The final argument made for meritocracy is that it is all we have. The problem with this argument is the contentment with the system that proponents of it seem to possess. As civilized beings, it is our natural tendency to develop institutions, and rightfully so, they hold the potential to much greater power than an individual. However, often, when institutions begin to fail us, we simply keep trudging along, trusting the kinks will eventually be worked out. Chris Hayes defines the issue of meritocracy, not as one of right versus left, though it often comes off that way, but rather as institutionalist versus insurrectionist. Douthat and Brooks both fall into the former category while Hayes self-identifies as the latter. Institutionalists believe that the capacity for greater change lies within the bounds of an institution, while insurrectionists believe that in order for beneficial change to occur, we must revise our institutions in order to create this change (Hayes, 17-23). When examining just how broken our system of meritocracy is, it almost seems inevitable to lean towards insurrectionism. But beyond that, the fact that institutionalists have largely failed at creating any real change to meritocracy and have in fact accelerated its demise lends itself as enough reason to turn to insurrectionism. Look no further than the almost universally agreed upon failure of George W. Bush, certainly an institutionalist, to fix meritocracy: No Child Left Behind. By staying within the bounds of the preexisting institutions, Bush tried to give students more equal chances but created another institution which has grown to be hated by education professionals across the nation. Insurrectionism exists on both sides of the political spectrum, perhaps the best examples are the Tea Party on the right and Occupy Wall Street on the left. Both present images of a broken America which can only be fixed by a sweeping overhaul of our current institutions. Since we are focusing on meritocracy, we shall focus on the kind of insurrectionism that leads itself to change the meritocratic system. The fact of the matter is that meritocracy is clearly broken on all levels, from the smallest businesses up to the United States government, however since it is hard to proscribe changes in the private sector until they have a massive enough screw-up (a la Enron) to merit government intervention. For this reason, we will focus on changes which can apply nationally.

The first, arguably most important, step to fixing our broken institutions starts with the first institution most people encounter: education. The biggest problem is the disparity between the amount of money those at the top spend on their children’s education versus the amount those at the bottom spend. This does not necessarily guarantee higher achievement, it merely guarantees more graceful failure. Should a child who comes from very little not do well enough on their ACT to get a considerable scholarship anywhere, they simply do not go to college and thus fail altogether at higher education. But should a child whose parents are loaded not do well enough for a considerable scholarship, they end up going to college on their parents’ dime, it just is a school that is not Harvard. The second child was not guaranteed a higher ACT, and thus not guaranteed Harvard, or higher achievement, they were simply guaranteed a safety net to prevent them from failure. Charter schools are beginning to take a stab at this problem. But they still rely too heavily on either meritocracy or random chance. While guaranteeing students are given an equal chance in primary or secondary education is near impossible, giving them a more equitable chance at post-secondary education is possible. By focusing admissions testing on intelligence testing and not standardized testing, test preparation becomes a dead art and colleges are able to see the students they really want, not simply the students who can prepare. Additionally, we are living in an era of often ineffective affirmative action. Affirmative action schemes should be decided more on the basis of wealth than gender or race (Social Mobility in America). Education must the starting place. With a little insurrectionist nudge, education can fall into place and present more equality and less entrenchment.

Yet the change cannot stop simply at education, it must also follow into fiscal policy. The words “fiscal policy” are often the last words anyone wants to hear, but in the case of an entrenched elite they may be part of the solution. Fiscal policy should certainly not make millionaires into beggars or beggars into millionaires, but must create something more akin to an equal chance at life. In the September/October 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs, Andrea Louise Campbell discusses fiscal policy and its role in equality in the United States. Marginally, the US has a relatively progressive tax system, on par with many other OECD nations. However this tax system is made quickly regressive when you add on many tax breaks and subsidies that benefit mainly the wealthy, leaving you with a regressive effective tax system. Pair that with the fact that our social safety net is very small and the redistributive state is only very moderately progressive, and you leave those at the bottom at a loss. Campbell suggests a two-tiered approach to this problem. First and foremost, the United States must simplify its tax code, cutting out many tax breaks and making our effective tax system much closer to the marginal tax system. Then, when you are left with a moderately progressive tax system, add in a larger redistributive state which catches all those who need help, not just those with a giant need. Couple these two changes, both of which are not all that insurrectionist, and you are left with a more fair and progressive fiscal policy. This fiscal policy uproots the harsh lines which divide the elite from the others. Throw in some education reform for good measure, and we are able to achieve a system in which equity of opportunities is met with equity of tools.

