What led different countries to the idea of ​​the exclusivity of the nation KXan 36 Daily News

Do the French consider themselves an exclusive nation entitled to some privileged role in the world? Ask this question in Paris or Lyon, and I'm sure most French people will answer no. Which is understandable. In a country that more than 200 years ago proclaimed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen the principle of equality of all people, freedom of the individual, speech and conscience, such a reaction is quite natural.

Especially since the country, two decades after the French Revolution, received a historical inoculation against a disease called "national superiority." And did it, presumably, without even thinking about it, Napoleon Bonaparte.

He just believed in the "higher destiny" of France, and his plans provided for a total reorganization, if not of the whole world, then at least of Europe. The first consul, and then the self-proclaimed emperor Napoleon, in order to implement his plans, involved millions of citizens who believed him in an endless series of military campaigns. The proclaimed goal was the liberation of the European peoples from the tyrants and despots who oppressed them, the creation of a space of "reason, light and progress."

Napoleon was not the first and, alas, not the last politician who presented his own ambitions as the will of the nation.

Of course, Napoleon was cunning, - Jacques Sapir, professor at the Paris Higher School of Social Sciences, shares his thoughts. - Capturing European countries one after another, he pursued, first of all, his own interests, which, in his deep conviction, coincided with the interests of France. By the way, in the history of the world he is far from the first person and, alas, not the last one, who presented his own ambitions as the will of this or that nation. As for the population of the countries that he promised to benefit, they quickly figured out what was what. In Spain, the peasants at first greeted the Napoleonic guards with bread and wine, but then they took up arms. Having captured part of Poland, which at that time belonged to the Russian Empire, he did not free the serfs, although he had previously promised to do so.

The campaign against Moscow was the beginning of the collapse for Bonaparte. In France, if they want to talk about a complete failure, they say "it was Berezino" ...

Jacques Sapir: Then the color of the nation perished, many hundreds of thousands of French perished on the battlefields. The emperor himself spent the last years of his life in exile. And the result? deplorable. That lesson is still alive in the historical memory of the nation. And yet, if we talk about a certain exclusivity, then I would most likely focus on the role of the Great French Revolution, which changed the mentality of the nation. The French see their specificity in universal ideals, which have left an imprint on both the people and the political elites of the country. This was once said by General de Gaulle, who believed that the greatness of France in the world is directly related to its support for the freedom of other peoples, which, however, did not prevent it from remaining a colonial power until the 60s of the last century.

There is another form of exclusivity, the one that led to Nazism and collapse in Germany, militarism in Japan, and the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The United States, which has assumed the role of a nation that stands above others, is responsible for the tragedies of Vietnam and Iraq.

Jacques Sapir: This is true. It is necessary to understand where the ambitious swing of America came from. Let's not forget that this country was founded by settlers who sailed to the shores of America on the Mayflower ship in 1620. Who were they? Protestant sectarians persecuted at home for their radical views. It was they who stood at the origins of "messionism", sent down from above by the destiny of the United States to rule the world, putting things in order in it. American order. The one that in fact is primarily beneficial to overseas elites. As for France, according to the established tradition, it is inclined to give lessons to other countries. Take the UN Charter, which was developed by a team led by the Frenchman René Cassin. It lays down universal principles, but it doesn't say that you have to fight to put them into practice.

- The position of France in the Syrian case suggests the opposite. Paris intended to punish Damascus.

Jacques Sapir: There is the logic of the nation, and there is the logic of the government. In this case, they did not match, as evidenced by public opinion polls. The vast majority of the French were against the military scenario. Part of the socialists, along with François Hollande, took positions based on a moral approach to politics. This does not mean that, while engaging in politics, one must discard morality. However, politics is one thing, and morality is another. To confuse these concepts, and even more so to interchange them, is an extremely dangerous business.

Help "RG"

In his State of the Union address on September 10, 2013, US President Barack Obama stated: "For almost seven decades, the United States has been a pillar of international security. This means more than making international treaties. It means bringing them into force. The burden of leadership is often heavy. But the world is a better place because we bear this burden... Our ideals and principles, our security is threatened in Syria, as well as our leadership in a world in which we try to ensure that the most dangerous weapons are never used.. "America is not the policeman of the world. There are many terrible things happening in the world, and it is not in our power to correct all the mistakes. But if we can make a modest effort and take little risk to save children from gassing, and at the same time protect our children for a long time "I think we need to act. That's what makes America different. That's what makes us exceptional..."

With humility but determination, we will always stand up for this truth."

Prepared by Anna Fedyakina

Japan is, perhaps, one of the most striking examples of what sad consequences can lead to confidence in their own exclusivity, "special role" and other "messianic promises."

Having begun active industrialization and having quite effectively adopted Western technologies and many customs, Japan began to develop rapidly economically from the end of the 19th century. However, soon such Japanese qualities as perseverance, diligence, commitment to the team and devotion to the state turned out to be, although not without some resistance, directed to a destructive and predatory plane. The principles of being chosen by God and of one's own "special role" resulted in wars with China and Russia. And the successes in these conflicts further whetted the appetites of the aggressive forces that at that time were in power in the Land of the Rising Sun.

