"American Exceptionalism" generated some interesting comments shared. Although each of you had something valid and important to share, I feel as though my blog's purpose was unclear. This is not the fault of the reader, but rather the writer. While dialogue in person allows for questioning and clarity, other mediums do not. Texts, blogs, books, podcasts, and the like require the broadcaster to be clear. I wasn't. For that I apologize.
For those who felt "American Exceptionalism" to be anti-American, that was not my intent. Reading through the blog multiple times, I felt the tone was a little more pessimistic than I originally intended. Near the closing I stated, "Reading those verses doesn't inspire me to feel American exceptionalism. In fact, it doesn't make me feel exceptional at all." This may have led some of you to believe that I don't believe in patriotism, love of country, or the significance of cultural values. This could not be further from the truth.
The United States has characteristics that are not present in any other country in the world. The U.S. Constitution is an incredible document that has made a tremendous impact wherever it has been embraced. Furthermore, it protects rights and freedoms in ways that are indiscriminate and invaluable.
"American Exceptionalism" was primarily written to address foreign policy blunders that have resulted from "blind patriotism" since the conclusion of WWII. Some would contest that 1945 is when American foreign policy transformed from a less interventionist stance to something else entirely. The United States Military is now present in more than 110 countries.
If I am not a patriot for being angry with an executive branch that declares war without approval from congress, and knows no accountability, so be it. If I am not a patriot for desiring fiscal responsibility as it pertains to an unsustainable interventionist foreign policy, let that be. If I am not a patriot because I question the motives and actions of my government, then again, let that be.
The United States certainly is an exceptional country. Who can argue that? However, the American Exceptionalism I was referring to was the sort that allows presidents to enter conflicts because its the "right thing to do" without telling congress, you, or me exactly what makes that decision so right. I believe in accountability and integrity in government. That is what "American Exceptionalism" meant to say.
6 comments:
Josh,
I hope you didn't read my comments to suggest that your original post was anti-American; that wasn't my intent at all. There probably isn't much difference between our foreign policy views either. I will push back on a couple of points though, if for no other reason than to play the devil's advocate.
Your concern about presidents entering military conflicts w/o congress first declaring war is largely unnecessary. The fact that our Constitution vests Congress w/the power to declar war has never meant that military operations couldn't be launched in the absence of such a declaration. We've only formally declared war 5 times in our history. One circumstance where this formality is not required is when Congress functionally declares war by approving combat operations w/o using the magic words "declare war." This is what happened in Afghanistan & Iraq, for example. In almost every military conflict since 1945, Congress has authorized the use of military force either before, or very shortly after, our president has engaged the military overseas. Particularly since Vietnam and the War Powers Resolution Act, getting Congress to approve military actions initiated by the President has largely been a non-issue. The only two exceptions to this are Clinton's bombing in Bosnia, and Obama's current action in Libya.
The Bosnia case is not so eggregious because Congress passed a bill funding the operation (which you could argue was an implicit authorization). What Obama is doing in Libya, however, is much more problematic. He doesn't seem intent on seeking congressional approval at all (probably because he wouldn't get it), and is justifying the use of force on the declaration of an international body that has no power to make us do anything. So while I agree that the President has no power to engage our military in combat operations w/o the approval of Congress, I disagree that this has been a big problem in the post-Vietnam era (w/perhaps the exception of Libya).
This is not to say I approve of every military intervention authorized by Congress; I certainly don't, but that's a policy debate, not a constitutional one. It's hard to argue against the proposition that American foreign policy has changed since WWII, but so did the world. A more interventionist policy was inevitable with the advent of the Cold War and the GWOT.
And while I share the position that we've over-used our military as an agent to 'spread democracy,' I don't think current defense spending (including the special appropriations for the wars) is by any means unsustainable. The fact is that we're spending much less on defense as a percentage of GDP than we were during the Cold War. Our real fiscal problem is with growing entitlements (SS, Medicare, Medicaid), not military spending.
I disagree about presidential overeaching not being a serious issue. Of course Congress will authorize after combat operations are already occurring.
You are right about entitlements being part of the problem. However, the 687 bil. reported is only a fraction of military spending. Many of the other expenditures including the funding of the wars is separate. We don't know exact figures but the cost is probably closer to 2 trillion annually. To me, that's unsustainable.
