The United States has often been labeled as being exceptional as far as international politics are concerned. Exceptionalism is the belief that the U.S. is different compared to other nations because it is tasked with the specific world mission of spreading liberty and democracy. This rooted belief in America’s exceptionalism has been echoed by President Obama’s persistent utter that there could be no contradiction about American exceptionalism. However, growing opposition from various interest groups has attracted criticism on whether there is still much hope about American exceptionalism. Presently, interest groups play the most domineering role in modern day politics in America. This is because they fund political parties and in turn pressurize these parties through lobbying to formulate and implement policies that favor their interests. This has led to political parties being labeled as the most organized interest groups by some quarters. However, some of these interest groups hold backward interest, for instance they are opposed to globalization. These conservative anti-internationalists surprisingly are winning respectability among policy analysts and academics. They are opposed to gay rights and abortion. They hold the view that as the Super Power, America should not be bind by international law; rather it should pick international conventions and laws that serve its interests and reject those that do not. Such biased stances have led critics to question the future of America’s democracy and whether the nation will continue to be an exceptional state.
Various elements have been ascribed to United States as a unique nation. For instance, some groups view America as the only hope of the world in terms of superpower capability. However, none of these ascriptions have been as profound as those that touch on democracy. In this regard, the chief reason for American exceptionalism is not only its power to embrace democracy, but also uphold democracy. Proponents have argued America’s role in democracy not only remain to be felt within its territories, but also across the globe. Furthermore, the position occupied by United States has been argued as being particularly exceptional because there can be no other democratic society that matches its standards. This stand is extended to exceptional positions such as the country’s political position in the world, as well as its commercial culture. These continue to baffle the world while setting a benchmark. The American Passion, education, and its demands are all that seem to unite America (Ross 123).
As far as democracy is concerned, proponents have further argued that what adds to the exceptionalism is the fact that the policies of United States are often subject to the federal system checks, which ensures that the powers of individuals, organs, regions and factions are limited. Actually, many of the supporting groups maintain that it is this feature that enables United States to put tyranny at bay, ensuring that every citizen is protected by the laws that reflect the values of the position of United States exceptionalism (Curray 1).
However, if these are the points to incline on while defending democratic exceptionalism, they are convincing reason on why democratic exceptionalism itself should be questioned. Indeed, one disapproving point is that United States now faces challenges, as any other nation. For instance, the United States continues to depend on other nations for economic support. It continues to experience terrorism challenges like other nations. United States now contends with protests, such as ‘Occupy Wall Street’, similar to those that take place in countries it rebukes for lagging in embracing reforms. Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is a series of ongoing demonstrations initiated by Adbusters, a Canadian activist group. The protesters are opposed to the economic inequalities, rampant cases of unemployment, widespread corruption, greed among politicians and the domineering effects of financial institutions (O'Connor Karen O'Connor (Author)
› Visit Amazon's Karen O'Connor Page
Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
See search results for this author
Are you an author? Learn about Author Central
and Sabato 4). In my view, the series of uprisings in Egypt, Indignados and the Greece riots protests are not any different from the Occupy Wall Street protests. The three types of demonstrations are interrelated. In all the cases, the protestors team up to advocate for their unaddressed interests. Despite the fact that some are aligned towards political reforms, addressing economic crises takes the center stage. What is particularly binding is that they are correlates of poor governance, or to be precise, dwindling democracy.
Even as the United States celebrates the achievements in the separation of powers to exercise checks and balances, this system has created allowance for some powerful groups to influence the government; hence, safeguard their interests. Here, the participation of interest groups has been dominant. Interest groups are the organization of people having policy goals and work in the political process in promoting such goal. Examples of such groups are powerful financial institutions and individualistic groups such as N.K.A and the A.A.R.P. The interest groups work in lobbying the government by hiring representatives that advocate on behalf of the interest of the groups. Whereas the interest groups were traditionally considered pivotal in separating powers, this does not hold any longer. Interest groups now influence policies in leadership in many ways, especially ensuring that their self-vested interests are achieved at the expense of the powerless majority.
The House of congress has been considered as a mere approver to the regulations by the executives, instead of exercising checks and balances. A Substantial amount of power has been delegated to the executive. Indeed, the eventuality has been the creation of the unlimited prerogatives that are exercised in the name of people when the real situation is that most decisions are made to protect the self-vested interests of those in power. Yet, even as United States celebrates achievements in democracy, it is still undisputable that the president continues to wield a lot executive powers. In particular, this has been depicted by Obama administration (Savage 56). For instance, it has been argued Obama often interrupts the white house meetings by introducing issues that are not on the agenda, citing that the administration requires the aggressive utilization of executive powers to overcome the opponents.
The president has been criticized for striving to implement decisions without approval from the congress. Some of the policies that Obama has adopted include creation of jobs for the veterans, preventing the shortage of drugs, raising the standards of fuel economy and preventing domestic violence. Obama has often emphasized that he bypasses the law makers, asserting that he would continue implementations by himself even when the congress declines to approve. Obama has stated that executive actions would limit the possibilities for his election for the second term. One of the decisions that elicited sharp reaction was to use his recess appointment powers to install officials that had been objected by the congress. Obama has been widely criticized over his approaches of concentrating many powers in his presidential office. Others have contended that the move by Obama to exercise presidential powers in passing decision is not new in history. It had been used by his predecessors on various occasions, yet it is legally bound by the constitution. Regardless of these, such a situation negates the reason for democracy.
Crown it all, United States laws and foreign policies are in conflict with the international law. For instance, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States was labeled as a country that was above the international law (McLaren 37). The question is whether democracy has to do with the violation for the international law. The answer is simple, a desirable democracy is that which is bound by the external and internal laws, creating allowance of the perpetuation of power not only within its boundaries, but also across the global context, and that includes leading by example.
In conclusion, the American exceptionalism thesis, as far as democracy is concerned, is disapproved. Occupy Wall Street reveals that the US and the countries it criticizes for lagging in democracy, such as protest prone Egypt and Syria are not any different. Secondly, Even as the United States celebrates the achievements in the separation of powers to exercise checks and balances, this system has created allowance for some powerful groups to influence the government to safeguard self-vested interests at the expense of the powerless majority. House of Representatives no long exercise the separation of power responsibility because it often supports the executive. Even worse, the president wields a lot power in the executive processes. Lastly, what is the position of liberal, democratic America if its foreign policies do not reflect democracy? Undoubtedly, it is a fading democracy.
Work Cited
Curray, Marin. How Can Power Be Limited By The Constitution? 2012. Web. November 17, 2012.
McLaren, Paul. “Settling Scores with Saddam: Resolutions 1441 and Parallel Justification for the Application of Force against Iraq”, Journal of Comparative and International Law 233(2003):33-45.
O'Connor, Karen Karen O'Connor (Author)
› Visit Amazon's Karen O'Connor Page
Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
See search results for this author
Are you an author? Learn about Author Central
and Sabato, Larry. American Government: Roots and Reform. Pearson. Print.
Ross, Dorothy. The Origin of American Social Sciences and Exceptionalism. Cambridge University Press. 1991. Print.
Savage, Chris. “Shift o Executive Power Lets Obama Bypass Rivals”. The New York Times April 22, 2012. Web. November 17, 2012. < http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/us/politics/shift-on-executive-powers-let-obama-bypass-congress.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all>