As a result, in the 1930s, pro-fascist and militaristic parties put forward the idea of ​​creating a Greater Japan. The idea of ​​"Asia for Asians" was put forward, and the goal of "liberating the Asian peoples from Western colonialism", primarily British and French, was proclaimed. True, in this case, the Japanese assigned a special, leading role to themselves, as a "special nation." As a result, it was precisely those who were promised "peace, prosperity and well-being" who were subjected to Japanese enslavement. The whole of Korea has turned into a colony, China has been dismembered and occupied, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Burma and other countries have been conquered. It was planned to create a puppet and subordinate Far Eastern Republic on the territory of the former USSR, which was supposed to stretch right up to the Urals, but the defeat of the Nazi troops at Stalingrad forced Japan to moderate its appetites. And in the Asia-Pacific region, Japan clashed with the United States and the forces of the allies in the anti-Hitler coalition.

Asian countries still remember the crimes of the Japanese military very well.

Further joint strikes by the Soviet army in Manchuria and US troops in the Pacific led to the complete collapse of Japan in this war. The country was occupied by the United States. And Japan continues to feel the consequences of its experiments with a "special role" to this day. The constitution forbids the Land of the Rising Sun from sending its troops abroad. The Japanese themselves constantly recall what the adventure with "God's chosen people" turned into for them. On the other hand, the energy of the Japanese, channeled into a constructive channel, produced positive results and gave rise to an "economic miracle."

In the history of Poland, the theory of its own exclusivity and the perception of its state as a superpower led to the most bloody and humiliating events for the Poles.

An excerpt from the memoirs of a former Russian officer who lived in Poland on the eve of the outbreak of World War II ("Sentry" N 246 (December 5, 1939): "Both the press, and the authorities, and ordinary people seriously discussed the issue of the complete defeat of Germany. Here a widespread opinion: “The Germans’ regime is cracking, a revolution is on the nose, hunger, thousands of German deserters are fleeing to Poland; there were“ eyewitnesses ”who saw“ with their own eyes ”these thousands of German officers and soldiers crossing the German-Polish border. One has only to strike the Polish army simultaneously to East Prussia and Berlin, as soon as everything flies in. Danzig will be occupied in a few hours, in a week our cavalry will water their horses in the ancient Polish Krolevets (Königsberg), and in two weeks we will be under the walls of Berlin. Of course, the war will end in 2-3 weeks, if the French and the British do not deceive, but if they do not come out this time, then we will manage without them.Under the threat of a terrible revolution, the Germans will be forced to capitulate and Poland will play a huge historical role, restoring the situation that it was before the 17th century, when our kings gave ducal titles from their own hands to the Teutonic margraves. The Polish historian and journalist Piotr Skwiechinsky told RG about when and why the theory of its exclusivity and superiority over other peoples appeared in Poland:

The Poles soared so high in their belief in their own exclusivity that this fall was very hard.

Petr Skvechinsky: It started in the 16th and 17th centuries. Then the Polish gentry had a kind of ideology - Sarmatism - which implied that the Polish gentry descended from the Sarmatians, an ancient steppe people known from Greek and Roman ethnography. Initially, the nobility was considered the descendants of the Sarmatians, and the common people - the Slavs. Then this idea of ​​exclusivity became general. And at that time it had some grounds - the Commonwealth was really quite powerful then, besides, there was a kind of democracy there - the gentry chose their own king. And it was the only such state in Europe in which absolutism prevailed. The Poles experienced the subsequent divisions of their country so hard, also because it seemed to them that they could not be put on the same level as the Czechs or Slovaks. Many peoples did not have independence in that period, but not all of them were before this such a powerful state. In addition, they soared so high in their belief in their own exclusivity that this fall was very hard. By the way, it was this consciousness of their own exclusivity that led the Poles to believe that they had a certain mission, that their suffering had some meaning. For example, that Poland is protecting Western Europe from Russian claims. The great Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz in his poem "The Redoubt of the Ordon" wrote, addressing the tsar, in particular, the following lines: "When your bronze frightens the Turks beyond the Balkans, when the Paris embassy licks your feet, Warsaw alone opposes your strength, raises its hand against you and rips off the crown.

- And what did this lead the Poles to?

Petr Skvechinsky: Poland had too much confidence in its own strength. In the 1930s, both the Polish government and a large part of the Polish people believed that Poland was a superpower. On the eve of 1939, the belief was widespread that if there was a war with Germany, then victory would be for the Poles. "It is clear that the French, of course, will help" - so they thought then in Poland. There was a rather large army here for this part of Europe, it was quickly modernized, but compared to Germany, this, of course, was not enough. And when in 1939 Poland was defeated in the war with Germany, it plunged the Poles into a real shock.

Could Poland have avoided defeat in 1939?

Petr Skvechinsky: If in 1938 - a year before the start of the Polish campaign of the Wehrmacht, when Europe was on the brink of war for the first time - Poland had decided to help Czechoslovakia, things might have turned out differently. The Czech army was quite modern, equipped, among other things, with armored weapons and heavy artillery, the Czechs had strong fortifications in the Sudetenland, and the borders in 1939 passed in such a way that Silesia was between Poland and the Czech Republic, that is, for Germany these were very unfavorable conditions to start a war. It would be a completely different war.

By the way

According to Skwiechinsky, after the defeat in 1939, the Poles felt extremely humiliated - there was a superpower, and within 10 days nothing was left of this superpower. The decision to launch an anti-Hitler uprising in Warsaw in 1944 was dictated not only by the political desire to take the initiative in their own hands and prevent the imposition of communism on Poland. And not only a completely just desire for revenge - after all, the German occupation was monstrous. Among other things, this was an attempt by the Poles to accomplish a great feat in order to save face.

