Talk:American exceptionalism/Archive 2

Horrible
This article is horribly biased in every way. "Some loosely use the term to indicate a moral superiority of Americans, while others use it to refer to the American concept as itself an exceptional ideal, which may or may not always be upheld by the actual people and government of the nation." This is shocking for a site that prides itself on NPOV. In fact, seeing the higher crime rates etc, statistical evidence shows that, in fact, the opposite is far more likely. It also has a horrible redirect. I typed in Americentrism, as in Eurocentrism (the historical practice of seeing the world through Europe) and it directs me to American exceptionalsim. "Some charge that anti-Americanism stems from jealousy" This cannot be father from the truth. True, America has problems as all other countries do, but this article, it's shocking. I assure you, Australia, or, say, Sweden are as, if not more, culturally exceptional as America, as there is no 'norm' that can be referred to. If this article is not rectified soon, I will be nominating it for deletion.Cyp43r 12:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And your nomination will be speedily dismissed. The point is not to say that America is in fact exceptional, by either the definitions of "unique/unusual" or "excellent", but to note that there is a strain in our (i.e. American) tradition that believes we are exceptional (both meanings). Obviously this is not the only way Americans look at ourselves, but it is undeniably part of it and has been since before we were an independent nation. If anything, I think the article should do a better job of noting that the phrase "American exceptionalism" is at times ambivalent or even negative, even when used by Americans among ourselves. It sounds like you have mistaken the point of the article; it isn't biased (much), it is discussing a notable existing bias. 171.159.64.10 03:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That should be made more clear, it is easy to read the article and think that your'e a bunch of... The wording is very uncyclopedic. There are also no aguments against american exceptionalsim. And that redirect is absolutley terrible, like some form of ironic joke. 58.162.236.154 08:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right, the article definitely needs to cite counter arguments. Actually, there are two issues: 1) there are compelling factual arguments against the assertion that America is in fact exceptional (other than in the sense that many nations have their quirks; Swiss multi-ethnic and -lingual democracy, French fondness for cheese, etc.) 2) there are compelling moral arguments against asserting American exceptionalism. Among the article's external links, "The American Creed" is a very good short look at a value-neutral assertion of American exceptionalism and at the same time excellent arguments against it. And "The Right to be Different", in the section written by Grover Norquist is a notable indirect condemnation of exceptionalism. I say indirect because Norquist here makes an utterly appalling display of jingoism. He actually holds up a laudable goal to have an American foreign policy with only two modes of operation, "ignore" and "kill". Any American who believes that we as a nation ought to stand for something more than the most brutal self-interest ought to be appalled at where the argument for exceptionalism can lead. 171.159.64.10 01:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Late last year, this article included counterarguments and it used to be more NPOV. However, it has never contained referenced statments, so "weasel-words" were required due to a lack of support for the statements made. That meant that anyone could remove statements they didn't like based on weasel-word or lack-of-support issues, and anyone else could include statements they did like based on the fact that the rest of the article was just as unsupported as their contribution. Hopefully, someone who can remain neutral will take the time to rewrite this article based on more sourced material. Until then, some people with agendas will keep altering this article for better, but mostly for worse, and other people with agendas will be here on the talk page being upset about it. I would support some kind of symbolic nomination for deletion if the person proposing the deletion were willing to spend hours (or days) writing a completely new article from scratch that is worthy of an encyclopedia. But the idea that Wikipedia should not have any article on this important topic is just plain wrong. Flying Jazz 12:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"Proponents of American exceptionalism often claim that the "American spirit" or the "American identity" was created at the frontier (following Frederick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis), where rugged and untamed conditions gave birth to American national vitality. Other nations that had long frontiers--such as Russia, Canada and Australia, did not allow individualistic pioneers to settle there, and did not experience the same psychological and cultural impact." What exactly is this saying? Russia, Canada, and Australia all had individualistic pioneers, and all of them had profound psychological and cultural impacts on their respective cultural psyches. Russians portray themselves as tough individuals that prevail against the odds, Canadians portray themselves as unique, fightin against the elements and Australians portray themselves as lost in a tough environment. How exactly is this article not biased? Cyp43r 16:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You have to imagine some weirdo coming to this page and actually thinking "Oh, sure, Canada had pioneers, but those Canadians didn't permit individualistic pioneers like America did!" and then you just have to laugh at that weirdo and remove his garbage if you care enough about it. Personally, I think overt garbage in an article is an indication that the article needs a huge rewrite because it's been so bad for so long that most casual editors have given up.  If you are arguing that this article is poor, then I agree.  It used to be better.  But it was never anywhere close to being good.  The cleanup tag is appropriate.  However, if you are arguing for Wikipedia to have no article on American Exceptionalism then I disagree.  If you care enough about the bias, remove the bias and try to write an NPOV article about this topic.  If it's done well with references, people will come here and defend it.  If it's not done well or doesn't have references then the article will just get junked up again. Flying Jazz 02:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Proof of de Tocqueville
American exceptionalism is a term that is widely claimed to have been coined by or used by Alexis de Tocqueville, but I have found no evidence to indicate that de Tocqueville ever used the words in any English translation of Democracy In America. Is there a single sentence that can be reliably sourced in which de Tocqueville used these words? Beyond any doubt, de Tocqueville dealt with the notions that underpin our modern understanding of American exceptionalism, but only rarely did he use the word exceptional and insofar as I can determine, he never used the word exceptionalism. --Looper5920 10:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Aspects of arguments for American exceptionalism?!
Where are aspects of arguments against American exceptionalism?--Greasysteve13 05:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh man.. this article... It's BAD. No, no, not just bad... I could live with bad. But it radiates a kind of "We are SUPREME!" vibe. Creepy and somewhat unsettling . :/ Javelin NL 19:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words
"Americans are far more religious than Europeans, for example, and more likely to actively engage in politics. Repeated surveys also show that Americans are more likely to agree that 'with hard work, one can get ahead'. The concept is thus presented not as expression of ideals, but as a set of measurable political facts." Seriously, this should be an article about a term coined by de Tocqueville, not a blatant self-celebration. Let's keep Wikipedia a respectable place, please. Siggie 08:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Who writes this crap?
I'm American and I certainly don't think that way. America is unique, I agree, but it doesn't mean that we look down on other nations. This article might as well be included on the Anti-American page because it sure as hell says nothing good about our nation. We are the way we are period. If you don't like it, move away. If you're not American it's none of your business. Can't the world find a better hobby than picking on others? Go spend some time with your family instead of writing crap about our country. (LonghornJohnny 16:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC))