Whether or not combat operations have already begun, Congress' job is to give its blessing or disapprove when asked for authorization. To the extent Congress doesn't disapprove operations it disagrees with (whether before or shortly after they've begun), it abdicates it's constitutional responsibility and is as much to blame as the President. If Obama went to Congress right now seeking their approval on Libya, do you think he'd get it? I'm not so sure. In any event, congressional approval is the check & balance to presidential overreach we've set up, and in most situations it's been used effectively. Congress actually has another opportunity to check presidential overreach through their power to defund military operations they think are wrong. This is a double check/balance.
Annual spending for defense is nowhere near 2 trillion. Even if you add the money we're spending on overseas contingency operations (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya), it would come to less than half that amount. That's of course still a lot of money, at least by world standards. But as we are the richest country in the world, and 'providing for the common defense' is one of the few legitiate functions of the federal government, I think that's an entirely appropriate amount, and sustainable long-term so long as we get our entitlement problem resolved. Defense spending is only about 20% of the federal budget, and used to be much more. The majority of our budget (both now, and even more so in the future) is allocated toward SS, medicare, and medicaid.
Right or wrong, congress isn't about to defund a war when the president has troops in a hot zone. Noone is willing to put American lives at risk. That's hardly a check/balance to premature actions by the president.
Secondly, your figures don't account for V.A. benefits which have traditionally been included in defense budgets. Also, homeland security is not factored in to the defense budget.
Once all is factored in, many consider the low end estimates to be at least 1.5 trillion dollars. Considering we are facing a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit this year, its hardly fair to call that sustainable.
Josh,
I feel like I'm dominating your blog, so this will be my last post on the topic and then you can have the final word.
Congress' power to defund a military action is their second check on presidential overreach. The democrats gave serious thought to doing this w/regard to Iraq during Bush's second term, but they were handicapped by the fact that they had approved the use of force at the outset. Just because they didn't end up doing it doesn't mean it couldn't happen in the right political environment. Congress' first check on presidential overreach is their power to disapprove the president's decisions to engage the military in the first place. This doesn't carry with it the same political risks as defunding an operation, and it can quickly destroy the moral legitimacy of the president's action. I submit that the reason you don't see this done very often is that Congress almost always agrees and is complicit with the decision of the President to engage the military, satisfying the constitutional requirement.
We both seem to agree (to some extent at least) that our foreign policy is too interventionist and that our military is often engaged when it shouldn't be, but the question is whether you think this is the result of a policy failure, or of a defect in the way the constitution has long been interpreted concerning presidential war powers. While I'm not willing to say the latter is irrelevant, I think that the problem is more of a policy one, and that congress has traditionally been complicit in engaging our military when it is not the right thing to do. To blame the President's relatively broad power to engage the military is to take aim at the wrong target.
Second, your spending figures are still waay off. The Dept of Homeland Security includes numerous activities that are pretty attenuated in their relationship to national defense (and it's civilian, not military), and VA spending has generally been considered separate because it's of an entitlement nature, not a defense/security one. But even if you add all of homeland security (innappropriate in my view) and all of VA, plus nuclear program maintenance (under Dept of Energy), plus spending on intelligence and all other counterterrorism efforts, you barely crack the 1 trillion mark. If you want to add the interest paid on outstanding defense debts (which, let's be honest, really shouldn't count), you can push it to 1.2 trillion. These numbers are from a prominent progressive think tank that advocates for cutting our defense budget, and they're also consistent with I've heard from within the DoD community. This puts us at about 5% of GDP, which is sustainable, and actually about a percent less than I would be spending if I was U.S. dictator.
First of all, I'm not disputing congress' position as a check/balance to the president's overreach. However, using the most recent conflict as an example, by the time congress was notified, it was too late. Condemning the "moral legitimacy" of the war would be irrelevant.
I see the power of the president as part of a larger issue. A continued state of being "at war" not only accelerates erosion of certain freedoms but also increases the powers of the executive branch. War time has always permitted presidents to execute policies that would never be permissible in peace time.
Last, I admit 1.5 trillion may have been slightly high. However, I have found several cost breakdowns (depending on what the sources decide to incorporate) placing the figure between 1.2 and 1.3 trillion. Regardless of what figures you choose to believe, I simply feel its too high.
I think viewing a defense budget merely in terms of %GDP is the wrong way to view it. Throughout the British empire, the principle for defense spending was spending twice as much as the next two powers combined. Do you want to take a guess at how many times more we spend than the next two powers combined? Even with China's expansion probably 5 or 6 times more. Maybe that type of funding has contributed to an "itchy trigger finger?"
Probably more important than how much we spend is how we spend it. I could make an argument that engaging in multiple wars and funding a plethora of bases not only undermines our security, but that it's a poor use of the defense spending budget.
Thanks for the discussion.
Post a Comment