In the last elections to the Bundestag, parties based on nationalism and the exclusiveness of one nation won only about one and a half percent of the vote. Compared to other European countries, such as Holland, Austria, Greece and even Sweden, where racist and chauvinistic sentiments are unusually popular, in Germany everything is calm about this. Not least because the Germans have learned from their history.

Now dozens of times more people take to the streets against neo-Nazi demonstrations. It would never occur to young people to talk about the fact that Germany occupies some kind of exceptional position on the world stage. This is not accepted. What happened to the country? After all, once the idea of ​​the exclusivity of the Aryan nation took possession of the minds of the German people, leading to the biggest catastrophe in the history of human civilization.

According to Peter Grottian, professor of political science at the Free University of Berlin, in order for the thesis about the supposedly superior position of one or another nation to lead to negative consequences, several socio-historical conditions are necessary. Those were formed at the very beginning of the 20th century in Germany.

Then this powerful industrial nation considered itself disadvantaged in comparison with England and France. After all, these neighboring states possessed vast colonial territories, in many respects exceeding in area the European metropolises themselves. Having conquered a couple of insignificant African countries, Germany was still essentially left with nothing, and this infringed on the self-consciousness of the new imperialist giant.

Germany paid 100 thousand tons of gold as a reparation following the results of the First World War alone. Germany transferred the last tranche in 2010

Therefore, during the time of the last Kaiser Wilhelm II, the idea spread in Germany that "the people of poets and philosophers" should take the worthy position in world history that they rightfully deserve. Injured pride found its way out in a new and convenient military doctrine. The unreleased steam of a potential conqueror embodied in the First World War on the territory of the European continent, which led to colossal casualties, the impoverishment of the people and the decline of the spirit of the nation instead of strengthening it.

In the early 1930s, Hitler won elections to the Reichstag, forcibly eliminating some of his serious opponents. Immediately after this, the idea of ​​the exclusivity of the German nation, honed by his colleague Joseph Goebbels, captured the minds of the Germans. Everything "non-Aryan" has become unfashionable and even kind of unnatural. The Germans suddenly became convinced that it was they who had to take over the world and prove to everyone the regularity of the role of their nation as a historical leader. This conviction has taken on a manic character. Unsatisfied complexes from the defeat in the First World War, the arrogant sense of superiority of the "Aryan race" and the lack of experience in democratic government, according to Professor Grottian, led to the spread of chauvinistic, racist and anti-Semitic sentiments in the country. And from them to the idea of ​​the second aggressive campaign of the "great nation", which was supposed to "get what it is rightfully entitled to," there was only one step.

In the late 1930s, the thesis of the exclusivity of the Aryan race acquired formal confirmation in the summary of a conference in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee, which officially blessed the "Aryans" to persecute Jews, as well as the Sinti and Roma peoples (in the vernacular of the gypsies). Later, Nazi Germany attacked Poland, and then the USSR. The beginning of a bloody war captured the whole of Europe - from Greece to England, bringing enormous suffering to millions of people. Hitler's war machine cold-bloodedly destroyed millions of non-Aryans and opponents of the regime in specially created concentration camps, which surpassed in their sophisticated meanness, scale and cruelty all hitherto known methods of mass extermination of people.

Professor Grottian believes that the terrible consequences of inflated national pride led, firstly, to the fact that the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bhis role in history did not correspond to the position and position of Germany in the then political landscape. Now Germany, rightfully possessing a high status, at the same time remains one of the most influential countries in the EU, in which all problems are solved democratically. In addition, all the leading parties and the government of the country have a sharply negative attitude towards Germany's participation in military conflicts.

Candidate of Historical Sciences, Americanist, columnist for Forbes, The National Interest and Russia in Global Affairs magazines, head of the scientific and analytical portal American Studies

Annotation. The author sets himself the task of tracing the main stages in the formation of the ideas of American exceptionalism, as well as identifying its individual components and mechanisms for implementation. The object of this study is American exceptionalism, which acts as an ideological pillar in the context of the implementation of foreign policy. The subject of the research is the trends in the formation, evolution and technologies of functional support for the implementation of the ideas of American exceptionalism. The study also analyzed the basic concepts and elements of exclusivity, taking into account changes in US domestic and foreign policy. The study used analytical and general scientific methods. So, for a clear understanding of the historical trends that contributed to the formation of the idea of ​​exclusivity, a systematic and comparative analysis was used. In turn, a legal approach is necessary to study a large array of legal documents. And, of course, the study required the use of the structural-functional method to analyze and predict the political processes taking place in America under the influence of the exclusivity factor.

The concept of exclusivity is universal and goes back to ancient times. Even the Persians, Greeks, Romans built great empires based on the concept of the special mission of their peoples. From that time until today, various peoples of the world consider themselves exceptional. However, this exclusivity is manifested through such subjective indicators as a special history, belonging to a certain religious group, the presence of a large state, military power, etc. However, American exceptionalism is a completely different ideological concept. Back in 1630, thousands of Puritans, led by John Winthrop, arrived on the ship Arabella to the shores of the Massachusetts Bay colony. Winthrop, as governor of the new colony, announced the beginning of a "sermon at sea" to unite the first settlers to build "God's city on the hills." After building the city of Boston, the settlers of Massachusetts lived according to the laws of the Bible, and their leaders were the only ones in all of America who did not attend the annual meetings in London. Many American historians believe that it was with the "sermon at sea" that the birth of American exceptionalism began. The main feature of the exclusivity of the early period was the belief of the settlers that America is not just a land, but a destiny.