 * Ah yes...and it is because of posts such as THESE that you are so well liked the world over. Vargher (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, anyone hear of the Marshall Plan?
How can an entire article on American Exceptionalism fail to mention the rebuilding of Europe and Japan after WWII? Contrast with the punitive peace terms imposed by the victorious European powers after WWI, that virtually guaranteed further conflict. America has a history of defeating tyranny and instituting stable democracies in their place. Does history record anyone, other than America, behaving this way? Shouldn't this article discuss the impact of American exceptionalism on foreign policy in something other than purely derogatory tones? Ronnotel 03:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite how you can write such trash while the war in Iraq continues is truly worrying. You're brainwashed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.244.202 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No,the US does not defeat tyranny. It IS tyranny. After the Revolution, did you free the slaves? No. Did you conquer Indian land? Yes. You overthrew one thing and acted far worse. Get your facts right before trying to turn wikipedia into an American ego massage


 * The Marshall Plan was important for rebuilding Europe. But it was carried out not only to recover Europe as it was spend only to US-oriented states in Europe and was also given for the reason to (re-)establish Europe as a market for US-Goods.
 * More than this: Can you tell of any successful instituting of stable democracies since WWII?


 * Another point: You wrote that the punitive peace terms were imposed solely by the victorious European powers. That is not true as it was absolutely backed by the US. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.83.187.84 (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Absolutely backed by the US? The United States Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, making it invalid in the United States. I realize that the Treaty of Versailles was only the peace treaty between Germany and the allies, but the Treaty is also the one that contains the strictest punishments and the war guilt clause. How does the US refusing to ratify it qualify as backing it absolutely? 76.104.37.134 15:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ronnotel, please excuse me, but if you really believe that the Marshall Plan, and the drive to rebuild Europe after WWII in general was a sign of U.S. goodwill / altruism / "Manifest Destiny" to enlighten the world etc., you are terribly, terribly mistaken. The U.S. government (it is always necessary to refer to the government or the state as such in such cases, lest one incriminates the whole people of the country) did not give a damn about democracy and freedom in Europe, I can assure you. That might be what a percentage of the American public believed, but what was CERTAINLY not in the minds of the U.S. leaders. The only reason for the Marshall plan was to establish a zone of, I'll put it in a drastic way, American puppet states in Europe which would closely depend on collaboration with the U.S. both in an economic and in a military fashion. The objective is simple and evident: the U.S. needed Europe as a form of cordon sanitaire against the USSR. Nothing more. Economic buildup was necesary for two reasons: re-creating a strong infrastructure in Europe, including an arms industry, in order to counter the USSR, and the creation of a market for American goods, serving U.S. economy.
 * It is a sad fact that virtually every aspect of both U.S. and Soviet foreign policy in dealings with the rest of the world did not submit to any ideas (although officially, as presented by both sides' propaganda, the object was to spread "freedom and democracy" or "a progressive socialist world order", respectively) or care about the blocless states in any way, but was specifically geared to harm the enemy, i.e. the USSR or the U.S., respectively. That was the sole objective in the vast majority of such cases, no matter how well disguised. Vargher (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to "Who writes this crap?"
You and I both, as well as others, might not agree with this. But don't act like we should deny or cover up the historical and current realities. Get educated.

To the author of the "anti-american" weasel words...
The belief in American Exceptionalism is an historical (as well as current) fact... an ideological reality, which is NOT held by those who are "anti-american." Just ask yourself, "Why would anyone who is 'anti-american' claim that we are exceptional?" This is a belief held by Americans since the Puritans and even today, but they have simply changed the terms.

You are the one propogandizing here!

Keep your own poltical trifle out of articles. This is the reason wikipedia continues to get so much negative attention, and I must say, it's not unjustified. This alone is enough for me to stop reading and using!

POV Statement
I came across this article in general reading but found parts of the introduction to contain information that doesn't keep to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy so have removed the following from the introduction: "Most foreigners are not familiar with the uniqueness of the United States and have no sole knowlegde about the contributions of this nation to the world. Clearly, America has won both World Wars, single handedly defeated the Nazi and Soviet regimes and freed hundreds of millions of people from dictatorships. It funds the UN so that it can exist; however, the USA does not receive much in return.". The first statement appears to be a huge generalisation especially when this cannot be backed up by sources. Yes America has made a big impact over the 20th Century but it would be incorrect to say she has "single handedly defeated the Nazi and Soviet regimes" especially when taking into account the roles played by the various nations involved. Maybe if this is a general opionion a group of people hold within America it should be stated as being this later in the article rather than pure fact in the introduction?

