TEXAS SCHOOL BOARD AND AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

Last week the Texas School Board revised its State Social Science Curriculum to reflect the idea of American exceptionalism, i.e., the notion that the American people and the culture and institutions they have created are superior to those other countries and cultures. The idea of American exceptionalism, of course, is not new to American political discourse. For a long time, Americans have been socialized to believe that they are exceptional, a breed apart from the rest of the world. However, thanks to the Texas Board, this notion has now moved from popular folklore and become an element of public policy. Texas teachers will be required to teach it and publishers will be required to include it in text books. Given this new reality perhaps it is time to pause and ask what is so exceptional about America, its history, culture and political system.
What is exceptional about the history of the United States? Does its history of genocide of the Native American population and the centuries of enslavement of African people make it exceptional? How exceptional was the slaughtering of the indigenous population, the trail of tears, and the creation of concentration camps euphemistically called reservation? How exceptional was the use of slave labor to build the infrastructure of the country? And when the enslaved people won their freedom, how exceptional was it to release them without property to sustain themselves or political power for their protection?
Moreover during the era of enslavement, the virulent ideologies of white supremacy and Black inferiority were concocted to justify what was and continues to be one of the most sordid chapters in human history. These ideologies remain major currents in American culture and confound efforts to use government as a tool for creating a more just and egalitarian society. How exceptional is that?
And speaking of government, the American political system was never the exceptional democratic institution the Texas State Board imagines it to be. The Constitution of 1789 actually created a system of government designed to serve the interests of the propertied classes while minimizing the prospects for majority rule. Of the four political structures created by the Constitution--the presidency, the Senate, the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives-- only members of the House were to be chosen by popular vote, and even that vote was constrained by property qualifications established by most of the states. Senators were to be elected by state legislatures and the president was to be chosen by electors selected by rules established by state legislatures. Supreme Court judges were to be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate (but not the House). Moreover, members of the House were to be elected every two years while senators served six year staggered terms. These arrangements made the House of Representatives, the people’s chamber, a junior partner to the other three political institutions. And even though the president and senators are now chosen by popular vote, the non-democratic character of the system prescribed by the Constitution still endures because senators who represent only a small fraction of American voters can easily stifle the majority.
This is so because of the way senate seats are apportioned and the rules established by the Senate itself. Each state without regard to population size has two senators. This means that the 544,270 people of Wyoming have the same weight as the 36,892,663 Californians. For ordinary matters, a simple majority of the 100 senators is necessary to pass legislation. Thus 52 senators from the smallest 26 states with a combined 17.7 per cent of the population can impose their will on the Senate and the country. Under other circumstances, senators can filibuster to prevent senate action with sixty votes being necessary to end a filibuster. In such instances, 42 senators from the smallest 21 states with 11.4 per cent of the population can prevent the senate from acting.
Given the nature of American politics, powerful interests can and often do have their way by cultivating influence with senators representing only a small fraction of the American population. Recently we saw this at work in the struggles for reform of the health care and financial systems. For example, the House of Representatives, consistent with public opinion, passed a public option health care provision but it was quickly buried in the Senate. How exceptional is that?
Finally, the claim of American exceptionalism is rendered suspect by a host of unexceptional currents in the American political culture. How exceptional is it, for example, when “spinning” becomes a standard part of American political practice and discourse? In contemporary American politics, political actors routinely appear in the media to spin, i.e., give self-serving interpretations of events purposely designed to obscure rather than clarify matters in question. Spinning is an acceptable and accepted practice and the media dutifully reports it as such. How exceptional is that?
Only if we conceptualize exceptionalism as a continuum ranging from exceptionally commendable at one extreme and exceptionally deplorable at the other does it make sense to talk about American exceptionalism. We can then decide where America ranks along the continuum of exceptionalism. I will not attempt to pre-judge the answer to that question but I do know where I would rank the Texas State Board.