But there are a lot of very narrow minded people who refuse to get it. They would rather go to hateful radical leftist blogs, where idiot-bloggers argue like "Why don't f*cking republican just shut the f*ck up?"
I'm just curious -- how many of those belong to this group and participate in this particular conversation?
Also, again, regardless of this particular discussion: people who get it, but do not agree with it -- are they idiots/narrow minded too?

OK, read the article... brings some interesting points. But the overall tone is so inflammatory....why does it have to be? Wouldn't we get it if just those points being stated? I don't mean "get" as "agree", simply as "understand".
well, if this is the case,
let me post another article then, with semi-inflammatory tone, but also brings good points:
***********.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/opinion/19jacoby.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

this is what I don't understand - first, those two articles are on two completely different subjects. Then, do you think parents in TX don't want their kids to get a good education and only people in NY do?? All those changes have nothing to do with math and science, it was social studies...all those changes have been debated for years, still not implemented waiting for public input, if we disagree how we see American form of government, role of the US, isn't it the beauty of our democratic system that we all get to choose where we live and vote for our own board?? I want you to educate your kids the way you feel is right, why can't people on the left afford me the same??

Interesting paper in the National Review.
So, we are exceptional because we are driven by greed? :-) Sounds true if you consider that all engineering progress came from human laziness :-) (it's a semi-joke).
On a more serious note, they compare US to European countries, but do not really mention Australia, New Zealand, etc. that were built on similar principles...

Actually, I think that section IV has nothing to do with the rest of the article. And I believe that in many instances the authors mix up the notions of exceptionalism and patriotism. Maybe intentionally.

wasn't your and others' argument that we we teach the kids about exceptionalism is like instilling into them pseudo-patriotism?? like if we tell the kids that our country has a unique origin, history, background, we are encouraging them to be proud of their country...?? (ch)
Australia does have lots of similarities with the US, only over 100 yrs latter...(ch)

"I want you to educate your kids the way you feel is right, why can't people on the left afford me the same??"
- completely different prospective:
I want ALL kids, mine, yours, and next door Joe's educated according to the best available WORLD standards. I want ALL kids to have access and opportunity to learn math, sciences, literature to an extent theat will make them competent and cometitive in the WORLD. That is why educational standards should not be set by local boards that might have people on them with absolutely no pedagogical or science background and who might be driven by their own ideological agendas ,but by professional educators and scientists. I think Galina resonated the same a few days back...

I was arguing that we should teach our kinds patriotism, not pseudo-patriotism. Why do you say that?

if we are not happy with the local boards and dept.s of education, why we assume people in the federal government would do a better job and won't be ideological, etc.?? and I am not even talking about the constitutionality of it..

I was arguing that we should teach our kinds patriotism, not pseudo-patriotism. Why do you say that?
because you said the author was mixing up exceptionalism and patriotism, but I think the author was poiting out that those who don't believe in American exceptionalism don't like patriotism as well...
and what's "our kinds of patriotism"??

- National Standards
- Centralized Government authority


What else? ah,
- People are idiots.... they just do not understand...

Keep pushing these ideas, and we will end up with no personal freedoms!

because you said the author was mixing up exceptionalism and patriotism, but I think the author was poiting out that those who don't believe in American exceptionalism don't like patriotism as well...
I guess I don't agree with the authors on that point. Patriotism and exceptionalism are two different things, IMHO. But the authors do mix up those concepts. As I already said a couple of days ago, IMHO, exceptionalism assumes entitlement to not follow the rules and be above the law.
and what's "our kinds of patriotism"??
it's "teaching our kids patriotism" -- sorry, a misprint. And there was no "of" in that sentence.

Again, I don't believe the author mixes the two concepts up - just talks about the coincidence that the new left doesn't believe in both of them..also the author believes that it's because they don't understand and know American history very well..and it shows when they are asked on it..and btw, it's also the consequences of our education system..(ch)

What kind of law is there for judging American Exceptionalism?
Gera, there is no such law. However, there are commonly-accepted international laws and norms. For instance, that you need to carry a passport in order to travel into foreign countries and might need a visa to enter some of them.

Aleksei, if you read the article about the exceptionalism carefully, you would have noticed, that it talkes at length how England was different from the rest of European countries. There was much less feudalism there. It's all spelled out in the chapter marked with Roman numerical I.
You should be able to extend that logic to Australia and New Zealand.