This article is absolutely awful
I don't think I've ever read such an over-long, poorly written, rehashed, cut-and-pasted pile of wasted words as I just scanned across. This article embodies everything about Wikipedia that's broken, right down to the unreverted POV mishmosh I yanked. Blech. FCYTravis 08:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

meaning changes wildly in context
When used in an academic social sciences context, any notion of Manifest Destiny is absent. Since Tocqueville was the originator of the phrase, I doubt that he would have considered it in such terms. Still, I don't preclude its use as such. Just please note that the phrase can be used when describing the vast differences the US government has when viewed against the rest of the world, for example. Needless to say, this article needs serious work. - Plasticbadge 04:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Distinction between American Exceptionalism and Claims of American Exceptionalism
As I read through this article, it strikes me that there are many moments in which the definitions of American exceptionalism (and there are many attempts to define it throughout) are actually claims about what is exceptional about America. For instance, take the following sentence from the second paragraph:

"American exceptionalism is the idea that the United States and the American people hold a special place in the world, by offering opportunity and hope for humanity, derived from a unique balance of public and private interests governed by constitutional ideals that are focused on personal and economic freedom."

This sentence contains several claims: 1) That America is unique because it offers "opportunity and hope" to humanity, 2) that it is unique because of the way it balances "public and private interests", and 3) because its constitution is based on notions of "personal and economic freedom." So in one sentence we have three different claims about what may be unique about the US.  All of these may or may not have been ways in which people in the United States thought that they or their nation were exceptional but none of them are good definitions for "American Exceptionalism."

My goal though is not to take apart all these claims, but to point out that if this entry is going to improve people need to stop trying to link the definition of American Exceptionalism with claims about what they think makes it exceptional.

American Exceptionalism after all is a term invented by contemporary critics and historians to refer to a pattern of claims that have been made over the entire history of the United States about what makes the United States exceptional. First and foremost, then, it is a category of anlaysis of relatively recent invention. I don't believe (but I could be wrong) that Toqueville ever used the precise phrase "American Exceptionalism." Rather, he claimed that America was exceptional for a variety of reasons. His work is therefore probably best seen as one of the earliest and most important works that claims that the U.S. was exceptoinal.

If this article is to be improved I think it needs to be reorganized with the idea that "American Exeptionalism" is a term of art, a category of analysis, that has been used by writers to describe patterns in a voluminous literature claiming that America is unique.

Let me suggest the following definition:

"American Exceptionalism refers to the idea that the United States was unique in comparison with "Old Europe" and that it would pursue a different path in history than the European nations.

This is I believe close to an objective statement. Whether or not you think the idea that the US would pursue a different path is true or good or bad, is irrelevant. The fact is that this is what American Exceptionalism refers to. What do others think? If this is an acceptable definition, why not scrap the existing article and rebuild the entry in the manner of a carefully structure encylopedia like article beginning with this definition? -- Ezmiller77 011:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources, please
The article states that "some americans use the term to denote a superior set of moral values...". Id like to see some sources on that, otherwise Im removing it.LtDoc

This article still needs a lot of work
Comments such as this gem:
 * "Citizens are allowed to move relatively easily and freely from one place to another."
 * (they aren't in other countries such as Canada or Brazil?)

add to my feeling that this article needs a complete research and rewrite. FT2 (Talk 23:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Also:

"Political science defines it as presence of unique traits in the United States, such as a tradition of anti-authoritarianism, individualism, a high regard for work and private enterprise, the failure of socialist parties, the geographical separation of the Americas from the rest of the world, and high levels of religious influence, particularly Protestant Christianity, that do not correlate with national characteristics in either the similarly developed nations of Western Europe and Scandinavia, or even in the lesser developed countries in Latin America or in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union"


 * The idea that Americans are anti-authoritarian or individualistic is laughable to most people outside America, given your militaristic mindset. Take the current president as an example. Also the implication in this paragraph is that Russians, Latin Americans and Europeans are lazy. I am going to remove this paragraph, as no citation for it has been provided and it makes some fairly extraordinary claims. Damburger 15:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for "Socialism in US" section
Good afternoon. I am writing to express my opnion in the matter of structural layout of this article. It has been brough to my attention that a topic on Socialism in the US should be included in the article. A couple of users have stated that it is "much needed". This has been discussed at length at the Socialism talk page. I think the section should mention the fact that Socialism was growing in pouplarity within the US in the late 19th century and abruptly ceased to be a major force in American politics right around the Wilson years. The section could mention the activities and political supression of figures such as Eugene Debs and present existing theories on why socialism never became an influencial movement in the US. How exactly this could be done with neutrality, I am not too sure, but I think it should be discussed. Let me know what you think. -- EnglishEfternamn  talkcontribs 20:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't think of a single reason why "socialism in US" should be part of this article, even after I read your link. wgoetsch 17:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the article is about American exceptionalism, and one of the things that makes America stand out from other industrialised countries its hostility towards socialism. Damburger 16:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The current version of this article has a strong historical structure--as opposed to ideological, economic, or political--because it is easier to approach (or at least try to approach) NPOV that way. An older version of the article began this trend and made the point that socialism is not really relevant to a discussion of American Exceptionalism because socialism, in any modern sense of the word, didn't exist yet as a choice at a time when American Exceptionalism was already very pervasive. I removed this argument from the article because it seemed a little silly to include statements in the article about why something was not really relevant to the article. (Here's the diff]) But I agree with the point that the other editor made. With a historical structure, we have a chance to maintain focus on causes of exceptionalism and arguments about it instead of what has resulted from it. An article about exceptionalism can't be about "what makes America stand out" from other industrialized countries because the possibilities are endless. If we include a section on socialism in the US and trace the historical reasons for those differences then we could also include a section on soccer in the US or unaged cheese in the US or other things that many Americans seem to dislike and trace the historical reasons for those too. Flying Jazz 17:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

April 2007 Comments
I have to say that this article actually appears to be decent! Looking back on all the crap in this talk page, and some of the edit history, it seems like out of this a fairly non-biased, non-POV America-subject article has been created. W2G Wikipedia! :) Etcetera 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A Couple of Suggested References
There seems to be more controversy about this article than it seems to be it warrants. There seems to me to be no question whatsoever that many Americans, and American governments, have preached the idea that the US, by its allegedly unique history, virtue, and relationship with God, uniquely acts from altruism and not its rulers' idea of "national interest," and is exempt from the normal rules and judgments of international law and convention.