The constant repetition and suggestion that America has a mission hinders attempts to create any alternative vision. Like any paradigm, the idea of ​​exclusivity keeps its supporters captive to the main line of argument, causing them to ignore and underestimate all evidence that contradicts the main concept. However, despite the fact that the idea of ​​exclusivity dominates American society, it is not the only doctrine. There is also a religion-based belief focused on the spiritual role of faith in society, and an idea focused on the purpose of the republican state in the world. The political mission that is of most interest to the US was justified on entirely different grounds: sometimes by religious ideas, but most often by scientific, philosophical conviction, or political analysis. Moreover, in cases where religious and non-religious beliefs about mission are mixed, non-religious ideas are most often the driving force. At the same time, the religious ideas that influenced the mission were not always fundamental. As a rule, they followed what in America is called "liberal theology", which seeks to bring religion into line with existing philosophical scientific doctrines.

Based on these features, the historical interpretation of the idea of ​​exclusivity has moved into political debate. Opponents of exceptionalism believe that they can discredit the idea of ​​a great mission with the help of American beliefs about their exceptionalism. They set themselves the task of developing modern thinking, free from the conceptual framework of the idea of ​​messianism. Viewing the American political tradition as a constant offering of a number of different models of missions, one can imagine missions in a more just or less ideologically influenced light. The Puritans were the children of the Reformation. In its wake, theology was marked by the innovation of the historical dimension of Christianity. God acts in time, directing history and acting through a special intermediary. This idea was most fully developed and remained popular for a long period of time, having the greatest influence on those who settled in New England. For the Puritans, the very idea of ​​being chosen as an intermediary was more than just an opportunity; it was a life experience formed during their mass migrations. Just as God worked through the Jews in biblical times, he is now working through the Puritans in an era when the new millennium was so close at hand. There was a situation in which God's work was not to delegate to the settlers the task of contributing to a greater cause. This goal was not some kind of political plan for the state, it was associated with the idea of ​​"sacred history" associated with the divine plan.

The direct connection between religion, the destiny of the nation, and the basis of the republican state is a theme that only became noticeable much later, in the period leading up to the revolution itself. In a way similar to how some in Europe proclaimed the doctrine of the divine right of kings, the Americans began to develop what was to be considered the doctrine of the divine right of the republics. From reading the Old Testament, especially the book of Samuel, it has been widely inferred that God approved of a republican state with a monarchy resulting from the actions of rebellious and sinful people. This religious theme, which is part of the American religious-political mission, became the focus of attention in the American Revolution. The leaders of the revolution and the founders of the era were mainly focused on the political arena. It is worth emphasizing that it was during the era of the founding of the United States, from 1780 to 1795, that not religion itself, but its sacred history, had a small impact, perhaps the smallest in the history of America.

The mention of the mission by Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson comes from the philosophy of the Enlightenment, which since the time of Bacon and Descartes spoke of the great project of transforming the world by introducing a new scientific approach. According to the work of Payne and Jefferson, the Americans were the first to use this method in the political realm, using scientific thought to act as a guide in the construction of a new kind of political order. Meanwhile, the mission outlined in Madison's The Federalist falls into the realm of political rather than sacred history. It is to ensure freedom within a republican form of government that can serve as an example for the whole world. At the same time, it was noted in the work that there should not be a conflict between the goal of the founders and the goal of religious thinkers. Indeed, the American historian Melvin Stokes in his work "History of the United States" writes that the foundation of the struggle for independence was the synthesis of politics and religion. The American Revolution did not pursue the goal of replacing one power with another, but was aimed at creating a social people's state. At the heart of this revolution was an unshakable belief in an exceptional mission, determined by God himself.

In this regard, the English writer Gilbert Chesterton noted that "America is the only country in history based on faith." Indeed, the phrases “self-evident truth”, “Creator”, “we swear”, etc. are often repeated in the Declaration of Independence. The victory in the war further strengthened the belief of Americans in their exceptionalism, which was most clearly manifested throughout the 19th century. French philosopher and writer Alexis de Tocqueville from 1827 to 1829. traveled to different states and talked with politicians, writers and ordinary peasants, trying to find out the common features and differences of the American nation. He was struck by the high level of social mobility of the population, religiosity, simplicity and the peculiar disposition of the Americans. Later, in his book Democracy in America, de Tocqueville noted that American society is truly exceptional, due to its strict Puritan origin, commercial habits, attitudes towards art, science and religion. At the same time, it is important to note that Alexis de Tocqueville was a supporter of conservatism, and what he saw in America was so close to his spirit that it left a serious subjective and emotional imprint on further political assessments. Based on this, modern historians and political scientists carefully study and analyze his works, trying to find a scientific definition of the term exclusivity.

