I've been eagerly following the debate sparked by Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru's truly absurd essay on American exceptionalism in the National Review. Fellow bloggers have done most of the work of de-bunking it (see Damon Linker, Conor Friedersdorf), but now it's gone into a second round, complete with responses to the response.

As critical of my beloved country as I am, I don't scoff at the idea that there is something special about America and its people -- possibly something that has to do with the extraordinary circumstances of our founding. But at the same time, I object to the way conservatives are dishonestly deploying the argument against President Obama (see Ponnuru/Lowry) and seize on words like "patriotism" and "exceptionalism" as invitations for chest-beating and flag-waving and the censorship of anyone who dares suggest America is doing something wrong. I am hard on the United States as a nation because I have a vested interest in its material and moral success, not because, as some so-called conservatives would tell you, I want the terrorists to win.

That's why I particularly like Matt Lee Anderson's formulation of a proper stance toward exceptionalism. "I am interested," he writes, "in a broader view of American exceptionalism, one that situates America not only as having a role on the world’s stage, but as having that role because we own up to our own vices within our self-understanding as a means of eradicating them." He's talking about abortion, which is not my issue, but it applies just as well to the myriad situations where the United States should (and in many cases has) owned up to its vices.

The chorus of military criticism of The Hurt Locker keeps getting louder. A slew of Iraq veterans have dissected the its accuracy without, in my opinion, making a serious argument against it as a film. Now, a former infantryman has taken to the Atlantic to say it shouldn’t win Best Picture because its license with reality is essentially the same as soldiers who lie about their military exploits to appear heroic. (Really.)

I understand the urge for people with firsthand experience to nit-pick the movie’s accuracy, particularly as critics rave about how “realistic” it is. But that’s different from imposing an arbitrary moralism on a movie—insisting The Hurt Locker shouldn’t win an award because it did the things the medium is known for, namely making things more exciting and or condensing the timelines.

Click here read the rest of this post and comment at The American Scene.

A few things I'll be thinking about this week:

Kurt Anderson's piece in New York about the protections against mob rule the founders built in to the American system and how they're failing. What did I say this weekend about the forming consensus?

Jane Mayer's New Yorker story on Eric Holder and the KSM trial. The phony controversy over the trial still gets my blood boiling, and I hope for a good look at what went on behind the scenes.

This Sullivan post on what's really behind the Tea Party movement: Christianism. Of course. If you need proof, look no further than this jaw-droppingly insane speech by Joseph Farah at their convention.

Today's New York Times editorial on the deficit.

Melinda Henneberger's beautiful obituary for a beloved writing professor.

P.S. If you had a chance to read this Washington Post essay on liberal condescension, I'd love to hear your thoughts by email or in the comments.

Today in Slate, Jacob Weisberg writes on the topic that has energized and infuriated me for a number of months: the seeming incoherence of the American public about what they want from government. Like I've done on this blog, he compares the interaction between the electorate and the federal government to California, where the people demand services and refuse to pay for them. It's feeling one can't help but come away with after watching Obama's first year and reading the James Fallows story I praised a few weeks ago.

I'm a little wary of the "ungovernnable America" narrative advanced in Weisberg's piece, simply because it feels like a slow-motion shot of liberal consensus congealing. It's an absurdly easy argument to make if you're a progressive who more or less supports Obama's domestic agenda: Americans voted him in to fix these things, and now that they aren't sure about how things are going, they're just childish idiots who can't make up their minds. But while I think there's more to the current political crisis than just American ignorance and double-mindedness, I'm afraid Weisberg is right: people have so little understanding of political reality that they frequently support incompatible ideas, and opportunistic politicians are only too willing to indulge them.

While the Democrats have their own little lies about the costs and effectiveness of government programs, it's the right that is currently preying on the ill-informed electorate. The naked pandering of the Republican mainstream is already well established, so I won't dwell on that. (They simultaneously champion tax cuts and increased Medicare spending, bitch about the deficit and refuse to touch out-of-control military spending.) But even more principled conservatives, who really would make hard economic choices in support of their goal of limited government, have incompatible positions. Health care reform is a fantastic example: they oppose the current reform bill partly because of its impact on the deficit, all while the status quo they idolize has an even more devastating effect on federal spending. Other times, they're just poliically unserious in assuming we can just let major problems go until the free market decides to do something about them.

In today's USA Today, Palin defends her upcoming appearance at the Tea Party Convention in Nashville, which has come under fire for its absurdly overpriced tickets and other evidences of profiteering. Representatives Michele Bachman and Marsha Blackburn have canceled their appearances because of the event's sketchiness, and some tea party groups have announced that they will not be participating.

Palin's column presumably answers the question of why, when everyone else is backing out, she has chosen to remain on board. But instead of dispelling worry among tea partiers that the convention is a plot by a slick operator from Tennessee to get into their pockets, she launches into a blathering paean to the movement, defending its grassroots cred and gushing about its patriotism.

Which is entirely beside the point. The question I and savvy tea partiers have is not about whether or not the Tea Party movement is a real grassroots phenomenon. We want to know if this particular event being touted as an "official" tea party convention is on the level, since we know hardly anything about the people organizing it or where all the money from those exorbitant ticket prices will be going. Palin dismisses those questions like she dismisses all reasonable questions: by questioning the motives of the interlocutor or by just changing the subject.

On Tuesday’s Daily Show, TARP administrator Elizabeth Warren makes a simple, slam-dunk case for the financial regulation stalled in the Senate. It’s so good it turns Jon Stewart on.

Dave Weigel investigates James O'Keefe's college years.

Nathan calls bullshit.

The New York Times editorial page agrees with me about France's proposed burqa ban, and sees a sinister motive:

People must be free to make these decisions for themselves, not have them imposed by governments or enforced by the police.

Instead of condemning the recommendation, President Nicolas Sarkozy seems determined to outdo it. He already has declared that full-body veils are “not welcome” in France. His party’s leader in Parliament wants to pass a law that bans women wearing burqas and niqabs from the streets. The Taliban would be pleased. The rest of the world should declare its revulsion.

Unfortunately, French politicians seem willfully blind to the violation of individual liberties. With regional elections scheduled for March, Mr. Sarkozy and his allies are desperately looking for ways to deflect public anger over high unemployment. It is hard to produce jobs and far too easy to fan anti-Muslim prejudices.

My friend Levi tells his story.