Mark Twain nailed this idea in his famous but underappreciated "To the Person Sitting in Darkness," written during the days when the US was taking over the Spanish empire. He points out that the US, conceived in liberty and all that, had the opportunity to act altruistically and help various downtrodden and colonized peoples of the earth, but instead, under the guise of "civilizing our little brown brothers," chose to "play the old European game" of colonialism and imperialism. Seems to me that this essay should be in every American school's reading list, and certainly cited in this Wikipedia article.

A much more recent essay, directly on subject but not cited here, is Howard Zinn's "The Power and the Glory: Myths of American Exceptionalism." There's also a companion video. -- Cherns Major 22:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC) (first posting--hope I got things like links right)

Any discussion of American Exceptionalism as defined by this article should absolutely include President George Washington's Farwell Address in which he stated the United States is a nation unique in its formatin and ideals and thus shares no traits with the European nations.

Werner Sombart
Still badly need something on Werner Sombart. AnonMoos (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Negative meaning of the term
Is it true that this term also means the idea that the United States believes itself as exceptional that it doesn't have to obey to the international community when it doesn't suit its interests?

If so, should there be more context on this article?

Bourquie (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "Ethnocentrism"
The term "ethnocentrism" is quite a political term in the way that the term "imperialism" has become, as one can stick it on anything that they don't like, or like to criticize. One example is it's use in this article--there is no "American" ethnicity--or at least, not one that many Americans recognize, in an ethnic group defined since time immemorial; there are many ethnicities in America--German-Americans, African-Americans, British-Americans, French-Americans, Chinese-Americans, etc. There is no "American" ethnicity, in a group of individuals with a separate and unique culture, except in the hybridized culture of America might itself be an ethnicity, though this really could only be true within the past 100 years or so, through intermarriage of ethnicities, especially nowadays, and subsequent synthesis. Being an American is more of a political and geographical term than an ethnic one--a question of shared values, shared struggles, shared experiences, and shared landscapes, but not as much a shared culture as other nations and peoples have.

Ethnocentrism indicates chauvinism as well: the belief that the American ethnicity, even if we accept that it exists, believes itself to be innately superior to other ethnicities. I think that if "Americans" believe that they are "superior", it might be superior in the political institutions that they have, the way they get along, or maybe even the shared experience of leaving the oppressions of the old country for a relatively freer new one; there is not much of a racialistic or ethnicistic aspect to this belief. Perhaps when "American" meant "British Revolutionary", the opposite might have been true, but not today in the crazy-quilt mix of ethnicities that America has.

For this reason, I would say that we might want to carefully weigh the term "ethnocentrism" because it might not describe the phenomenon this article discusses.

Katana0182 (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Alleged breaking of rules by Americans?
Also, I would like to see more evidence in this article to back the asserted position that Americans, on a whole, believe that America is somehow not required to "follow the rules" of civilized nations, and also, even if this is true, that this is somehow "exceptional". Note that I state believe: this is not a question of whether the rules have been broken by Americans, but of whether Americans believe or do not believe somehow that the "rules" do not apply to them. Evidence would have to exist of this belief, and would have to come more from words than from deeds (as subscribing to rules and putting them in to practice are two different things--the difference between what one aspires to and what one does), would undoubtedly be expressed over a term of many decades, and would come from all sides of the American political spectrum. Then, broad assertions like some have made could be justified.

Katana0182 (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nature of exceptionalism?
American exceptionalism, at least, to Americans, means that the U.S. is different from other nations, and unique in many ways, like in having the oldest written national constitution still in effect...Americans may believe that the way that they do things is good for them, but many also know that it is not appropriate for other nations with different polities. American ideals might include an open society, under the rule of law, where inalienable rights are retained and safeguarded by the people, under a democratic, republican government limited in powers.

American ideals, by the way, don't have much to do with capitalism, as much as certain interests in the U.S. try to push this as an American ideal, or how many critical non-Americans might believe that this is the only real American ideal--it isn't, capitalism just was the way things happened, not the inevitable result of the American Constitution and experience, though some rightists might beg to disagree (even so, they're incorrect: the right to property does not include the right to traffick in it, to hire and fire, to issue stock, to have limited liability, etc.).

Whether the American way is judged by Americans to any better or any worse than any other nation is mainly through seeing how well their country does in terms of comparative national soft power (hard power really isn't a consideration, because it doesn't bring greatness), and how many nations subscribe to or are hostile to their ideals.

What do others think?

Katana0182 (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mobility?
Part of this article talks about social (i.e. economic) mobility suggesting, by the way that this section is worded, that social mobility is both a reality and the norm. In particular that economic mobility was higher than in Europe and Canada (implied by the reference to this no longer being the case).

