I have to disagree with the general direction of the article. I think American Exceptionalism is the idea of an America that exercises in practical terms Divine principles. The Founders were deeply religious men. I believe that we were to be a shining example to the world. Eventually, others would follow our example. I don’t think they meant for us to compromise and follow others’ example. Nobody sets up a system that they think is inferior to that of another’s.

So, Universalism is a cheap copy of American Exceptionalism. It’s a way to water it down, cheapen the drink, and make it less appealing. You seem to be espousing the same multicultural nonsense as others.

It’s simple to me. Other cultures simply are not morally equivalent to American culture. I simply do not apologize for our ways. Nationalism for us is not the same as it is in other countries. We don’t believe in our country, right or wrong. We simply believe that our country is right, and that we have a track record to prove it. People around the world live better lives because we exist. Do we screw up? You betcha. Take any perfect system, add humans, and they’ll screw things up.

The system is Divinely inspired, and so, comes under attack. Now, it seems we’re losing. This explains the rising up of the rest of the world as they sense victory over us. It explains the decline in our morals and values… our character.

We may fail, but it doesn’t invalidate the worthiness of American Exceptionalism. It merely means we, ourselves, were unworthy of it.

Thanks.

Dr. Gonztraub:

If you were coherent, I’d respond. Try simple English. That failing, write yourself some scrip for Thorazine. Haldol, maybe. Or for similar effect, bang your head against a brick wall a few times.

Deus: Do you have anything positive to say?
Oct 2, 2008 – 7:14 am

Read your own posting at 2:57 pm. Sounds familiar?

I think it is similar to the dogmatic insistence on appending “religion of peace” to almost any discussion of Islam. It has become so common to look at every person as a part of a group or demographic that any criticism of an individual carries the implicit potential that the criticism will be misunderstood as a criticism of all members of the group. It’s exactly the same thing as Rev. Wright makign a huge speech on how criticism of him and his hair-brained racism drivel constitutes an attack on all black churches, his audience lapping it up and offering “Amens” in support.

“Something that I am noticing more and more about you righties. You never seem to be able to promote the positives of your own candidate. Instead, you prop your candidate up by trying to put ours down. This is your problem. You have a negative view of everything, even when it is good.”

Therese, Thank you for saying this. This was exactly what liberals were doing 4 years ago. I remember getting stopped on a street corner by a young guy with a clipboard who said, “How would you like to help defeat Bush in this election?” He proceeded to give me a litany of reasons to defeat Bush. After about 5 minutes, I said to him, “Who is your candidate?” Of course I knew, but I wanted him to get the point that he hadn’t mentioned his candidate’s name once in his entire schpiel. He said, “John Kerry.” I said, “Kerry? No thanks,” and I walked away.

People love to say that Palin doesn’t have the experience to be VP. She absolutely does have the experience to be VP. She is way more qualified for that position than Obama is for the presidency. He simply has no experience in any area that’s necessary for the job. He speaks in theory, but he’s never actually “been there.” If he had even one minute of executive experience, he’d say that was enough. In fact, he says that running his campaign (which he doesn’t actually do), overseeing 2500 people, is sufficient executive experience. What? Okay, so that’s sufficient, but being Governor of a state with a $10 billion dollar budget is not sufficient? Being a community organizer is sufficient, but being a mayor is not? I don’t understand how this works.

Javelin: It’s not simply criticism that gives elitists the title. It’s the hypocrisy. Look down your nose at Sarah Palin all you want. No one cares.

HRPIdiot: Are you kidding me? Give me your opinion, then, on Senator Biden. Half the time, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The other half, he’s going against Obama’s stated policies. Oh, and, let’s talk about Obama’s belief that there are 57 states and that he will be president for “8-10 years.” What? Have you ever seen footage of what happens when Obama’s traveling teleprompter goes on the blink? It’s laughable. He is completely lost. He has no idea what to say to America if it’s not written for him in a speech. He’s a talented orator, but that’s about where it ends. Hillary knows it. You know it. We all know it. And the Keating 5 was a very big wake-up call for McCain. He learned a big lesson, which is why he is a much better candidate than Obama. Obama is on his way to getting a major hand-slapping from his relationship with corrupt Fannie Mae executives from whom he took money in exchange for refusing to regulate them, but his ego is so huge that he probably will learn nothing. That is one of the major reasons why he is completely unsuitable for the presidency. He’s a disaster.