Within the United States, our meritocratic system has gotten out of hand. What started with good intentions has devolved into well-established class roles and a dismissal of personal ethics in pursuit of meritocratic achievement. While in an ideal world, meritocracy appeals to the fundamental core of our American identity and produces inherent “good” within us, when meritocracy is left to run its course, and we continually push to stick closely to the mirage we call meritocracy, we in fact create more “bad” than “good” as well as entrench those at the top and leave those at the bottom to fend for themselves. Yet through a mixture of admittedly radical education reform and more moderate fiscal reform, the good of meritocracy on a national level once again outweigh the bad. If we can fix the broken national institutions, perhaps the change will trickle down into the smaller institutions. The Occupiers of Wall Street have since died out and the Occupy movement has all but come to a halt, however their core message that America is broken still resonates. America and meritocracy are indeed broken, but they do not have to be.

When the idealistic and pragmatic arguments for meritocracy fail, proponents of meritocracy resort to a much more flawed argument, which is essentially “Got anything better? No? Meritocracy it is!” Ross Douthat- a man who shares Brooks’ burden of being a conservative New York Times writer- also in a guest article in The Atlantic, discusses meritocracy and comes to the conclusion that meritocracy, in the end, incites in the people of meritocratic institutions a kind of unrivaled work ethic. But along the way, Douthat admits many flaws of meritocracy (which we will get to later). Douthat’s biggest problem though is accepting the status quo. Douthat epitomizes the final argument for meritocracy which is essentially that it may be broken, but it is the best we have.

First, the flaws with the idyllic view of meritocracy. The fundamental problem with this argument is similar to the debate over communism. Many would agree that communism is a pretty good system (if you are a fan of equity) in theory, but has always failed to come to fruition and ultimately ends up creating despots like Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. Ironically, flip to the (almost completely) opposite end of the spectrum, with meritocracy, and you essentially end with the same result. Meritocracy seems like a really good idea- it objectively rewards those who deserve it and leaves those who do not in the dust. But in practice it plays out more like this: one generation into the meritocracy, those who deserve success achieve it, those who do not, do not. Fast forward to the next generation, and those who hail from families of success are able to have access to greater resources which would allow them to be objectively better than those who do not, meaning that success is now dependent partially on objective skill or talent and partially on objective access to resources. Still objective, but other factors besides skill and talent begin to seep in. Fast forward to 2012, and you are left with a society where the top 1% of income receivers hold 20% of the total income and the Gini coefficient has increased by about .1 in the past 30 years, leaving only China, South Africa, and Brazil the only economies in the OECD with a worse coefficient. (The Gini coefficient is a concise way of summarizing income inequality. 0 is perfect equality, 1 is total inequality, .4 is very high.) This future generation of 2012 is the America we currently live in. Income inequality is just one result of a centuries-long experiment in meritocracy. Over the past 300 years, the United States has started as a fairly equal meritocracy and has since diverged. Essentially, those at the top of the meritocratic ladder have cut the rungs from beneath them. In turn, the meritocracy has become increasingly entrenched and what should be a vehicle for social mobility has taken away much social mobility. The problem is not a lack of equal opportunity, it is a lack of equity of tools: tools which are required for those opportunities.Take the massive test-prep industry which has evolved around the meritocratic bastion that is standardized testing. With Kaplan, Princeton Review, private tutors and classes offered through school districts, the SAT and ACT have no longer become matters of intelligence, they have become matters of preparation. The ACT and SAT are simply testing how well you have been fed and have absorbed the standard set of information tested. Everyone has the opportunity to get a 36 or a 2400, but only those with money and a good school have the tools to do so. The problem with the appeal of meritocracy to our ideal opinions of how the world should work is that in focusing too much on how the world should work, we ignore how it does work, ignoring the entrenchment which meritocracy causes.