What evidence is there that this was ever really the case? (Or, perhaps, was more true in the U.S. than anywhere else?) I'm thinking (as one possible example) of a study I read about U.S. Presidents that suggested that all but one came from upper class or upper-middle class (economic) background. I've also heard several historians and writers suggest that the primary future indicator of economic success in the U.S. is the status (economic and social) of an individual's parents. I am wondering mainly about how this works out on average. There are, I am sure, many hundreds of individual 'rags to riches' stories that can be cited. But this will be true in almost any country (and certainly any first-world country). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.124.132 (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A complete mess
The article reads like a debate. One paragraph contradicts the next, sometimes every other sentence is a counter-argument. Needs a serious clean-up; full of original research and POV posturing. The whole angle of equating Am. Ex. with neo-conservativism and the excesses of the Bush administration (which I am not trying to justify) completely misses the point of the topic and expands the definition of the term significantly. I removed the entire second paragraph of the Cold War section as it was a particularly POV piece, but I could easily cut out half of the article. We need an intro section that defines the term from what appear to be two varying view points, followed by two sections or groups of sections expanding on each definition, not a tit-for-tat melange in every paragraph.Armandtanzarian (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph is unfortunate for overemphasizing the exceptionalism-neoconservatism equation. Seems to me that most readers -- anywhere in the world in fact -- already come to the article with an understanding that "Dubya" believed in exceptionalism and was a neocon.  Instead of affirming a shallow topical understanding, the goal of the article should be educating readers about the doctrine's deeper historical roots.  The article actually does this once you get past the first paragraph, so I think rewriting the first paragraph into a better introduction deserves top priority.  I'm agnostic on debating specific aspects of exceptionalism one-by-one versus separating the pro- and -con streams.  For some writers, "the grass is always greener", and this problem only becomes worse in a group effort. LADave (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree on the overemphasis of neocons. There were neocons who were not Bush fans and who were not advocates of American exceptionalism. The two schools of thought aren't necessarily joined at the hip. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just want to comment on some of the garbage that goes on here

 * "Of course, those who disagree with the use of "American exceptionalism" as a pejorative opine that attacks on the concept that the United States differs from other developed democracies are no less than a demonstration of veiled ignorance, prejudice, anti-Americanism, hatred (and quite often racism directed at the multi-ethnic nature of the American people), as well as disinformation of the worst type. Those who disagree with attacks on the concept of American difference claim that those who do are often motivated by an agenda that seeks the destruction of the United States, at least as a world power, if not the extermination of the American people, and the imposition of empire or hegemony by "alternative" power centers in the world, such as the People's Republic of China or the Russian Federation."

I don't know who does these kinda things sometimes...Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright have stated that the United States' international image is tarnished by constantly asking for exception from the international community (such as telling North Korea and Iran that they can't have nuclear weapons, when the US has the second largest stockpile of it). So is the person that wrote this believe that Albright is demonstrating "disinformation of the worst type?" Bourquie (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Racial Exceptionalism
Great article!

You know, something that I've noticed is very popular here in the U.S. is that there is a sentiment that so-called "Native Americans" from the U.S. are somehow qualitatively different than Native Americans from other New Word countries. I completely understand not letting Peruvian Natives (Incas) sign up for Reservations because they're not U.S. Indians.

But I noticed that some people (I guess, basically bigots) claim to respect Native Americans but that respect really ends with U.S. Indians. For example, they will claim to be proud of their Cherokee ancestry, but if some Argentine were to do the same and say, for example "Hi, I'm part Inca and German" they're be like "F*ck off, mongrel/whatever" And I find that baffling (and dumb). Because Cherokee = Indigenous and Inca=Indigenous.

You're not cool when you're part Cherokee and uncool when you're part Inca. It's the SAME THING racially speaking. But yeah, just wanted to share that experience with racial relativism/exceptionalism in the U.S.

Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.212.48 (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The above is a damn lie. You've never seen anything like that in the US. I doubt you've ever been in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.125.243 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what specific academic concept you are trying to bring up, and you seem to be going slightly off-topic. Remember, personal opinions and original thought are not considered "encyclopedic" by Wikipedia's standards. Heliostellar (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The user going by 68.199 whatever is simply stating an irony (a comical but truthful one) there is a favoritism on what kind of nationality or ethnicity one is/are in the US to be often viewed as/ perceived "good", "better" or "successful" than a similar ethnic group. The Cherokee and Inca are both indigenous peoples, yet they are in the old adage "to talk about a horse of a different color" as their homelands are separately located in opposite continents and encountered different types of empires to conquered the two peoples. You won't believe the Canadian type of exceptionalism exists in Canada to belittle the USA and some Canadians may view themselves "better, superior or morally/politically correct" than the neighboring country, interestingly have cultural similarities and Canada is a developed nation without the superpower status. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But this irony doesn't seem to be true at all. Isn't it true that EVERY SINGLE PERSON on this Earth is indigenous to somewhere? (or the converse, we are indigenous to nowhere, except maybe parts of Africa). Also, there is sufficient ethnic differentiation between natives from around the United States and Incas. After all, thousands of miles separate them. If you traveled that many miles in Europe, you'd end up in an entirely different continent. I guess the difference between how the United States treats those with Cherokee ancestry compared to those with Incan ancestry is that those with Cherokee ancestry have ancestors who lived on this land for thousands of years, and someone with Incan ancestry is just about as native to the United States as anyone who moved here from a European nation. This viewpoint doesn't fit into the article at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.196.254.35 (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Federalism not the same as Exceptionalism/POV
Removed edits related to Federalism as they have nothing to do with this subject. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

I have also added the POV tag. The article needs to be neutral, and certainly in the lead section. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
 * you have to explain in detail what you mean--what sentence is not NPOV? Rjensen (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One problem is this: The cherry-picking of a quote that, as it is not used in its entireity, distorts the meaning of the original text by making it more forceful than the RS author of the text (Seymour Martin Lipset in this case) actually spelled it out to be. The quote reads "'the first new nation,'...other than Iceland, to become independent" . Political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset did not remove the clause "other than Ireland" from his quote; and neither should we. It is necessary, imo, to be neutral in the presentation, or else pick different citations that do support a certain viewpoint, but to cherry-pick just some sections of a quote while eliminating precisely those sections that, to a point, negate the view being presented, it not in compliance with WP:NPOV. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
 * you can post the tag after you articulate what you see as the problem. The POV rules require that all major RS positions be represented, and I think that is the case. Is a position missing? Rjensen (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem was articulated. If you required further explanation, that's something else. As to your "position" question, I explain one issue above. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

