Relative Exceptionalism

American Exceptionalism, was coined by a Frenchman.

American exceptionalism refers to the theory that the United States is qualitatively different from other countries. In this view, America's exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming "the first new nation,"[1] and developing a uniquely American ideology, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire. This observation can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville, the first writer to describe the United States as "exceptional" in 1831 and 1840.[2] Historian Gordon Wood has argued, "Our beliefs in liberty, equality, constitutionalism, and the well-being of ordinary people came out of the Revolutionary era. So too did our idea that we Americans are a special people with a special destiny to lead the world toward liberty and democracy."[3]

Well, not literally. It was actually first used by Joseph Stalin.

The specific term "American exceptionalism" was first used in 1929 by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin chastising members of the American Communist Party for believing that America was independent of the Marxist laws of history "thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions."[4]

Speaking of original intent*:

Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense.[1][5] To them, the United States is like the biblical "shining city on a hill," and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries.[6]

Since the 1960s "postnationalist" scholars on the left have rejected American exceptionalism, arguing that the United States had not broken from European history, and has retained class inequities, imperialism and war. Furthermore, they saw every nation as subscribing to some form of exceptionalism.[7]

But here is the trigger** for my lede. See *** there:

Which communities use lethal force for crowd control? Anyone with health concerns should be careful where they press their 1st amendment rights.

*mine was in the lede(pre-wiki)
[But here are more links]
** not to suggest more than civil disobedience(but Relative in the lede)

[Meanwhile, there also may be room for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. But that is problematic, in that I suggest a choice. Or rather politics might make it. The idea is not that dangerous, but putting any parameters on it, is what would make it a deal breaker. If it could be the GOTV for 2012, it might make for good dialogue for the Republic.

Follow-up: Tragedy or not[! Still Life with Romney.]

The one thing?

[Right Columns Being Updated]

Well...
it was a chart that demonstrates the effects on GNP for various stimulative choices.

Translation:
Tax Cuts Bad
Federal Spending Good.
This of course is overly simplified, and relative to the position on the (Laffer) bell curve for tax rates.
Permanent tax cuts do not get even get half their money's worth of stimulative effect, while all categories under federal spending get well more than their buck's bang.

Speaking of "Killing two birds with one stone"...
Rachel Maddow [*] addresses the issue of Wisconsin and why Democrats exist(economic populism).
(Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll)

[Navigation aid: see bold link(s)]
[UPDATE 1-22-11 Keith and Rachel, D-part meant of Corrections and Stephanie Miller]
[Bottom Line? Democrats can stand strong and the American people will support them, and standing with the unions of Wisconsin and collective bargaining will be what the average American supports, the lopsided money and media to the contrary.]
[Potential follow-up: No to Violence, No to Prank News: But seriously.]
[*] my apologies the bold Rachel Maddow link has been corrected
[further Huckabee, Ed Schultz, Norman Goldman**, and Reverse Re-Verses.]
** must add show link for Norman

In Balance

In a recent conversation with a rather critical* or independent Democrat(i.e. moderate or typical American) the issue of why the Democrats might lose in the mid-term elections came up. I don't think he used the word populism, but he did note that something should be done about jobs, or rather outsourcing/imports and addressing it dramatically with some sort of tariff. The discussion revolved around doing something, even if it was not the effective thing; it would be what the people want and it would show that the Democrats were doing something. One of the tangents took off on the Arizona immigration laws, as an example of the states doing something because the federal government wasn't. And fighting them in court was wrong, because it went against what the people wanted. i.e. do something about China and imports because it looked right, not necessarily that it would be most effective.

Needless to say the conversation did not go exactly like this, but this is possibly clearer than my usual meandering.**

*bordering on cynical
** this is not mine, nor meandering
(The American Prospect*** magazine: "Forget Populism")
(The New Yorker Online: "Risk and Robustness")
[With proper perspectivism, pragmatism and incrementalism, we could balance nature with our values, or make our values work.]
[***8-12-10 revised only to note magazine(also corrected) was in my mailbox after our discussion, New Yorker Online, was view prior to, but discussed and Meet the Press was found later.]
[update Taleb Label and The New Yorker link.]