Then, the problems with meritocracy as a tangible bringer of “good.”  The fundamental flaw in this argument is taking too narrow of an approach; this argument looks only at the good which meritocracy causes. True, meritocracy certainly incites work ethic and drive in the wheels of the meritocratic cog, but this is not all it incites. In Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy, Chris Hayes discusses events which transpired in the early days of Enron, before it became the Enron everyone knows. Enron’s vice president of internal auditing, David Woytek, stumbled upon patterns which suggested less than sound trading practices. The trading division from which these shaky patterns were emanating presented a story about putting money into personal accounts to balance profits over two years. Woytek took this information to the CEO, Ken Lay, who promptly acted upon this information, which was presented in tandem with bank records pointing to clearly shaky practices. His action: a firm scolding. Nothing more. Hayes goes on to make a connection between the reaction to the practices and performance of this trading division. Since the trading division was fairly successful, Lay was willing to simply look the other way. This kind of behavior was rampant throughout Enron. Hayes states that “whatever you did in pursuit of ‘dominance’ was fine so long as you won,” (Hayes, 74). Hayes goes through lists of other examples where similar, less than ethical, action was taken because of an atmosphere of hypercompetitiveness, ranging from professional baseball to the DC public school system to Countrywide Financial. In all of these cases, the drive and competition which David Brooks praises as creating character ultimately led to the demise of character, as ethics were thrown to the wayside. Hayes clearly demonstrates that the hypercompetitive atmosphere created by meritocracy effectively destroys the ethics of many people as they are willing to get ahead and not stop at any cost.

In the next part, we will discuss the final flaws in meritocracy before determining how to solve these problems.

“For Richer, for Poorer.” The Economist. N.p., 13 Oct. 2012. Web. 28 Apr. 2013.

The words “We are the 99%,” echo through the streets of one of America’s most prestigious institutions: Wall Street. These words are not shouted by the prestigious brokers and Warren Buffet-wannabes, rather these words echo through the hallowed blocks of Wall Street as a result of a movement which was set afoot September 17th, 2011: Occupy Wall Street (OWS). Take away the numbers, but leave the burning rage and discontentment of the upper middle class which participated in OWS and you are left with a central message: America is broken. The Occupiers, or 99% had a list of grievances, many of which varied from person to person, but among them was one theme: inequality. In the United States, our ideal society is one of pure and unadulterated meritocracy. While a dictionary definition may be unnecessarily complex, meritocracy can be defined simply by looking at the first five letters of the word. The key is merit. Whether athletic, intellectual or otherwise, in an ideal meritocracy, achievement and success is based entirely on objective merit. To illustrate this, imagine two students: the first student may be black, poor, a mother, female and have everything else going against her, while the other student is white, rich, male, and has been spoon fed everything his whole life. Yet in an ideal meritocracy, both students take the ACT, which objectively measures their intelligence. The first student receives a 34, the second a 15. The first student thus then gets admitted into Yale and goes on to law school, while the second flunks out of community college after a year because he is always hungover. Now contrast this with a more dystopian scenario: the first student struggles to get by in life, let alone in school, cannot afford any test prep materials or classes and only gets a 24, although she works very hard on her own for it. The other student, on the other hand, is sent to ACT prep class three times a week by his parents, has a private ACT tutor and 10 ACT books in his house, allowing him to get a 29. In this dystopian world, the ACT measures no intelligence whatsoever, only ability for prepare for the test. While we certainly do not live in either of these two extremes, we are far from this ideal meritocracy. Meritocratic systems on their face present an ideal way to establish institutions, but eventually lead to an entrenched meritocracy which not only produces immense inequality, but also a potentially disastrous hypercompetitive environment.

In order to truly understand meritocracy, it is imperative to examine why we, as a nation, are in love with meritocracy. The ideal of meritocracy is so deeply ingrained within us, that we have a knee-jerk reaction to anything that seems even remotely anti-meritocratic. Call it communism, call it fascism, call it “The Tyranny of the Majority,” whatever we name it, we stray away from anything that is not meritocracy. But the thing is, it just makes sense, especially to Americans. For most Americans, after so many years of becoming so meritocratic, anything else just seems insane. The fact that the SAT was created to allow for an objective way of judging college admissions only after more than 250 years of higher education in the United States seems alien to many people. Standardized testing is considered to be the epitome of meritocracy. It allows educational institutions, from elementary schools up through law schools and medical schools to objectively judge proficiency in a subject. When it fundamentally comes down to it, meritocracy just seems fair. Not fair in any sort of equitable outcome, but fair in achieving equitable opportunity. And if Americans love nothing more, it is being the land of opportunity.