I also took exception to edits such as THIS, which I had reverted and which were re-introduced days later. Those edits, aligned under the banners "Democracy" and "Immigration", fundamentally constitute WP:OR. They are a violation of WP:NPOV in that the editor is seeking to substantiate the "American exceptionalism" position by making his own tacit allusions that the introduction of federalism into American government equates to the introduction of American exceptionalism. That is nonsense: the two are not related (and even if the two were related, no citations are provided to establish that they are so linked). My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * If that is the only complaint? The text in dispute seems to follow closely the Lipset book--the main scholarly treatise on the subject. Mercy11 has to provide alternative views to make a POV argument. What alternative RS is missing? Rjensen (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the generality of your edits, however, this is not an article about Lipset and/or his book. As such, if we are going to source primarily to Lipset, that would not be neutral, imo. We must find a balanced number of sources. We should be able to provide links to Lipset, but do so with, say, a couple of references, not a multitude of references. And if we must provide a multitude of Lipset references, then we need to justify, in the article and with citations, that others view Lipset as the "the main scholarly treatise on the subject". In any event, read on below (The Four Deuces/TFD.) My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * I disagree with the reversion of my edit and adding back "American exceptionalism is the belief that the United States is different from other countries in that it has a specific world mission to spread liberty and democracy." It is unsourced and is not supported by Lipset's book.  The two sections on democracy and immigration appear to be original research.  Exceptionalism is not the view that America is better, but the view that it is different.  TFD (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That first line has since been sourced,,, unless you are talking about the choice of word for the keyword belief/proposition/theory. Maybe that definition should be sourced -- verbatim-- to avoid the resemblance of POV. However, I am not sure you are saying that if something is not supported by Lipset, while it maybe supported by others, then it cannot be used. (????) That would be a show-stopper for me. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
 * I'm unclear what the complaint is about Lipset. He wrote the single most important book on the subject which was well reviewed in the scholarly journals. He died a few years ago & was a very well regarded scholar, elected as president of both the Am. Political Science Association and the Am. Sociological Association. He wrote many studies over the years in comparative politics. The journals cite his work thousands of times. That's the kind or RS that Wikipedia is built upon.   If scholars disagree with him they should be cited as such. Rjensen (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I mentioned Seymour Martin Lipset because as Rjensen correctly stated, his book is "the main scholarly treatise on the subject". As Donald E. Pease an editor of the source now provided in support of the first sentence writes on page 90, "I follow Lipset's definition and his genealogical tracing of the concept of exceptionalism back to Tocqueville."  The source (p. 207) does not support the statement, "American exceptionalism is the proposition that the United States... has a specific world mission to spread liberty and democracy."  It says, "The Statue of Liberty signifies this proselytizing mission as the natural extension of America's sense of itself as an exceptional nation."  As it says in the lead, "Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense."  The lead now contradicts itself.  TFD (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am with both of you that Lipset needs to be awarded appropriate treatment in this article, and have no objection in that regard any longer. My other main concerns had been the inclusion of text, now removed, bringing on issues of federalism and somehow equating them with exceptionalism (like the immigration and democracy sections, etc). But, by the same token, we cannot, imo, use a symbol of America -- that is, the statue of liberty -- and equate it with American exceptionalism. We need to find better sources to support the claim that "American exceptionalism is the proposition that the United States... has a specific world mission to spread liberty and democracy." If not, then that is not what American exceptionsliam referes to, it is equivalent to OR, and must be changed.


 * Rjensen, I think the way to go with the introductory paragrapgh is to use The Four Duces's Lipset citation: it won't have the liberty and democracy reference but, then again, that does not appear to be the real definition of American exceptionalism, but instead the concept of being "qualitatively different" as Lipset states and Four Duces cites.


 * I also had a concern about the statement that America was the first new nation to become independent (it was actually Ireland).


 * TFD, so long as we either use the entire "other than Iceland" quote, I am OK. Otherwise, let's abandon the use of that quote altogether.


 * My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
 * Lipset uses "First New Nation" -- indeed it's the title of one of his books. Ireland becamer independent in 1922. On the "world mission to spread liberty and democracy" that is often indicated by RS: 1) see statement that Americans believed in a "historical mission. ...  free from Europe's ills and an exemplar or model for the future progress of liberty and democracy" in   2) "The Statue of Liberty signifies this proselytizing mission as the natural extension of America's sense of itself as an exceptional nation." in  Rjensen (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Since Lipset's description is in quotes, there is no need for us to factcheck. Lipset explained his comments in The First New Nation, p. 2, "The United States was the first major colony successfully to revolt against colonial rule. In this sense, it was the first "new nation.""  Perhaps we could add that to a footnote.  Certainly every nation was new at one time, but I imagine he is speaking about the modern world.  Iceland's period of independence lasted from the 10th to the 13th centuries. I agree a lot of things such as federalism are not relevant.  Much of this would apply equally to Canada, yet Lipset developed much of his understanding of American exceptionalism through comparison with Canada.
 * Re: America's mission.  I think we need to distinguish "America's belief in its exceptionalism" and the belief that America is exceptional.  One can believe that America believes it has a mission without actually believing that it has such a mission.
 * TFD (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So what are you proposing the first paragraph read like? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Obama vs McCain
The article currently says "The phrase became an issue of contention between presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain in the 2008 presidential campaign". This is not helpful at all for anyone who hasn't followed the 2008 debates closely, and obviously unneccesary for anyone who has. You should state what the positions were on the issue, or else leave out the remark altogether. --BjKa (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Unclear prose.
I have a bit of a comprehension issue with this passage:


