American exceptionalism, Reinhold Niebuhr and Barack Obama

President Obama’s recent speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize seems to have been viewed by the Right as a surprising reaffirmation of american exceptionalism.  The speech also seems to be viewed by the Left as a surprising contradiction to the idealism that supports a rigorously (and some might consider utopian) pacifist social ethic.

I can understand why the Right is emboldened by Obama’s apparent affirmation of american exceptionalism.  I heard Obama refer to America’s unique position in the world during the course of his speech.  But the notion of american exceptionalism finds its foundation in the sense that America is given by God a unique role to play and that betrothal is a reflection of our society’s unique affiliation with the Almighty.  Our dominant role is bequeathed by God…or so the adherents to american exceptionalism tend to believe.

However, Obama’s speech seemed to reflect a more nuanced historical premise.  He did not appeal to a simplistic theological justification for America’s conquests as have previous Presidents been so willing to enlist (at least for the sake of rhetoric).  In his speech, he references the blood and sacrifice of American troops as the foundation for our current role as the sole super power in geo-political affairs.  I agree.  We were in a position to defend freedom during the course of the previous century, and so we did.  As a result, we are in a unique position in the world, and this unique position enables us to further our defense of freedom for peoples everywhere.

My sense of (what I’ll call orthodox) american exceptionalism is that it finds its justification in a belief akin to manifest destiny.  I mean to say, that the insertion of God as the prime mover in our foreign policy seems analogous to the way manifest destiny was justified by a theological premise and thereby influenced our domestic policy from a century prior.

The blending of theology and politics always comes at a price.  And that price is often inconsistent policy positions across various issues at best.  At worst, the price entails the subservience of justice to a particular constituency’s moral framework.

A lot has been said about the influence of Niebuhrian realism on Obama’s foreign policy.  (Here’s a post in The American Spectator) That influence was clearly evident in Obama’s speech at the Nobel award ceremony.  Obama’s statements regarding his role involving “seeing the world as it is” showed both Neibuhr’s influence on Obama as well as the burden Obama now seems to grapple with fully.  Being President is a far cry from being Candidate.

Obama’s speech made me wonder what Reinhold Neibuhr would have thought of the Administration’s current foreign policy direction.  I wonder also what Neibuhr’s thoughts would be on the broader concept of an increasingly orthodox american exceptionalism.

Lastly, Obama’s speech made me glad.  If nothing more, it’s nice to see that a dialectic of ideas is evidently playing a role in the thought process Obama pursues as he fleshes out his worldview and how that will inform his role as leader of the free world.