Throughout American history, the ideology of exceptionalism has been the driving force behind American domestic and foreign policy. During the presidency of Andrew Jackson (1829-1837), American exceptionalism was expressed in the concept of "manifest destiny", uniting different political elites with the goal of strengthening the country and its territorial expansion. From that time to the present day, this concept has been used in the development and adoption of strategic documents, doctrines, directives, etc. For example, the Monroe Doctrine declared the American continent "a zone of exclusive US interests." This doctrine refers to a political program popularized from the 1830s to the 1850s. The aim of the doctrine was to spread democracy to most of the American continent and to open up European immigration. The idea of ​​"manifest destiny" was popularized by Young America leader and Democratic Review editor-in-chief John Sullivan and historian George Bancroft. The latter led the scientific analysis of German philosophical schools. By that time, Hegel's ideas had already strongly influenced the way of thinking in Germany, and Bancroft returned to developing the American version of philosophical history. Bancroft was a supporter of the idea that in any time there is a civilization or a country that history itself gives the right to embody the next chapter of the progressive development of the spirit.

The Civil War was a great test for the American people and their belief in exceptionalism. It would seem that the division of the country and people into two camps should have finally killed the old ideological concepts. However, even during the bloody and fratricidal war, faith in exclusivity grew stronger. This was stated by then President Abraham Lincoln during the famous Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863. Being a great tactician and orator, Lincoln understood that the people needed to be reminded of their great past, of the ideas of the founding fathers, of the need for unity in difficult times. “Eight decades and seven years ago, our fathers formed a new nation on this continent, conceived in freedom. The world will hardly notice or remember for a long time what we say here, but it will not be able to forget what they did here, ”Lincoln noted.

The northerners believed that their mission was to preserve the country. In turn, the southerners considered it their exclusive duty to serve their ideals. One way or another, both sides did not lose faith in their messianism in relation to the country and to each other. The victory of the northerners was interpreted as the "will of the Creator", who sent America and the American people a test of stamina and faith. In the future, the American state faced the question of overcoming the psychological and socio-economic crisis. In this regard, the concept of "isolationism" came along with the idea of ​​"national restraint and labor." In other words, exceptionalism was nationalized and forced the American people back to their roots. Any kind of work aimed at strengthening the American state was considered charitable. Not surprisingly, the historian David Harell, in his monograph A History of the American People, writes that the era of "great industry" began in America after the Civil War.

The first attempt to export American ideas was made by President Woodrow Wilson after the First World War. His famous "14 points", which were supposed to outline the contours of the post-war world order, turned out to be too liberal for conservative Europe. However, it is important to note that the idea of ​​creating the League of Nations, which became the first universal international governmental organization, was put forward by the American leader. After World War II, America became the main carrier of the ideas of democracy and capitalism, and was opposed by the USSR as the carrier of an alternative communist and socialist ideology. At that time, the principle of "American exceptionalism" consisted in a special "mission" - preventing the development of communist ideology. It was during the Cold War that high-ranking American politicians increasingly spoke of US exceptionalism and great mission. At the same time, it is important to note that the belief in exclusivity was unshakable among representatives of various social and political movements.

In America as a Civilization, a 1957 book by the American journalist Max Lerner, exceptionalism is often mentioned. There is one exception, however, when American Communist Party leader Jay Lovestone spoke out about America. Thus, Lovestone used exceptionalism, perhaps for the first time in the 1920s, describing America's path to the coming revolution, which, compared with other countries, will be slightly delayed due to capitalism established in the states. His speech excited the public, causing a flurry of articles about exclusivity. This position of Lovestone did not go unnoticed by the chairman of the Comintern, Joseph Stalin, who expelled the American from the party for committing a serious sin against communism - deviationism. American exceptionalism was seriously talked about around the world. For example, the Hungarian politician Luis Kossuth, who visited the United States in 1952, noted that America's destiny is to become the cornerstone of freedom in the global world. Meanwhile, American political elites used the idea of ​​exclusivity as an explanation for the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Harry Truman repeatedly made statements about the importance of the American mission in the fight against communism and believed that the United States should always and under any circumstances help its allies. This position later became known as the "Truman Testament", which was followed by all American presidents from Eisenhower to Obama.

But, if Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson used the factor of exclusivity selectively, then the Republican Nixon officially declared American exceptionalism as an objective necessity for the entire free world. In his speech of November 3, 1969, he noted: “Two hundred years ago our nation was weak and poor. Today we have become the strongest and richest country in the world. And the wheel of fate has turned in such a way that any hope of the peoples of the Earth for peace and freedom will be determined by whether the American people have sufficient moral fortitude and courage to cope with the responsible task of leading the free world. Thus, for the first time at the official level, it was stated that the fate of the peoples of the world depends on "the condition and well-being of America." As his own ratings plummeted and the public demanded an end to the Vietnam War, Nixon localized the idea of ​​exceptionalism, noting that "American exceptionalism" is that the government must first respect the decisions and demands of American citizens.

Another prominent Republican president, Ronald Reagan, unlike his predecessors, returned to the concept of "manifest destiny." Reagan believed that there is sin and evil in the world, and the United States is ordered by Scripture and Jesus Christ to resist this with all its might. The collapse of the USSR, which marked the ideological victory of the United States, strengthened the faith of the American nation in its exclusivity. At the same time, with the disappearance of the external enemy, the interpretation of the whole concept also changed. Reagan returned to John Winthrop's ideas of "God's city on earth." So, in his farewell speech, he said: “All my political life I have been talking about an outstanding city, but I am not entirely sure that I conveyed exactly what I saw. In my mind it was a proud city, built on rocks that are stronger than the oceans, a city exposed to the wind, blessed by God, and full of different people living in harmony and peace. Communism was defeated, and America found a new mission, which was to export democracy around the world. Democratic President Bill Clinton has moved away from classic interpretations of exclusivity and highlighted the mission of defending and strengthening democracy. The ideological foundation of a new type of export exclusivity was the ideas of Woodrow Wilson, who believed that governments, not peoples, declare wars. Clinton, like Wilson, was convinced that democracy was the best preventive measure against war (democracies don't go to war with each other).