 * The term "American exceptionalism" has been in use since at least the 1920s and saw more common use after Soviet leader Joseph Stalin chastised members of the Jay Lovestone-led faction of the American Communist Party for their heretical belief that America was independent of the Marxist laws of history "thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions." American Communists then started using the English translation in factional fights.[6][7]

Started using the English translation of what? Of Stalin's speech? Was it a speech? Or the phrase itself? I understand there's been some debate about what Stalin said, and I'm guessing this paragraph has been worked over pretty good, but it no longer makes much sense and ought to be rebooted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.35.223 (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Seconded. I don't see a logical connection how the term is derived from Stalin's speech. --BjKa (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Christian Realism
Wikipedia link to Reinhold Niebuhr's article? Gprobins (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Disputed text
An IP continues to add a paragraph that says the US is ""mediocre on a global scale" in rate of educational improvement, distribution of wealth, health care, infrastructure, and welfare of the middle class." He argues that because the source is called "Exceptionally Mediocre on a Global Scale," it is relevant to the article. However the author is not talking about the same topic. Ironically, the differences in the U.S. in these areas are evidence of its exceptionalism. TFD (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I read the source and it is very poorly done political polemic by a non-expert, often based on irrelevant sources. (for example, the author (Hightower) says "In a category that not long ago was a source of great national strength and pride, our middle class is being hollowed out" and uses an editorial that has no mention of any other country. The source on health care is 50% about the financing of health care and downgrades the US for spending $$$$ on it. Rjensen (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is very clearly within scope of the article topic, as it mentions one interpretation of "American exceptionalism" several times. However it is indeed also a very poorly written opinion-piece, and as such it is not a reliable source for anything than the opinion of the author, and I doubt he is notable enough to warrant inclusion here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The writer is notable enough for a WP article about him, to have at least 6 generally well reviewed books published, and to be archived at Texas State University. Unlike Lipset who has more academic standing, Hightower infuses his work with wry humor for a broader audience, but that is no reason to take him or those first sources he cites less seriously. His criticism is not only of the US vs other countries, but the US vs its own perceptions of itself. With the separation of church and state, it's harder to claim one's exploitation of others is God's will. Enter American exceptionalism as an unassailable collection of qualities that cannot be quantified, a secular religion as it were, or at least as it seems to be treated by a majority of current editors of this article. If you take one writer's opinion on this (Lipset) to the literal exclusion of another's (Hightower) are you not POV pushing? Attleboro (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * NPOV says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It is not POV to use the defintion of the person who popularized the concept and whose definition is widely accepted.
 * Hightower does not question Lipset's analysis, but uses the term in a different way. As the lead says, "Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense."  Hightower is responding to them and using their definition.
 * The problem in the article is that it confuses two distinct concepts: (1) that the U.S. has a "uniquely American ideology, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire'" and (2) the ideology itself, especially in its more extreme forms.  The second topic btw is more correctly called "Americanism", a term use by Louis Hartz who like you referred to it as a "secular religion".
 * Disambiguation requires that we not confuse one term with different meanings. An article on Mars for example does not say that some writers think that Mars is a planet, while others think it is a chocolate bar.
 * Since Americanism is a fringe view, mainstream criticism of it will tend to analyze what it says, rather than present arguments against it. Compare with the article White supremacy.  It does not contain any discussion challenging whether "white" people are in fact superior, nor arguments that that the white race is inferior.  Arguments about why the U.S. is inferior to other nations, belong in Anti-Americanism.  I am not of course saying that Hightower's article is anti-American.  It is as you say a humorous article.  It is comparable to comedians commenting on Wall Street crime, "what is wrong with the white community."
 * TFD (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful explanation. Sorry to have required it. There's no mention of Americanism in the article, apart from a sort of heresy. If Hightower and I, not to mention others reading this article, can so easily confound Americanism and American exceptionalism, shouldn't more effort go to disambiguating the two, even early in the lead, perhaps with Hightower as an example? ...especially since a quick perusal of academic uses of the term show the equivocation to be more common than not.* Attleboro (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&q=American+exceptionalism+site:edu&oq=American+exceptionalism+site:edu&gs_l=hp.12...28012.30480.3.32037.9.9.0.0.0.0.209.1362.0j8j1.9.0....0...1c.1.22.psy-ab..6.5.1964.62PdhcDMwao&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49641647,d.aWM&fp=7d2b596e9d0c0c26&biw=1024&bih=639


 * Thank you. I agree and have now re-written the lead.  TFD (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Americanism
The difference between American exceptionalism and Americanism should be stated more plainly. I removed the word "Americanism" from a sentence that was cited to Lipset because Lipset did not define Americanism in the way that the sentence laid out. However, I continue to think that Americanism can and should be described to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Lipset begins Chapter One of American Exceptionalism by saying, "Americanism...is an "ism", or ideology in the same way that communism or fascism or liberalism are isms.... As noted in the Introduction, the nations's ideology can be described in five words: liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire." The addition of "Americanism" in the following passage seems to me to be entirely consistent with what he wrote:  "developing a uniquely American ideology, "Americanism", based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire.  TFD (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My bad. I did not have the correct page at hand. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think you were probably thinking about Lipset's writing in the 1950s when he did define Americanism as you said.  TFD (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Lead
An IP has changed the first sentence of the lead to say, "American exceptionalism means the United States became a republic without a significant socialist movement or Labor party; the term was coined by Marxists to explain why." Besides providing two conflicting defintions, one saying it means what happened, another another saying why it happened, the failure of socialism in the U.S. is only one aspect of the theory. The theory is more about what happened rather than what did not happen. TFD (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a theory
That the U.S. government is different from those of Tory nations is not a theory. It is a fact.

