« Self-Pity Attack? | Main | Me Too, Larry »



You understand that this was not a position that the New York Times took, but a review of a book somewhat wrote?

I find it interesting in how the post you highlight cuts short the final paragraph of the review. Jim Lindgen highlights this line:

"President Obama, who has said he believes in American exceptionalism, albeit one based more on values than power, has set out to right many of the ills listed by Hodgson.

But he leaves out the last part:

"His greatest challenge may lie in how to achieve reform without undermining the openness, appetite for change, work ethic, self-reliance and can-do optimism that any immigrant to these shores, and particularly a European one, recognizes as distinctively and essentially American. To succeed over time, I suspect, Obama may need to deploy a little less tough sobriety and a little more of the redemptive lexicon of exceptionalism that has brought Americans together in their belief in Lincoln’s "last best hope of earth."


Yes, I realize it is a book review. Do you realize that when people write book reviews, they can applaud, boo, or be somewhat inbetween about their subject?

I put in the links to the original article and/or post for a reason, Greg. I would encourage people to Read the Whole
Thing, as they say.... I highlight what I find most relevant to my post. What I highlighted was the "load"... what you highlighted was NOT.


IT WAS A BOOK REVIEW!! Peg, you seem to be losing it.

"This is the idea that Godfrey Hodgson, a British author with wide experience of the United States and some of the feelings of a jilted lover about it, examines in his provocative new book, “The Myth of American Exceptionalism".

The comments to this entry are closed.