Quote:
Originally posted by damił
I completely agree what all you have said in reply to my post 
I only got to know the term recently myself - it has something to do with that the US believes that they have a "moral obligation" to defend, promote and sometimes even "force" democratic change: building a world that mirrors their socio-political system - exeptionalism in that context means that the US judges itself to be the only ones able and willing to do it.
But like I said that's just the theory - haven't seen much put into practice lately, more like the opposit - that's exactly why I am for a more balanced Trans Atlantic relationship ... maybe we could set a better standard together operating as geo-political equals instead of one partner dominating the other one.
|
Like you, I'm not so sure I buy into that theory. I mean, there are some core beliefs that I think US policies try to "encourage". Things like everyone having a voice in the government, certain basic rights like freedom of speech, private property ownership, capitalism, etc. Right or wrong these are among the foundations of western civilization (whether US or others). Perhaps there is an attitude here that only we can do it and I think that's based on the multinational failures throughout recent history. With the exception of the cooperation immediately after WWII and possibly the first Gulf War, there haven't been too many examples of multi national coalitions being successful at many tasks. I guess from a civilian perspective, the adoption of the Euro has been relatively successful, but the jury is still out on it. It kind of goes back to the subject of my last post. It's just too difficult, at this point in world politics/economics, to get a coalition to agree on an action and implement it. I really hope this changes and countries realize that there are a lot of things that we agree on and that we should work towards together (without all the suspicion, fear, and invectives).