These references state the term was coined by Marxists wondering why the U.S. had no a significant socialist movement or Labor party causing U.S. independence from England:

That U.S. independence from England is exceptional is the main point of the term. I suppose the British consider that a theory. Therefore, the first sentence of the article should at least include the term “English speaking." I'll add two references and “English speaking." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.117.138 (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * iantyrrell.wordpress.com/papers-and-comments/
 * washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/americanexceptionalism.htm


 * England has nothing to do with it. The first instance of the term "American exceptionalism" was Stalin getting mad about the US being so resistant to Communism, more so than any other country. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that neither of your sources support your point. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The theory of exceptionalism is not merely that the U.S. became a republic, most nations have, but that it is qualitatively different from other nations, whether monarchies or republics. Being a republic is by itself not exceptional.  TFD (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not understand the relevance of adding "Only the U. S. seceded from the British Empire." In fact over fifty countries have been granted independence or seceded and dozens of colonies of other empires seceded too.  TFD (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Qualitatively different
"Qualitatively different" is not what exceptional means and sounds pompous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.117.138 (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, according the shows I’ve seen and editorials I’ve read, the U. S. does not regard itself as merely “different” from other countries. It considers itself “much better than” other nations; if the U. S. ever compromised on human rights and the people being sovereign, the world would fall into another “dark ages.” Yes, the U. S. saved France, Iraq, Russia, and ought to be able to save you, if needed.--69.3.118.118 (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Qualitatively different" is a direct quote from the author who popularized and defined the term. Prior to that only Marxists used the term, who not advocates of the superiority of American institutions.  Until subsequent writers change it to a less pompous and accurate, we are stuck with it.  And the article clearly distinguishes between the theory of exceptionalism, which does not imply that the UK is better than other nations, and Americanism, which is the belief that it is better.  I should not need to explain this to you, because it is quite clear in the lead.  TFD (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Belief in United States greatness

 * "American exceptionalism" is belief in United States greatness.
 * Throughout U.S. history there has been tension between the exemplary and the missionary strands of American exceptionalism.
 * Followers of the exemplary strand advocate  Americans should strive to perfect their own society as much as possible without interfering in the affairs of others.
 * Adherents to the missionary strand advocate U.S. expansion or intervention in the affairs of other nations to help them become  free and democratic like the United States.
 * Belief in "national greatness" is a central element of the ideology behind U.S. foreign policy.
 * The United States is regarded as the embodiment of universal values based on the rights of all humankind.
 * The goal is to establish and secure "freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear everywhere in the world."
 * The Marshall Plan (1947) for the economic reconstruction of postwar Western Europe was designed to revive European economies using not only American money but also practices and principles.
 * Elsewhere each program was also designed to exemplify the altruistic, benevolent impulses of the United States while also being advocated as an objective, scientifically proven method for aiding developing nations.
 * President Ronald Reagan described the United States as "a land of hope, a light unto nations, a shining city on a hill." --75.36.33.18 (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please find some WP:Reliable sources rather than www.americanforeignrelations.com. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

United States unique nature
The word America means the United States of America, exceptional means unique, and “-ism” means nature. Check dictionaries made via peer review. However, this article’s defining reference at first calls America “exceptional” but then it defines exceptional as “qualitatively different.” Therefore, to follow Wikipedia policies, “qualitatively different” ought to be replaced by a more politically correct definition, such as “terrific nature.” Sniping at the United States in the guise of defining a word is not a neutral point of view. The U.S. is proud of not having a nobility or caste system. One on-line reference I found was saying something like, “Isn’t it hypocrital to have a Statue of Liberty, a pagan goddess from prehistoric times, when you had slavery?” The fact is the Statue of Freedom and the Statue of Liberty were made in the 1800s while and after the United Stated abolished slavery. It’s too bad reliable sources are so expensive. -- 69.3.117.21 (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Unique does not mean better - that is a unique argument. No one is sniping at the U.S.  The lead does not mention slavery, which was not exceptional in America - the Portuguese, Spanish, English, French and other empires had slavery too.  The fact that the U.S. has no nobility does not necessarily make it "better" or worse than the UK, just different.  TFD (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * None of this is useful for improvement of the article. The next time you bring suggestions here, please support them with a reliable source. Until then... Binksternet (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, the current source can be used for this encyclopedic wording: “American exceptionalism is the exceptional nature of the United States, or belief therein.” That source also uses the word exceptional in defining American exceptionalism. Its definition of exceptional does not need to be used, because it is debatable. -- 69.3.117.21 (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Tautologies do not make good introductions to articles. Incidentally, the idea that the U.S. is exceptional is a theory and should not be presented as a fact.  TFD (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The lead
A few IPs and two registered accounts continue to make changes to the lead which are not reflected in the source. In the most recent edit, 69.3.117.21 changed text saying exceptionalism posits the U.S. is "qualitatively different" to "has its own exceptional qualities as compared with those of other nations." Since he source does not say these differences are "qualities", the edit is misleading and therefore I shall reverse it. TFD (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It is absolutely misleading. This disruptive editor is trying to put a different viewpoint into the article than the ones described in his sources. Very misleading. Binksternet (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Millitary Comparison Source: Does America really have the finest military in the world?

 * Does America really have the finest military in the world?, salon.com, Thursday, Jan 6, 2011--87.145.0.168 (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there any other articles on this? --79.230.35.127 (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact of the matter is that America has far sharper weapons in its arsenal than its overt and covert armed forces. Just one example of this can be found right here: http://www.diemondave.com/. The instructional videos and explanations on how to properly execute the famous "Judy Chop" and the "Karaty Chop", are self-explanatory bastions of American Exceptionalism. Nobody else has Diemon Dave and if push comes to shove, they can send him to sort out the enemy.--Achim (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)