Beyond the idyllic view of meritocracy we as a nation hold, many view meritocracy as a bringer of tangible “good.” David Brooks, a man who has reached one of the nation’s hardest jobs- being a New York Times conservative columnist- views meritocracy as a bringer of “good,” namely character. Brooks believes that many children today dance through life with very little struggle or hardship, which presents a problem for the children’s character. Brooks takes logic which was largely championed by Paul Tough, author of How Children Succeed, who essentially argues that middle and upper class children, with a lack of hardship, lack character and often end up as worse as those who experience constant hardship throughout their life. Tough argues that the key for developing this character to sustain a healthy and fulfilling life is in finding a balance of a bit of hardship coupled with the right amount of soft landings at home in order to develop character. However, Brooks argues that hardship is not the only catalyst for character, and instead you can develop character from the sort of competition and drive which meritocracy instills. True meritocrats want to climb up the ladder, and want to contribute society, and this driving force instills in them character along the way (Brooks). Clearly, ideally as well as practically, proponents of meritocracy see it as a system which is worthy of governing our institutions.

In the next part, we will finish examining the arguments for meritocracy before determining why meritocracy may be more of  curse than a blessing.

Brooks, David. “The Merits of Meritocracy.” The Atlantic. N.p., 1 May 2002. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.

Tough, Paul. How Children Succeed. London: Random House, 2013. Print.

Maduro, Chavez, and the Socialist Party have long represented the ideals of the Bolivarian Revolution, primarily equality, a largely nationalized corporate sector and a large redistributive state. Their success has resulted primarily from economics; both the economic growth brought about by nationalizing the energy sector and the extensive welfare system which benefits most people have contributed to the parties continued popularity. However, even though Chavez still garnered 55% in his previous election, this was relatively low for his party and represents a movement away from the socialist party. The primary problem faced is slowed economic growth. While nationalization of the energy sector lead to a long economic boom, the economy is going to soon be limited by the nationalization. Additionally, with the decline of Chavez as a public figure because of his illness, and now his death, the party has been unable to truly continue “Chavismo.” Put simply, “Chavismo” is a combination of the policies employed by Chavez and the cult of personality that resulted from his charismatic appearance. Maduro lacks even a considerable fraction of Chavez’ personality, and without it, the policies may also fall by the way side. Ultimately, this leaves Maduro and his socialist party out of luck.

As for Capriles, to say the least, he is not pleased with the election results. Already he has called for a recount and investigations into fraud, both of which have been denied. Carpiles simply refuses to give up, and as a result, many of his supporters have started to turn to rioting and violence. Carpiles has even gotten the support of the US government behind him. The State Department has already issued a statement calling for the Venezuelan government to recount and verify the legitimacy of the votes. This is not much of a surprise given that Chavez and the US actively hated each other, and Maduro is an attempt to reincarnate Chavez. Additionally, since Chavez has come to power, the US has called for a recount almost every single time, even though many outside sources claim Venezuelan elections are less fraudulent than American elections. Even though Capriles may not have much of a legitimate case for fraud, and certainly a recount seems unlikely, the unrest that this will instill in the Venezuelan people will likely work to his advantage the next time around, and in subsequent parliamentary elections.

Maduro is currently in an incredibly weakened state. What he needs to do now if he wants to truly prove himself a leader is reform. He needs to prove that even if he lacks to charisma of Chavez, he can take Venezuela in a new direction. This must be all-encompassing. Maduro must ensure continued economic prosperity, continue to provide for the poor, while still balancing incentives for the rich. His economic policy should be the focus, but he must also work on foreign policy. Currently, Venezuela is shut off to the largest oil markets in the world due to Chavez’ previous anti-American rhetoric. If Maduro can prove to the world that he is more tempered than Chavez and that he does not actively hate the US and much of the rest of the west, his relations with these countries can improve vastly; after all, they can only go up. This last election proves that the voters of Venezuela are not fooled; they know Maduro is no Chavez. Now Maduro needs to use this to his advantage and prove that even if he cannot be Chavez, he can be something better.

North Korea claims its recent martial actions, including the movement of a missile to its coast and direct military threats against the U.S., were instigated by joint U.S.-South Korean military operations that took place last month.  However, this statement should not be trusted, as the United States military commonly works alongside South Korea without receiving such an inflammatory response from the North.  After all, the U.S. has kept tens of thousands of troops in South Korea for years, and North Korea has rarely protested in such a threatening way.

