Come see Dr. Michael Newdow and others at the Third Annual event!

October 8th-10th, 2010

Sheraton Grand Hotel

Irving, Texas

Visit texasfreethoughtconvention.com for more details

American Exceptionalism is the idea that the United States is special.  Do you agree with that?  How about you as an individual?  Are you special?  We all are, of course.  But if everyone is special then no one is special, are they?  Or, … is someone like President Obama or Queen Elizabeth II or the Dalai Lama special in a way that the rest of us aren’t?  And, if they are special, is the United States special in a similar way?

It seems doubtful that such questions have scientific answers.

There are also those who object to the idea of American Exceptionalism.  They say it is self-serving.  They say it is arrogant.  They say it’s intended to denigrate other nations or used to justify anything and everything ever done by the United States.

But exceptional doesn’t have to mean better in every way.  An exceptional student may still grow up to be a criminal.  But neither is an exceptional student one that excels at field trip attendance, pep rally cheering or returning books to the library on time.  Exceptionalism means achievement or distinction in something that is of particular importance.

American Exceptionalism is an idea usually attributed to the French writer Alexis de Tocqueville.

Toqueville and another man were sent by the French government in 1831 to study the American prison system.  But they took notes on everything they saw from which Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America.  For Tocqueville, American Exceptionalism meant the success of the American political experiment in representative democracy.  It was a remarkable achievement because it had never been done before, especially on such a large scale.  All previous efforts at self-government had been short-lived and hadn’t worked very well, even in the fabled Greek city-states where democracy was invented.

But it is said that no other than Joseph Stalin actually first used the term “American Exceptionalism.”  He did so while calling it a “heresy” advanced by fellow communists who used it as an excuse for failing to make the same inroads into American society and culture as had been made in other nations.

It turns out that President Obama had something to say about American Exceptionalism, which was this:

“I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

President Obama was slammed for this statement, it being said that it showed that he does not actually believe in American Exceptionalism, that the President thinks that America is no more exceptional than Britain or Greece.

This quote is not on the White House website, by the way, but I was able to track it down elsewhere as part of a news conference held by the President in Strasbourg, France on April 4^th of 2009.  Here is the question the President was responding to, from Ed Luce of The Financial Times:

“could I ask you whether you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy? And if so, would you be able to elaborate on it?”

So we see here, firstly, that the question is coming from a European, in Europe, and in the context, specifically, of America’s role as a world leader and with reference to previous US Presidents’ viewpoints.  The answer given by President Obama was therefore a political one for the specific political circumstances.  And quite a good one probably.  But, wait, there’s more.  Like him or not, agree with his policies or not, the President went on to say:

“I’m enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world.  If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don’t think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.  …  the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality that, though imperfect, are exceptional.”

This seems the right approach to the idea of American Exceptionalism.  The facts are that the United States is exceptional.  History has now shown that reason and right are on the side of both government by consent of the governed – democracy – as well as the principle that governments are instituted for the specific purpose of securing human rights.  The majority is not entitled to do anything it wants just because it is the majority.

Has our nation always lived up to these ideals?  No.  But it has not gone so completely off the rails as to wreck itself and the rest of world either.  As former President Clinton said:

“There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.”

Friday May 7th's ABC 20/20 program included a segment about junk science being used to send people to prison - even sentenced to death and executed - for supposed arson.  NTCOF’s own Curtis Severns languishes today in Texas’ Beaumont Federal Prison and is featured in the 20/20 magazine program’s online item here.

The portion on Curtis is short and didn't carry the emotional impact of the stories of mothers jailed for supposedly setting fires that killed their children.  But viewers got to see video that the jury at Curtis' trial never got to see: a fire test that showed that the explosion of heated aerosol cans caused the appearance of "multiple points of origin" that arson investigators in the case insisted proved arson.

The most infuriating part of the story was when Jay Schadler interviewed fire investigator John DeHaan in the last portion of the broadcast.  DeHaan had changed his conclusion in a case that had sent a woman to jail, but without telling anyone!  "I don't invent reasons to go back and re-examine cases," said DeHaan, as if people doing time for crimes they didn't commit and crimes that never even were are reasons that have to be "invented!"  When DeHaan was asked if he ever called the woman to apologize out of simple humanity and with the realization that his mistakes had put her "through hell," DeHann responded: "I've been dealing with clients of all kinds for 40 years and I'm sure the experiences they've had have been unpleasant."  He declined to even offer any remarks for the woman on air.  And DeHann is the same "expert" the prosecution used to convict Curtis Severns!  This was not mentioned in the 20/20 program.

Fire investigator Douglas Fogg, whose "science" led to the execution of Todd Willingham, fire investigator John DeHaan, and the detective in the case involving DeHaan, Detective Sandoval, were unrepentant.  Fogg and Sandoval remained absolutely certain that the innocent peopled they helped to convict were, in fact guilty.  It is a sobering reminder of how people become convinced of something and will choose to ignore or deny anything and everything that casts doubt on that belief.  The truth is that beliefs are not the important thing.  Thinking and how we arrive at our beliefs, beliefs that we should remain willing to give up for better ones at any time, is what is important.  As the 20th Century physicist and Nobelist Richard Feynmann said, real honesty is always bending over backwards to see if we might be wrong.  When can this possibly be more important than when people's lives are at stake?  But, sadly, these ideas and attitudes are not yet a part of public morals.

The Texas Observer ran an article on the subject of false convictions in arson cases a year ago which is here and takes note of this week's ABC program here.  The Dallas Morning News' TEXAS DEATH PENALTY BLOG also calls attention to the additional publicity here.  As we know, dozens of Texans have been exonerated over the last few years after being convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt," and not just for arson  Efforts to establish an Innocence Commission to ferret out these injustices and correct them continue to be resisted, even by Texas' Governor Perry who objects to "an added layer of government."  And we thought Republicans were the ones who most recognized how often and easily the government screws things up!  Finally, John Lentini, who was also featured on the 20/20 program as a fire investigator who supports relying on science and freeing people convicted on the basis of myths and "old wives tales," has a website here.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Write your FEDERAL Senators and Representative asking them to support legislation to set up an Innocence Commission to re-examine cases such as that of Curtis Severns.  Efforts in Texas are also worth supporting but will not help those, like Curtis, who were prosecuted and convicted in the federal system.  Also visit here, a website set up by Curtis' nephew.