On the other hand, exclusivity has become a tool in the hands of certain powerful elites pursuing their own interests: the military lobby, ethnic lobbies, oil and other business lobbies (Corporate America), etc. In the 21st century, the availability of information to the masses forces high-ranking officials to make politics more transparent. In a developed civil society, many questions arise regarding very specific political issues. For example, what is the need for huge expenses for maintaining a large number of military bases in the Middle East? Previously, this could be explained by the pragmatic factor of Middle Eastern oil and the fight against terrorism. Today, however, Middle Eastern oil is not a priority, and the fight against terrorism must be led by the nations that the United States has spent billions of dollars to train and equip. In such a situation, when rational explanations are impossible, the American elites are returning to the ideology of American exceptionalism, messianism and clear destiny. Thus, this analysis shows that the idea of ​​exclusivity, which arose on a religious basis already by 1630, has undergone a significant evolution. Already from the Jackson period, a scientific rethinking of exclusivity begins, which becomes more of a political ideology with the preservation of individual religious elements. These elements are gradually erased during the Cold War, when political tasks are put in the foreground. At the same time, the religious aspect of messianism is still preserved as an important product for internal consumption, without which external implementation will be much more complicated.

LITERATURE.

1. Bremer, Francis. John Winthrop: America's Forgotten Founder. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 49.

2 Handy, Robert. Protestant theological tensions and political styles in the progressive period. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 61.

3. Carpenter, John B. New England's Puritan Century: Three Generations of Continuity in the City upon a Hill. Fides Et Historia, 2003, p.57.

4. Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Enlarged edition. Originally published 1967. Harvard University Press, 1992, p. 85.

5. White, Morton. Philosophy, The Federalist, and the Constitution. New York Pess: 1987, p. 43.

6Stokes, Melvyn. The State of U.S. history. Harvard University Press, 1987, p. 87.

7 Chesterton, Gilbert. What I Saw in America. The Collected Works of G. K. Chesterton, Vol. 21. Ignatius Press, 1997, p. 52.

8. Primary Documents in American History. Declaration of Independence. The Library of Congress.

9. Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Trans. and eds., Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop, University of Chicago Press, 2000, p.105.

10. Handlin, Lillian. George Bancroft: The Intellectual as Democrat. New York Press, 1984, p. 38.

11 Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address in November 19, 186. The Library of Congress.

12 Harrell, David. Unto a Good Land: A History of the American People. Rowman & Littlefield, 2005, p. 61.

13. Lerner, Max. America as a Civilization. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1975, p. 64.

14. Freeland, Richard M. The Truman Doctrine and the Origins of McCarthyism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970, p. 53.

15. Richard Nixon. Address to the Nation on the War in Vietnam. November 3, 1969. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.

16. Ronald Reagan. Farewell Address to the Nation, January 11, 1989, The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation.

17. Hyland, William. Clinton's World: Remaking American Foreign Policy. Regnery Publishing, 2004, p. 36.

Related materials

Speaking at the West Point military academy, Obama won applause from local cadets by declaring that "American exceptionalism" justifies everything Washington does.

If Washington violates American or international laws by torturing "suspects", not complying with the provisions of the Nuremberg Agreement, or by invading countries that did not show aggression towards the United States or its allies, then "exclusivity" acts as a priest, blessing and releasing Washington from all sins against laws and international norms. Washington's crimes have become the new legal norm. Here are Obama's own words:

“I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to defy international law, but our willingness to uphold it by action.”

Of course "action"! Already in the 21st century, "American exceptionalism" has destroyed seven countries, in whole or in part. Millions of people were killed, maimed, left homeless. And all these criminal acts testify to Washington's vision of international laws and norms.

"American exceptionalism" also means that US presidents can slander and misrepresent whoever they choose to demonize. Here is what Obama says about the governments of Putin and Assad:

“Russian aggression against the countries of the former Soviet Union threatens the foundations of Europe… Russia’s recent actions in Ukraine are reminiscent of the days when Soviet tanks roamed Eastern Europe.”

And Assad, according to Obama, is "a dictator who bombs and starves his own people."

At least one of the cadets sitting in the hall wondered why the Syrians support Assad, if he is such a cruel dictator who bombards and starves his population? Why don't they support the American-funded 'liberation forces', a mix of visiting jihadists and al-Qaeda fighters who are fighting what they consider to be an 'too secular' Assad government?

The mention of the time when Soviet tanks roamed Europe is a reference to the "revolutions" in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968), when the leaders of the Hungarian and Czech communists tried to gain independence from Moscow. It is highly doubtful that Washington's response to those countries that would try to leave NATO would have been different. A few months ago, in response to political talk in Germany and England about a possible exit from the European Union, the answer was received that the exit of these countries from the EU is contrary to Washington's interests.

Obama used the image of Soviet tanks to paint a treacherous Russia with its Soviet threat, misrepresent the Russian leadership's response to Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia, and portray the Crimean vote in favor of joining Russia as an "invasion and annexation of the territory of the peninsula." This lie is still presented as the only truth in the American media and the official propaganda of Washington.