Why then is North Korea increasing the scope of its military endeavors?  The answer appears to not involve international disputes but instead is focused on domestic politics.  North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un might not need to worry about elections, but he is still a young leader with a great deal to prove to his people.  Navigating the country through a crisis – even a manufactured one – will help him gain credibility and mettle.  This domestic focus seems to be the underlying reason for North Korea’s belligerence, and it is also the reason why other countries aren’t afraid of North Korea’s hostile actions.  Kim Jong-Un could care less if his missiles spur fear internationally, because he really wants them to inspire respect at home.

It’s not just North Korea that has been handing out mixed signals.  China, which is North Korea’s main trading partner and benefactor, has been doing exactly the same.  On one side, China has maintained both relations and trade with North Korea.  But on the other hand, China has allowed new economic sanctions against the North, bucking the trend of using its powerful position on the United Nations Security Council to block increased sanctions.  However, most of China’s recent criticism has been limited to words, not actions.  With the notable exception of allowing for those increased sanctions, China has merely been slapping North Korea on the wrist for their belligerence.  Considering that China is North Korea’s main ally and holds great influence over North Korea, it could do much more to stop the North’s recent aggression.

But while China may be maintaining somewhat of a relationship with North Korea, this recent aggression from North Korea will likely make the U.S.-North Korean relationship even more rocky.  Kim Jong-Un is willing to threaten America in order to improve his domestic standing, showing how little he values possible cooperation with the U.S. in the future.  Still, this standoffish tone towards the U.S. isn’t just a recent development, as it has manifested itself throughout Kim Jong-Un’s short tenure in office.  Even last year, Kim Jong-Un was quick to violate the terms of a food aid deal with the U.S. in order to test his country’s missile technology.  When this food aid deal was being created, we here at RantAWeek hedged our bets, arguing ”there is no specific policy-based reason that would make Kim Jong Un voluntarily give up the nuclear program his father so obstinately worked to create” and warning that “failure to successfully execute this compromise could doom diplomatic relationships with the North Koreans for years to come”.

Kim Jong-Un still lacks any policy-based reason to stop his aggression, especially since China isn’t exerting pressure as harshly as it could be.  Worse, North Korea seems to have abandoned plans to cooperate with the United States.  But at the very least, the U.S. should take comfort in the fact that North Korea is not an international threat, just a country willing to sacrifice international cooperation for a new leader’s domestic credentials.

Until 2011, when Thein Sein began his democratic reform movement, the military junta oppressed the rights of all people. When they first came into power, they shipped many Rohingya back to India, but after that left them alone. Because of the iron grip of the military, the Buddhists were too afraid to riot or incite violence against the Rohingya, so they simply lived alongside them. Yet once reform was initiated in Myanmar, the military’s power started to weaken. Eventually it got to a point where the military was no longer a huge threat, merely something mutually disliked by everyone. With a weakened military, the Buddhists saw their chance to exact their revenge on the Rohingya for coming in and supposedly taking all of the jobs and destroying Burmese culture. So, tensions flared and Buddhists attacked many Rohingya, beginning in the Rakhine province and now spreading to the rest of Myanmar. Since the government is primarily Buddhist, they have done nothing about it. But there are also underlying fears of action. Because tensions are high, should the government even do anything as subtle as allow the Rohingya to finally become citizens, it would likely spark even more anti-Rohingya sentiment, and in turn more rioting and violence.

The government of Myanmar has a lot on their plate. Their primary focus recently has been ensuring democratic reform, lifting restrictions on press and commerce among other aspects of Burmese life. These are certainly very pressing issues, but Myanmar has made plenty of progress in these areas. It is time to shift focus, if only temporarily, to the more pressing and destabilizing issue of ethnic violence. This is an incredibly complex issue that will likely take months, if not years, of investigation and negotiation together with piles of legislation to solve.  They must tread carefully in order to avoid inciting more violence, or worse yet bring back memories of the military’s iron grip, but continuing inaction on the issue is no longer a fathomable option.

