According to an October 23 article in The Christian Post, a September national survey co-sponsored by the PBS news program “Religion & Ethics Newsweekly” and the United Nations Foundation found that most Americans (61%) believe that “God has uniquely blessed America.” A similar majority (59% of surveyed) felt that America should set an example as a Christian nation. As it turns out, this could actually have a substantial impact on the scope of our involvement overseas. The researchers qualified this: “People who strongly believe that America is blessed by God and should set a Christian example are also more likely to say that the United States is morally obligated to assume a significant role in world affairs. In other words, there is a relationship between perception of American exceptionalism and the importance of playing a role in the world.” As a result, it is possible that religious motivations will facilitate the continuation of the United States’ interventionalist policies.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the developments of America’s occupation of Iraq, only 39% of participants considered the promotion of democracy in other countries extremely or very important; supposedly far less than in the past. This may be a sign that Americans are cognizant of (and bitter about) failed policy; because our officials are at least theoretically electorally accountable to the public will, the government is unlikely to make similar mistakes in the near future. By mistake, however, I mean providing a justification of democratic responsibility to citizens of other countries under authoritarian rule. (Then again, public sentiment toward the Vietnam War did not particularly reflect a wholehearted appreciation for the noble goal of eradicating communism, either.) Despite previous blunders, Americans still find a moral obligation of U.S. involvement abroad; but if not in democracy, in what? Especially given the heightened threat of terrorism by Islamic fundamentalists, the idea that the exceptionality of American Christianity is the driving force behind American foreign policy—which could only add fuel to the fire—is troubling.
Realistically, democracy and Judeo-Christianity have never been mutually exclusive in the American “public religion.” Any avoidance of “spreading democracy” is essentially a game of semantics; as long as Americans perceive the US to be a City on a Hill, America will spread Americanism. For example, unsolicited involvement in the affairs of an Islamic country under Sharia (Islamic holy law) would represent an ideological struggle on both religious and state fronts. If that country were to resist, we would have no choice but to, through either a sense of patriotism or moral supremacy, show it why we’re the good guys.
Now, I feel that I need to clarify something here: do I think that America is the best damn country in the world? Hell yes! But I’m also a realist. If Americans believe that “God has uniquely blessed America,” then we believe that God is on our side. And as long as God is on our side, well, we’ve got to keep fighting the good fight, right? The only problem is, we’ve heard the same old shtick for centuries—from the knights of the Crusades to the terrorists of last week’s tragedy in Mumbai. When all sides are armed with the most dangerous weapon of all, faith, there can only be one outcome: escalation. At that point, how can we believe in our own exceptionalism when we’re just doing the same thing as the other guys?
I know of a few souls that need saving here at home; perhaps it’s time we make focusing on our domestic policy our foreign policy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I'd like to preface by saying that the following is only my opinion which may not necessarily be factual. Because my term paper overlaps somewhat with this topic of American exceptionalism, I find myself asking myself the same questions. Why do we as Americans feel that we have the moral obligation to "spread democracy". I don't think that that has always been the case with America. I think the continual threats abroad have gradually shifted the focus from being the "city upon the hill" to more of a "shining city upon the hill" spreading democracy across the globe. In researching for my term paper, I noticed that this shift was probably because--at some point--the American government recognized that having democratic governments all around the world was advantageous for the development and improvement of the United States as a nation. As a result, American exceptionalism began to include playing a role in the international arena. Because of the nature of terrorism and the new national threats to America, I don't think that we will revert back to simply a domestic policy.
I agree with Gabriella that our historical involvement in international affairs is too complex for us to simply drop everything and return to a domestic policy. Still, there might be something to say using the quote from “Remember the Titans”: “Attitude reflects leadership.” A few weeks ago, I responded to an op-ed article about a jihadist’s view of Obama’s election. The author presents Obama as less confrontational and more negotiable, which he says threatens al-Quaeda’s stature in the Muslim world. Perhaps he is less aggressive because he has Christian views that are less confrontational compared to previous presidents. In other words, Obama does not share the same bipolar worldview that so many before him had. This different outlook will greatly affect the way he carries out foreign policy. If we assume the “city on a hill” attitude marks all previous foreign policy, I think the future presidency will transition us into a new era where religion is not a leading decision maker of foreign policy.
Post a Comment