This speech by Obama, perhaps, can be called the most hypocritical speech of a Washington politician. After all the crimes committed by the American government, his angry rhetoric directed at others sounds like complete absurdity. Particularly touching are Obama's words that "it is unacceptable to kill people because of their political opinions."

Another distinctive feature of this speech is the ease with which Obama deprives the Constitution of its true meaning. He said, referring to the prisoners of Guantanamo brought to America, that "American values ​​and traditions do not allow the possibility of keeping people within our borders for an indefinite period of time."

No Obama! The American Constitution forbids the American government from detaining American citizens indefinitely anywhere in the world, and especially within its borders.

By allowing the detention and killing of American citizens without due process of law, Obama has broken his oath of office and should be impeached. Recently, the House of Representatives approved the impeachment of President Bill Clinton (who was saved by the Senate) for lying about his love affairs with a White House intern. How times have changed! Today, a president who has broken his oath to defend the Constitution from internal and external enemies is given the green light.

The constitution has lost the power to protect citizens from the arbitrariness of the authorities. And without the Constitution, the country ceases to exist, it becomes a tyranny, directed both at people inside the country and abroad. Today the United States is a tyranny under the cloak and mask of "freedom and democracy".

By the end of his speech, Obama comes to the following conclusion:

"America must always lead the world stage... And the military will always be the backbone of our leadership."

In other words, Washington does not need diplomacy. Washington uses coercion. His favorite threat goes something like this: "Do as we say, or we will drop bombs and plunge your country into the Stone Age." Obama's speech is nothing less than an excuse for Washington's crimes on the grounds that he is acting in the interests of exceptional Americans, whose exceptionalism puts them, and therefore their government, above the law and international law.

That is, following the logic of Obama, the Americans are the new master race. Those they consider below themselves can be bombed, occupied and punished with sanctions.

Obama's West Point speech is a declaration of American superiority over the rest of the world and Washington's intention to continue to assert that superiority without allowing other powers to rise.

However, even these haughty statements seem insufficient to the Washington Post editors. They blame Obama for his words about restrictions that allow the use of military force only in the event of a direct threat to the United States.

America's "liberal media" rages that Obama's notion of American exceptionalism is not broad enough to serve Washington's needs. Obama, writes The Washington Post, ties America's hands and "creates insufficient comfort" for those militarists who would like to seek the overthrow of the governments of Syria, Iran, Russia and China.

The world should pay attention to the fact that the most aggressive US president in history is unanimously considered by the American media to be spineless. The media are fueling wars, and the American media, in alliance with its military complex, are pushing the world towards the final war.

It turns out that an “exceptional nation” has reappeared on our planet. Only this time - these are not Germans, and such words are not heard from Hitler - he has long ingloriously decayed in the ground. Now these ominous words are spoken by a woman. American. Former first lady, former secretary of state, and current presidential candidate.

In her speech in Ohio on August 31, Hillary Clinton, in addition to actually quoting the Fuhrer about the "exceptional nation" (only this time in relation to the Americans), brought to light Lincoln's quotes (who really fought for certain principles, in particular, against slavery), Robert Kennedy (the younger brother of the assassinated president, who was also assassinated) and Reagan (unlike the others, a primitive Cold War hawk).

Thus, according to Lincoln, the United States is "the last and best hope of the Earth", according to Kennedy - "a great, not selfish, sympathetic country", and according to Reagan - "a shining city on a hill".

And this is said at a time when blood flows continue to flow in the war unleashed by the United States in Syria. When no one across the ocean sympathizes with the residents of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, who are being killed by the junta that came to power with the help of the United States. When Libya, tormented by the US-NATO military, continues to bleed.

And here we can recall another, earlier quote from Mrs. Clinton: a short word "Wow!" It escaped from her lips after she saw on her mobile phone a terrible reprisal against the leader of the Libyan Jamahiriya, Muammar al-Gaddafi.

By the way, about the last one. Exactly 47 years ago, on September 1, 1969, a young Gaddafi officer, together with a group of like-minded people, carried out the bloodless Al-Fateh revolution. Then his opponents will call it a "coup", but in fact - it was just a revolution, because it was followed by progress. From a backward monarchy, which until that moment could not escape from the tenacious clutches of Western countries and had only formal independence, Libya turned into a socially oriented state. Truly independent, able to expel foreign troops from its territory. Colonel Gaddafi was never forgiven for this ... The Libyan Jamahiriya was subjected to aggression, first in 1986, and then - on a much larger scale - in 2011. The latter turned out to be fatal for the country. In the Libyan Jamahiriya, with the support of the US-NATO from the air and from the ground, the rebellion was defeated ...

And it was Hillary Clinton who did everything to ensure that the attack on Libya was carried out.

Unfortunately, the policy of coup d'état remains in the first place for the "exceptional nation", for the "shining city" and the "sympathetic country".

This devastating wave of pro-American coups is now threatening to overwhelm Latin America.

On August 31, President Dilma Rousseff was finally dismissed in Brazil. Previously, she was temporarily suspended for six months, allegedly to investigate corruption. It was not possible to “dig up” any compromising evidence on Rousseff, nevertheless, 61 senators voted for impeachment (20 people voted against).