Even though the tenets of American exceptionalism have largely failed the U.S. in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is still possible to view exceptionalism as the best path to pursue in foreign policy.  Following this train of logic, many analysts argue that American exceptionalism is a necessary part of world affairs.  Former New York Times correspondent Clifford May sums up this viewpoint by arguing, “At present, there is no substitute for American leadership.  America is the indispensible nation.  That is what makes it exceptional” (May).  May’s belief views America’s large defense budget and frequent interventions not as consequences of nationalistic narcissism but instead as needed forces for global peace.  No other nation, after all, has the money or the resources to easily finance America’s 700 billion dollar defense budget.  According to this argument, even the influence of emerging powers should be discounted.  While a nation like China may soon be able to obtain the needed resources and finance a similarly large budget, America doesn’t want a nation with undemocratic values having an increased say in world affairs.

However nice the ‘indispensible’ excuse sounds, it still fails to address key problems with American exceptionalism.  While Americans like to believe their country is needed to help run world affairs, there is already an organization that is supposed to do just that – the United Nations.  But instead of cooperating with other nations at this readily available world forum, the United States often chooses to ignore global initiatives in favor of its own policies.  The Boston Review explains “There is a long list of such self-exemptions [including] the refusal to sign the Kyoto Treaty regulating the pollution of the environment [and] the refusal to strengthen the convention on biological weapons” (Zinn).  Even though the United States has the ability to partially relinquish its role as the world’s policeman, American leaders often steer the country away from international cooperation.  And while the U.S. cites certain abuses of human rights when explaining why it refuses to closely cooperate with emerging countries like China, the Boston Review also points out that America has a history of being hypocritical about its own human rights abuses. “The United States sends suspects—people who have not been tried or found guilty of anything—to prisons in Morocco, Egypt, Libya, and Uzbekistan, countries that the State Department itself says use torture” (Zinn).  The United States argues from an assumed moral high ground, but in reality has a questionable recent history of human rights as well.  So while many Americans believe that an exceptional United States is the best force for good on the world stage, the truth is a bit more muddled.  Instead of America being the only indispensible superpower, the U.S. is instead unfairly hesitant to share power with other nations.

United States policymakers have adopted the belief of American exceptionalism to support the United States unilaterally dictating international affairs, but this belief ultimately prevents collaboration and hurts the nation’s foreign policy.  By ignoring the opinions of other nations, the U.S. has strained relationships, and by being overconfident in its military, America has worked itself into prickly situations such as Afghanistan.  While some people are quick to call this exceptionalist thinking necessary for foreign affairs, that thought process is just another manifestation of America’s inflated ego.  Economist Jeff Faux explains in The Servant Economy that “only in the United States did a majority agree with the statement ‘Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others’.  Even the notoriously proud French were only half as convinced of their exceptional culture as Americans were” (16).  This ‘holier than thou’ attitude might be comforting, but it actually hurts America’s position in the world.  By refusing to work with other nations, the United States burns bridges that might be needed in the future.  Cooperation, not exceptionalism, is the key to a more successful foreign policy as well as increased global stability.

Faux, Jeff. The Servant Economy: Where America’s Elite Is Sending the Middle Class. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. Print.

May, Clifford D. “In Defense of American Exceptionalism.” National Review. National Review Online, 2 June 2011. Web. 3 Mar. 2013.

Zinn, Howard. “The Power and the Glory.” Boston Review. Boston Review, Summer 2005. Web. 15 Mar. 2013.

In part 1, we left off with the idea that by following the doctrine of American exceptionalism in regard to our drone program, the United States ignores the potential for valuable relationships and makes enemies instead of friends.  But that’s not the only trouble American exceptionalism has gotten us into.

The unclear legality of drone strikes also makes America seem like an aggressor, placing U.S. foreign policy in an increasingly negative light.  International uproar over the use of drones, often leads to criticism that America attacks foreign nations indiscriminately.  Unfortunately, with improperly used force, the United States is making this criticism easy.  The Economist explains that “the vast majority [of drone victims] appear to have been militants, but some have been unlucky civilians” (“Unmanned”).  Because the drone program has occasionally killed civilians, America has aroused acrimony and discontent across the Middle East.  However, the acceptance of American exceptionalism means that U.S. leaders ignore this international outrage in favor of continuing American policies.  After all, widespread controversy has not stopped the Obama administration from expanding the drone program into other countries.  Even while receiving international backlash for using drones in Pakistan, Obama has allowed an exponential increase of drone strikes in Yemen.  Instead of cooperation, the doctrine of exceptionalism has led to America ignoring other nations.  This unilateral approach complicates foreign policy as former allies become estranged.  The more that other nations dislike the U.S., the more difficult it will become to manage diplomacy abroad.