I will paste some more text to answer Aleksei question about Australia and New Zealand.
To find the roots of American exceptionalism, you have to start at thebeginning — or even before the beginning. They go back to our mothercountry. Historian Alan Macfarlane argues that England never had apeasantry in the way that other European countries did, or as extensivean established church, or as powerful a monarchy. English society thushad a more individualistic cast than the rest of Europe, which wascentralized, hierarchical, and feudal by comparison.
It was, to simplify, the most individualistic elements of En*glishsociety — basically, dissenting low-church Protestants — who came tothe eastern seaboard of North America. And the most liberal fringe ofEnglish political thought, the anti-court “country” Whigs andrepublican theorists such as James Harrington, came to predominatehere.

All of this made Amer*ica an outlier compared with England, which wasan outlier compared with Europe. The U.S. was the spawn of Englishliberalism, fated to carry it out to its logical conclusion and becomethe most liberal polity ever known to man.
America was blessedly unencumbered by an ancien regime.Compared with Europe, it had no church hierarchy, no aristocracy, noentrenched economic interests, no ingrained distaste for commercialactivity. It almost entirely lacked the hallmarks of a traditionalpost-feudal agrarian society. It was as close as you could get to JohnLocke’s state of nature. It was ruled from England, but lightly; EdmundBurke famously described English rule here as “salutary neglect.” Evenbefore the Rev*olution, America was the freest country on earth.

You should be able to extend that logic to Australia and New Zealand.
That's precisely my point -- if Australia and New Zealand went the same route, why do they talk about American exceptionalism?

Tocquevillemay have been exaggerating when he said that Americans were able toenjoy the benefits of a revolution without really having one, but hewasn’t far off the mark. The remnants of old Europe that did exist here—state-supported churches, primogeniture, etc. — were quickly wipedout. Amer*icans took inherited English liberties, extended them, andmade them into a creed open to all.
Exact renderings of the creed differ, but the basic outlines are clear enough. The late Seymour Martin Lipset defined it as liberty,equality (of opportunity and respect), individualism, populism, and laissez-faire economics. The creed combines with other aspects of the American character — especially our religiousness and our willingness to defend ourselves by force — to form the core of American exceptionalism.

Maria, thanks, I opened the link and I read the paper, there is no need to copy in here.
BTW,
The creed combines with other aspects of the American character — especially our religiousness and our willingness to defend ourselves by force — to form the core of American exceptionalism.
This is one point where they mix up patriotism and exceptionalism.

This is one point where they mix up patriotism and exceptionalism.
so what? They view american patriotism as a part of american exceptionalism.

so what? They view american patriotism as a part of american exceptionalism.
That's fine. This is where our views differ. This is normal.

This is in response to Maria's Сегодня 09:03 post.
.

Is this really a fact, or just your right wing paranoia, projecting your own personal bias and "partisan hate"? Referring to thosewho don't share your opinion as moonbats, idiots, narrow minded, and trash? Constantly suspecting and accusing of sinister conspiracies...What would you call that?There's literally a handful of liberals in this group, and unlike you, I neither subscribe to nor read any blog, periodical, or any other pblication on a daily basis. Usually, if I read something in one of the forums that sounds somewhat extreme to me, I just skim through a few articles and formulate my response. Unlike you, Maria, I don't subject myself to regular and systematic brainwashing of partisan propaganda. So you see, Maria, the only one full of hate here is you.

I thought that Renata's "Rubber room" was created for monologues of this sort. That goes to Gera, too. So no one accuses me in playing favorites.

The creed combines with other aspects of the American character — especially our religiousness and our willingness to defend ourselves by force — to form the core of American exceptionalism.
This is one point where they mix up patriotism and exceptionalism.
Can you explain why and how are they mixed up here??
PS. Australia and Canada never had their revolutions.

In this particular point willingness to defend your country by force is an attribute of patriotism.
PS. Australia and Canada never had their revolutions.
No, they did not - that is true. But Russia, China, Cuba and North Korea did.
I'm curious, does this article describe American Exceptionalism so well -- and you agree with it to the word -- that we discuss the article and not your personal (Svetlana and Maria) ideas about this topic?

