So seamless is the stupidity undergirding Neal Gabler’s jeremiad in today’s Boston Globe concerning the alleged misnomer ‘American exceptionalism,’ that it’s difficult to know where to begin. 

Not unlike most liberals, Gabler confuses the government and the American people. Indeed, the predicate of his argument is that, in contrast to President Carter’s insistence in a government “as good as the American people,” everything of significance that has been accomplished has been because the government was better than the American people.

In Gabler’s view, it’s as though the ‘government’ is some kind of convenient abstraction rather than the faithful and credible reflection of our Founding Fathers’ vision, regardless of whether it neatly comported with contemporary sentiment or fashion. Therefore, his assertion that FDR took America into WWII against conventional wisdom belies the fact that principled leadership is commonly unpopular, but often, as in the case of both 20^th century world wars, is consistent with Republic’s founding values.

The Gablers of the world seem lost in a kind of post-modernist fog, and for purely political motivations, refuse to consider that Republicans’ defense of American exceptionalism isn’t based on ideology but rather on a close reading of our founding documents, from the Declaration of Independence to the Federalist Papers to the Constitution.

Although missteps are inevitable, they enjoy—or suffer from—a bipartisanship that many, Gabler apparently included, seem to overlook. It has less to do with a candid defense of the ingenious symmetry contemplated by our founders, which members of both parties ought to champion, than an equally candid understanding that although all systems of governance are flawed, America’s is unique in its capacity for beneficence at home and abroad, and has a remarkable instinct for stern introspection and self-correction.

Inextricably intertwined with the liberals’ loathing of all things conservative is their transparently self-serving propensity to conflate it with their willful denial that, on balance, conservative policies are far more aligned with our founding principles than those of liberals. Indeed, whether it’s the individualism enshrined in our founding documents or an unapologetic acquittal of our democratic principles, along with the patriotism implicit in both, you won’t see conservatives getting squeamish when defending them.

Gabler observes that LBJ couldn’t have prosecuted the war in Vietnam without support from the American people, neglecting that the prosecution of a war must be separated from whether or not it’s justified. Despite the fact that it’s viewed as a strategic—and moral—failure, that war can, in fact, be justified. That it was, to put it generously, imperfectly prosecuted is quite another matter.

Finally, Gabler adduces the Greeks as the textbook example of those who understood the perils of hubris. Although hubris is a chestnut indiscriminately trotted out to support a contemporary allegation, an even cursory study of the Peloponnesian War indicates that neither Athens nor Sparta were immune from it. 

Although America, like every nation, has many foibles and makes ill-informed decisions, it betrays a want of intellectual generosity, and, indeed, an unwarranted level of self-criticism, to overlook the ways in which her exceptionalism—which is merely the extension of our Founding Fathers’ vision—has bettered the lives of her citizens, as well as the entire world, at times at a staggering cost.

As recent history demonstrates, cultural entitlement is the precursor to political entitlement. With notably few exceptions and in a shameful, seamless, fashion, politicians faithfully follow this model by perpetuating our economic ills with their excessive responses to otherwise manageable problems.

Liberal commentators, of course, are in the vanguard of this process and like overly attentive herd dogs nip at the heels of their charges, in this case Congressional liberals and the liberal-in-chief, President Obama. For a prime example, we turn to Bob Herbert, whose piece in today’s New York Times is prototypically ingenious in its ability to thoroughly miss the target.

Herbert laments the most recent unemployment numbers and makes the commendable first step of recognizing that those without jobs are suffering. He criticizes Mr. Obama for not pushing for another stimulus package and quotes polls showing that people believe banks and Wall Street benefited from the first stimulus. 

Thanks to the well-entrenched entitlement mentality, underwritten by the modern liberal polity, average Americans now look to the government for resolution of their private problems. Indeed, whether it’s getting a job, paying for health insurance, or finding “affordable” housing, all of which have been rightfully our own problems to solve, the government is now seen as the proper intermediary. 

Herbert’s blinkered narrative continues:

We’re running on a treadmill that is carrying us backward. Something approaching 10 million new jobs would have to be created just to get back to where we were when the recession began in December 2007.  There is nothing currently in the works to jump-start job creation on that scale.

Predictably, he recommends a “massive long-term campaign to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure,” forgetful that a significant portion of the $785 billion in the first stimulus package was supposed to go to “shovel-ready” jobs. Some of that did, in fact, trickle down to fund such jobs, but the outcome by no means met expectations. 

But, he’s absolutely correct when he writes that there is “nothing currently in the works to jump-start job creation,” which after nine months of Obama’s tenure and in the context of a Democratic-controlled Congress, is a savage criticism indeed.

What the Herberts of the world astonishingly overlook is the abundance of evidence from recent history: To wit, every time marginal taxes have been reduced, along with corporate and capital gains taxes, not only have federal receipts increased, but employment has increased and, the silent killer known as inflation has been kept in check.

But although reducing taxes creates freedom, it doesn’t feed the entitlement Leviathan, rather, it starves it and thereby inhibits political power, and that is simply unacceptable to the modern liberal.

Amid the apparently endless series of speeches and comments, on issues grand and frivolous, and informed by a nearly limitless confidence in a Midas touch that has thus far been a leaden failure, President Obama’s failure to secure Chicago for the 2016 Olympics is further evidence that his presidency is slated for mediocrity.

If political nuance were a virtue Mr. Obama would be a candidate for sainthood, since his every move on the global stage has been thoroughly scripted to comport with the world’s view that America is an over-valued stock.  Indeed, if results are in short supply, he has succeeded in undermining the American exceptionalism that legions of patriots before him sacrificed to safeguard. 

Whether it’s his Cairo speech, which set the tone for a newly chastised America in the context of college campus PC, his appearance with dictators such as Chavez, or his feckless demands for Iran to allow inspections, this president’s airy rhetoric amply compensates for a lack of substance.

He stunned our allies and brought smiles to our enemies when he capitulated to Russian demands to scrap the missile defense system for the Czech Republic and Poland, which reflected an apparent ignorance that Putin, not Medvedev is the man behind the curtain, if you will.  His much-vaunted posturing for strong sanctions will never see the light of day because Putin and the Chinese are inveterately opposed to them.

That buys Iran more time to complete their nuclear program and puts Obama in the untenable position of having to either confront Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs—he’s more likely to demand that the U.S. begin drilling in ANWR—or stand by as Israel strikes. 

Obama’s previously unwavering support for McChrystal’s troop surge has succumbed to his reprisal of McClellan paralysis compliments of his base, which sends an equivocal message to our allies in-country and strategic comfort to our enemies.

American history is replete with examples of presidents who, quite apart from innate intelligence, lacked the resolve and vision to lead our nation during perilous times.  Some brought too fine a touch to the charge of foreign affairs, letting opportunities pass unexploited, or, obtusely misread the electorate on key domestic issues, squandering precious political capital in the process.  It’s astonishing that Mr. Obama seems on a trajectory to accomplish both.

His lofty and misguided dream of landing the Olympics for Chicago is but the latest example of his adroit ability to misread the political landscape, compromising confidence in his leadership while embarrassing himself.