The hostility the U.S. has created in Pakistan through its use of drones is dangerous because it mirrors the hostility created during America’s 1980s involvement in Afghanistan.  That intervention in Afghanistan paved the way for the Taliban to seize control of the nation and then encourage terrorism against the United States.  But considering that an American intervention led to the Taliban’s rise, it is a little ironic that America’s plan to oust the Taliban was another intervention.  However, twelve years into the Afghan war, this plan to oust the Taliban has not been successful.  According to the London Guardian, the Taliban is still strong enough to carry out brazen attacks against Afghanistan’s Ministry of Defense – the very building that should be protecting Afghanistan from these sort of attacks (Graham).  Even when the U.S. is working under clear terms of international law, unlike the case with Pakistan, its attempts to intervene still appear to be failing.  The root of the problem lies once again with American exceptionalism, as these exceptionalist beliefs spur trust that the American military can defeat all of America’s foes.  This logic dictates that the U.S. military is powerful enough to win conflicts against militant networks like the Taliban, but the results of the twelve year Afghan War say otherwise.  Original optimism in the military’s ability dragged America into what soon became a mess in Afghanistan.  Against exceptionalist ideology, twelve years of commitment from the world’s most powerful military has done little to ensure stability.

America’s overconfidence did not stop with the decision to invade Afghanistan, as American troops were also overly optimistic in their ability to train Afghan security forces to better defend themselves against the Taliban.  Unfortunately, for all the American optimism involved, the program has by and large been a failure.  In regard to the supposedly trained Afghan troops, the New York Times explains “the crucial back end of the army — the logistics and supply teams that get bullets, fuel, food and water to where they need to be — is woefully unready, American and even some Afghan officers say” (Rosenberg).  One of the tenets of American exceptionalism is that countries in need should be taught to copy the American model of repairing their problems.  Following this viewpoint, the training program was designed to make the Afghan army more like America’s army.  However, as the current situation in Afghanistan clearly shows, the American model does not always work.  Afghanistan is in a time of need, but all the American assistance and training they have received has not led to a successful combat record against the Taliban.  American exceptionalism led to optimism that Afghan forces trained in American fighting techniques could keep the Taliban at bay, but years of unsuccessful efforts have proved this optimism wrong.

Graham-Harrison, Emma. “Taliban Suicide Bomber Attacks Afghan Ministry of Defence.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 09 Mar. 2013. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.

Rosenberg, Matthew. “U.S. Military Faces Fire as It Pulls Out of Afghanistan.” New York Times 16 Feb. 2013: A1. The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Feb. 2013. Web. 15 Mar. 2013.

“Unmanned Aerial Vehicles – Death From Afar.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper Limited, 3 Nov. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2013.

America is in love with itself.  The crux of this national narcissism is written into the message of ‘America, the Beautiful’, a song which triumphantly proclaims “America! America! God shed His Grace on thee”.  While citizens of other nations also have national pride, Americans have taken their nationalism to a whole new level, even claiming divine intervention as being the source of the country’s prosperity.  However, the idea of American exceptionalism transcends domestic boundaries, and political journalist Glen Greenwald explains that “this nationalistic prerogative, is, far and away, the primary objective of America’s foreign policy community” (Greenwald).  Many of our nation’s leaders and policymakers use American exceptionalism as a rationale for intervention in world affairs, giving the United States the role of ‘world policeman’.  Unfortunately, many of the United States’ recent interventions, such as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, demonstrate that the pursuit of American exceptionalism in world affairs might not be as beneficial to the nation as many Americans think.  The premise of American exceptionalism in regard to America’s place in the world is not only misguided, but also creates hostility that is ultimately detrimental to our foreign policy goals.

American exceptionalism has played a crucial role in American foreign policy, often creating a justification for American involvement overseas.  America views international order as a national duty, and as the Iraq invasion demonstrated, America has no qualms about intervening unilaterally.  In just the last decade, America has intervened not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also in Haiti, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and Libya.  However,  America does not simply become involved in the affairs of other nations.  It also stays involved, maintaining a presence long after the original conflict has subsided.  After all, the Korean War ended sixty years ago, but the U.S. still maintains a force of almost 30,000 troops in South Korea.  All this interventionism showcases the belief that American involvement is a crucial component of global security.  Ex-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta expressed this view on Meet the Press when he explained, “We have the most powerful military force on the face of the Earth right now.  It is important in terms of providing stability and peace in the world” (“February”).  However, America’s exceptionally large military does not come cheap, meaning that America is only able to pursue interventionist policies by dramatically outspending other nations.