1. about the revolutions - that's precisely the point - the revolution based on the idea of freedom, democracy, freedom of speech, religion, limited government, etc. IS exceptional - no other country had done anything similar, on the contrary, many other colonies wanted to be loyal to the King...France's revolution was anti-religious, anti-aristocratic, as opposed to freedom of religion, capitalism.. totally different what our Founders had in mind..in this sense - we are exceptional..
2. Your point about being entitled or above the law (you interpretation) - if you refer to the American refusal or objection to join or follow various international organizations sometimes - it is also the idea of our Founders - we have separated from the old World, and don't have to follow anybody's else "rules/traditions" - we often have our way of doing things, our own Constitution...and it is unique and exceptional..

3. We can discuss the article or your/our own ideas - it's your choice...I just don't see many valid opposing views..

moreover - the reason we have a requirement for the President to be American-born is because we didn't want any foreign influence..
:-)

this American obsession with protecting self from foreign influence leads frequently to reinvention of a bicycle.... Plus, if it was historically good to preserve American identity, in the modern world going overboard with it leads to isolation and loss of competitive edge.... Nothing against national pride, it's all good.... but the reality is that "The world is flat". We all read the book, right? And many others on the subject....

Look, Julia,
This is , as you put it - an American obsession. Let it be. And for some of us who joined into the brotherhood of obsessed individuals it is the way of life.
Do not judge!
And do not preach - the socialism is an old book. For the superior intellectuals like you and Ira , and Lina, it should be quite obvious - we are just simpletons.... and want to be let alone.

Look,
1- I can totally shut up and not say anything and then you will just enjoy a monologue:-)
2- who said anything about socialism? - total misperception of the concept.
3- nobody ( at least not myself) is preaching... people are here to express and exchange ideas. Don't like others ideas - understood, nothing personal, there is no need to say "you" every time. We discuss ideas, not personalities...
4 - not sure about others, I personally never claim any superiority in anything, humbled enough by life to do so....If you perceive my statements as statements of superiority, it is total misconception.
would be nice to have those principals as platform for debates:
- mutual respect,
- listening with an open mind to other' perspective,
-not bunching all people into a common label,
- trying to learn from others

To every single one of the participants, who claim - these are theirs or new, or other "ideas":
All of these "ideas" - are from the "old country". They may be called different names - "one payer system", "national standard", "international norms", etc...all of it either European or Soviet Socialism.
This is a "new" world. It has it's constitution, and nobody is going to change it. Not until the proper steps are taken. The people who are in power right now and who do not uphold the constitutional principles - are corrupt. Most of the Washington is corrupt. Thus giving the opportunities to demagogues like the current leadership to come to power.

The main reason they are in power is - the people are not politicallycharged. They go about their lives, not paying much attention topolitics.
The local issues are dealt with by the local governments... etc.
Untilthe current power grab majority of the population would not give a damnabout any of this. Just lets see what happens in November.

Neoconservatives got all the attention for the last ten years or so as a consequence of being seen as the biggest cheerleaders for military adventurism in the Middle East.
I think the next movement deserving a lot of publicity and focus is Neocommunism.

Neocommunism isn't full-force Communism, but it definitely embraces the redistribution of wealth through the mechanism of coercive state action. Taking control of private sector healthcare would be a good example.
We should call the members of this group the Neocommunists. Or, for short, the Neocoms.
Hunter Baker

Arrests of militia members in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana: ********tinyurl.com/ydtcsvl
Is the raise in political extreimsm the result of Fox News fueling the rage? Is this what US Conservatives want?

Alexey, at this point it's unclear whether it's a raise of militia activity or government's decision to crackdown on something that was always there.
Does anybody find it strange that those people are easily called Christian extremists in the media, but no one dared to call bombing in Moscow a case of Muslim terrorism?

Oleg, I think it is close to being clear, as the number of organized militia organizations rose significantly in the last 2 years. I can dig out the data, but it was something like 100 -> 500 militias (I've heard it on the radio driving in to work this morning)...

what a double standard to be concerned now about extremism.. 8 years of Bush we had tons of the crazy extreme left demonstrators, protesters or just plain artists writing books about Bush assassination, making movies about it, or called him Hitler, fascist on a regular basis.. conservatives often being attacked on college campuses by "peacenik"-students.. now all of a sudden it's Fox's fault.. and those who are blaming it don't even watch it..

I'm not very familiar with the subject and don't want to argue. However, the raise in militia activity may be real, or due to the change in government's classification.