Rousseff herself called the incident a parliamentary coup. Supporters of the dismissed leader went to a demonstration in her support. Unfortunately, these demonstrations ended in clashes with Rousseff's opponents. The future of the country is at stake.

American ears are literally sticking out of this coup. Brazil is an ally of Russia, one of the BRICS members. Washington, seeking to isolate Russia, immediately warmly welcomed the impeachment of the president, who dared to be friends with the main geopolitical adversary of the United States.

The creeping coup was perceived extremely negatively by other Latin American states. Thus, the president of Bolivia, who sharply condemned what happened in Brazil, recalled the ambassador from that country. Cuba issued a special statement stating: "The removal of the President, and with it the Workers' Party and other allied left political forces, without presenting any facts of corruption, is a manifestation of disrespect for the will of the people." The Venezuelan leadership decided to freeze political and diplomatic relations with Brazil. Solidarity with Dilma was also expressed by the President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa.

Now, until the next elections (which will be held in 2018), Michel Temer will head the state - the same one who acted as president while Dilma Rousseff was temporarily removed. According to the famous Wikileaks website, Temer is a US intelligence informant. Back in 2006, this gentleman was passing information to Washington about the situation in Brazil (when Dilma's ally Luis Inacio Lula da Silva was in power in the country).

There are attempts to shake up the situation in Venezuela. On September 1, in the capital of this country, Caracas, a demonstration of the “opposition” took place demanding a referendum on the resignation of President Nicolas Maduro. And although, according to the authorities, about 25 thousand people came out, the “oppositionists” insist that there were a million of them (as is familiar from our Moscow “bolotniks” with their notorious “march of millions”!) Maduro himself said that behind the actions “ opposition” stands Washington.

The desire of the United States to overthrow the politician who is the ideological heir to Hugo Chavez is understandable. Without exaggeration, the great Latin American leader, who, perhaps, became mortally ill precisely because of the actions of the American special services.

One way or another, Hillary Clinton, judging by the tone of her speeches, is preparing, in the event of her victory, not only to continue the line of Barack Obama (and his predecessors) for a violent change of power in various countries of the world, but also to toughen such a policy.

Oh yes, according to her, the Americans are “an exceptional nation”! Only Mrs. Clinton would not have ended in the same way as another lover of talking about "exclusivity"!

(French chauvinisme, by the name of the soldier N. Chauvin (Chauvin), whose grotesque patriotism became a household name; English chauvinism; German Chauvinismus; Czech sovinismus)
Jingoism - in the English version.

1. An aggressive form of nationalism.

2. Ideology and politics of extremely militant nationalism.

3. An extremely aggressive form of nationalism.

4. An extremely aggressive form of nationalism, the preaching of national exclusiveness, the policy of oppression of other peoples.

5. Extreme nationalism.

6. Extreme, fanatical nationalism bordering on racism.

7. An extreme form of nationalism, which consists in preaching the exclusivity of individual races and nations in order to justify the right to discrimination and oppression of other races.

8. An extreme form of nationalism, preaching the exclusivity of one party over others.

9. The most odious form of nationalism, proclaiming national exclusiveness, opposing the interests of one ethnic group (or superethnos) to the interests of all other ethnic groups, spreading ideas of national superiority, national enmity and hatred.

10. A policy of preaching national exclusiveness, expressing false patriotism and excessive national pride.

11. A policy consisting in the preaching of national exclusiveness, aimed at inciting national enmity and hatred.

12. A transformed form of national consciousness, one of the forms of heteronomy and xenophobia, hostility and even hatred towards strangers, atavistic, biologically based rejection of foreigners, heterodoxes, all bodily, color, cultural, national, linguistic differences, up to alien customs, costumes and etc. on the principle of "not like this - a stranger - a stranger - an enemy."

13. Preaching national exclusiveness, opposing the interests of one nation to the interests of all other nations, spreading national swagger, inciting national enmity and hatred.

14. A kind of nationalist policy, the content of which is the spread of hatred and enmity towards other nations and nationalities.

15. A kind of racism, which consists in preaching the exclusivity of individual races and nations in order to justify the right to discrimination and oppression of other races.

16. Various manifestations of nationalistic extremism and nationalism.

17. Reactionary preaching of national exclusiveness, aimed at inciting national enmity and hatred between peoples.

Explanations:
Chauvinism implies racial exclusivity.

The main provisions of the political ideology of Chauvinism are: assertion of the superiority of one nation over another; the spread in the mass consciousness and psychology of people of the idea of ​​the exclusive superiority of one nation over other nations and peoples, which allegedly gives the basis for the domination of this nation over others.

In foreign policy, chauvinism preaches aggression as the main form of communication with other states, which leads to the unleashing of wars, the emergence of armed conflicts between states or within multinational states. Chauvinistic policy is common in underdeveloped countries, regions in which subjects are infected with the absolutization of their national interests, sentiments that develop into nationalistic ones.

Chauvinism can have the character of mass prejudices, up to the ideology of extreme right-wing political movements. Chauvinism is especially dangerous if it becomes de facto or de jure the ideology of any ruling party or state policy (Germany in the 1930s and 1940s). Chauvinism is the weapon of the imperialist bourgeoisie and is most fully manifested in the policy of fascism.

The absence of political, legal and general culture makes chauvinists very dangerous subjects of social and political life. Therefore, the struggle against any varieties of the ideology of Chauvinism and its bearers is one of the most important tasks of a modern civilized society.