It is logical to assume that if America is spending an unparalleled amount of money on its military, then the military should successfully support the nation’s foreign policy goals.  However, the drone program in Pakistan, both expensive and controversial, shows that this assumption is not the reality.  The United States has carried out more than 300 drone strikes in Pakistan over the last ten years, but Pakistan remains firm in its belief that the U.S. lacks any right to carry out drone strikes within their borders.  Retaliating to what they consider American aggression, Pakistani leaders have called the U.S. drone program both a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and illegal.  But following exceptionalist ideology, President Obama has ignored these protests in favor of U.S. involvement, believing American counterterrorism interests should not be sacrificed to placate the Pakistani government.  The Economist points out that while Obama has tried to defend the legality of his drone programs, he has made sure to avoid the mention of “a principle that some lawyers regard as indispensible: the consent of the country where the attack is to take place” (“Unmanned”).  America’s blatant disregard for Pakistan’s opinion has caused anti-American sentiments in Pakistan, often sparking negative consequences for U.S. foreign policy.  In 2011, these strained tensions led the Pakistani government to close a vital supply route for American troops into Afghanistan.  Without this crucial route, America’s counterterrorism efforts in the Middle East were greatly hindered.  In order to more successfully combat terrorism, the United States should be developing strategic partnerships with countries like Pakistan where terrorism often occurs.  However, by following the doctrine of exceptionalism and refusing to cooperate, the United States ignores the potential for valuable relationships and makes enemies instead of friends.

Want to continue? – see part 2.

Greenwald, Glenn. “The Premises and Purposes of American Exceptionalism.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 18 Feb. 2013. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.

“Meet the Press.” Meet the Press. NBC. 3 Feb. 2013. Nbcnews.com. National Broadcasting Corporation, 3 Feb. 2013. Web. 14 Feb. 2013. Transcript.

“Unmanned Aerial Vehicles – Death From Afar.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper Limited, 3 Nov. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2013.

Of course, just because a commonly cited indicator of the stock market is back to pre-recession levels does not mean the economy as a whole has recovered.  That being said, the Dow Jones was not the only good economic news as of late.  The other half of the story lies with the recent release of February’s unemployment statistics.  In February, payrolls increased by an unexpectedly high 236,000 jobs, sending the unemployment rate down to 7.7%.  All the economic signs are appearing rather rosy, and its not hard to assume that our economy might once again be clear of serious headwinds.

Unfortunately, unchecked optimism is just as risky now as ever.  While the economic headlines might paint a pretty picture of economic recovery, these headlines are still set against a backdrop of economic insecurity.  Take those unemployment headlines, which are quick to talk about the new jobs created but mostly skip over the fact that the labor force actually shrank by 130,000 jobs in February.  Clearly, not all the current economic numbers yield optimistic conclusions about the state of the economy.

Worse still, government leaders have gotten our economy into an even more shaky situation.  Budget cuts due to the sequester have yet to be stopped, and this sudden cutback in government spending could throw the economic recovery off balance.  If Congress wants to oversee a stable economic recovery, they should start off by passing sensible economic legislation.  The instability caused by the unresolved sequester, in addition to the lack of clear economic policy coming from Congress, means that government is far from ensuring economic stability in both the short and long term.

And even though we’ve made some gains in the fight against unemployment the last few months, we are still far from solving the unemployment problem.  While unemployment is down from a high of 10% back in 2010, it’s current 7.7% level is not even close to the 4-5% unemployment expected in a healthy economy.  Just because we’re recovering does not mean that we are recovered.

That being said, the current economic indicators are still showing a recovery, and while the recovery may not be as straightforward or as fast as we would like, some economic momentum is better than none at all.  A few years ago, we had almost nothing to be optimistic about economically.  And while the data is far from perfect now, we at least seem to be moving in the right direction as a whole.  While its not time to get out the party hats just yet, we may be able to put those doomsday signs back in storage.