma that inhibits its being realized by all.

Until next time,

Norm

WHEN HISTORY RHYMES

"History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes."

Attributed to Mark Twain

While I was watching the news this morning (Saturday, February 28, 2026) regarding President Trump initiating a war with Iran, my mind recalled the story of Marcus Licinius Crassus's attempt to defeat the Parthian Empire in 54-53 BCE.   

Marcus Licinius Crassus and the Parthian Empire

Marcus Licinius Crassus (Crassus) was a dominant military and political figure in the late Roman Republic. He served as Consul, appointed by the Roman Senate, and led Rome's legions against the war with Spartacus.   Crassus was also considered the richest man in the Roman Republic and very likely the richest man in the world, at the time.  

His wealth started when he assisted Sulla in winning a civil war and benefitted from the practice of proscription, which meant that enemies of Sulla forfeited their wealth and property to the winning side.  Crassus made much of his wealth through spurious real estate practices; such as, establishing a fire brigade in Rome to fight the frequent fires that broke out in the city. He used this brigade to squeeze the owner of the property to sell his property to Crassus as damaged good.  If the owner refused, Crassus would let it burn to the ground and most likely obtain it at a much bigger steal.  As a result, Crassus owned large sections of Rome. 

Crassus is best known for having defeated Spartacus in the slave rebellion (71-73 BCE).  Pompey, who played a minor role in moping up runaway slaves involved in the revolt, was awarded by the Senate with a Triumphal procession while Crassus was only awarded and much less honor called and Ovation.  Crassus was said to not want any public notoriety such as a Triumph or Ovation because he only defeated slaves.  It is likely he was extremely put off by Pompey who was a Rome's favorite at the time.  Crassus is also noted for helping Julius Caesar rise to power.  In 60 BCE, Crassus, Caesar, and Pompey formed the First Triumvirate, with Crassus being given the purview of the lucrative Roman province of Syria.

What happens next in the story of Crassus is the story of a person who is never happy with what he has and is always looking for more.  Sharing power was not enough.  Winning a war against slaves was not enough.  He wanted to win a major war against a major power, like the Parthian Empire which bordered Syria, on his own.

* * *

The Parthian Empire began in 247 BCE in what today is Iran.  At its height, its range extended from eastern Turkey to western Pakistan and the Persian Gulf.  The Parthian Empire was not a friend of Rome.  The Parthian military was noted for its skilled horseback archers and mounted lancers.  

Crassus, in control of seven Roman legions and mercenaries from Gaul, had roughly 40,000 troops under his command.  He believed he had the overwhelming power to defeat the Parthians.  Unfortunately, Crassus did not do his homework and was not open to the advice of his generals or others.  He did not consider the landscape or distance he would force his troops to go. 

Crassus was no genial commander.  He employed the practice of decimation (cruelly executing one in ten of his own troops in a legion in which troops deserted the battlefield).   He refused the offer of King Atravasdes' offer of safe passage through Armenia, along with roughly 30, 000 foot soldiers and 10, 000 mounted lancers.  Why?  

No one really knows, but one suspects he wanted sole credit for defeating the Parthians.  Instead of going through a more forgiving landscape with and additional 40,000 troops, Crassus took the advice of chief Ariamnes of the Orsorenes to lead his troops through a grueling long march through a desert that Crassus believed would be a more direct route.  Little did Crassus know that Ariamnes was a paid spy of the Parthians.

Knowing that Crassus was on his way with a large force that would being worn down by lack of water and rest, the Parthian general, Surena, with 1,000 mounted lancers and 9,000 mounted archers met Crassus and his 40,000 troop sin 53 BCE at Carrhae in what is today eastern Turkey.  Although outnumbered four to one, the Parthians defeated Crassus, killing approximately 20,000 troops, capturing 10,000, with a remaining 10,000 fleeing the battlefield.  It was considered the worst defeat singular defeat in the history of the Roman Empire.

According to most historians, Crassus was killed in the battle.  Nevertheless there was another, perhaps legendary account, that Crassus was taken captive by Surena.  According to this story, Crassus pleaded for his life, offering to pay the Parthians a huge amount of gold.  The Parthians were having none of it.  Since the Parthians knew Crassus's obsession with wealth, they chose to execute him by pouring molten gold down his throat.   Whether true or legendary, it became a cautionary tale against lusting for wealth, power, and glory.  But like all such tales, they fail to be taken seriously by those who continue lusting for wealth, power, and glory.  

A Rhyme Within Our Time 

I agree with Mark Twain that history does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.  The mostly lone venture of President Trump to undertake regime change in Iran strikes me as rhyming very much with Crassus' venture to defeat the Parthians. They also share an uncanny personal history of wealth accumulation, a lust for power, and lust for glory.   

The one major difference between their stories is that unlike Crassus, President Trump does not have a similar military background.  Although he is the Command in Chief of the the U.S. military forces, he  lacks personal military field experience and needs to rely on the military expertise of his generals, which does not instill one with confidence he will do so.  After all, he recently cited his own mind (not the input of others) as what guides his actions and his morals.  

While I agree that history does not repeat itself, human behavior is very repetitious.  History shows this to be true.  I sincerely hope things turn out very well for the people of Iran and the region.  If they do, President Trump will be due his laurels,  but he must remember the whisper of the ancient Roman auriga (slave) who stood at the back of the triumphal chariot and held the laurel wreath above a triumphant leader's head and repeatedly said, "Memento homo," "You are a man;" a reminder that in a moment of triumph it is easy to forget one's mortality and humanity.  

If things do not turn out well, let us hope the rhyming ends.

Norm