Talk:American exceptionalism/Archive 3

Continuing Werner Sombart deficiency
It's really rather rather strange and peculiar that this article still makes no reference to Werner Sombart, who had a great influence on academic formulations or discussions of American exceptionalism in the early 20th century... AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

POV
there are several instances of POV in the article which does not put the idea in its contexts instead having one arguement presented and then critiqued by the next sentence - this article needs a section that has a CRITIQUE OF PRO-SUPPORTS and NON-Supports —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.184.199 (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity
On the front page there is the following claim:

"All of the nations mentioned in the previous example were societies based on an exclusive ethnic group, or an exclusive ethnic group as first-class citizens within those societies: the Romans, in the case of Ancient Rome; the British, in the case of the British Empire; "Aryans" in the case of the Nazi entity..." I'd just like to make the point that this is absolute bunkum. The Romans were multiethnic in their citizenship (there were a lot of Greeks, and some of the Jewish apostles in the Bible are clearly Roman citizens, and basically anyone could become a citizen through military service at various times.), the British were and are multi-ethnic (Scottish, Welsh, Irish and English people are different ethnicities) and Nazi Germany was not run by 'ethnic Aryans', which is a problematic term at best, but at even a casual level it was run by Germans and Austrians." The idea that America's multiethnicity is somehow unusual is false, because the British for example have always been a multiethnic polity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.65.1 (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Romans were not multiethnic in their citizenship until the 4th Century CE, I believe. (Roman citizens before that point were Italian only). By then, Roman citizenship did not equal participation in the polity, as Rome was an Empire.
 * In the late Empire, the "barbarian" citizens did rise to great power in Rome (and did her in, when the ethnic Romans refused to fight for Rome any longer, and the "barbarians" decided to sack the city of Rome in 476.)
 * For example, the Jewish prophets were certainly not citizens; Rome ruled somewhat indirectly through Herod, the governor of those provinces, and his successors, until the Great Jewish Revolt of CE ~70-90, when Rome exerted direct rule.
 * The Greeks did not become Roman citizens until late in the history of the Empire; they did, however, become full citizens, and exerted major influence - indeed, near total influence over the Byzantine Empire - Rome's successor.
 * The citizenship of Rome was fluid, though, through intermarriage, as the offspring of intermarriage did become citizens.
 * There are certainly differences between the British ethnicities; however, they are all European, and all British. Ireland was traditionally subjugated by the English majority, and whether the Scottish and the Welsh were historically subjugated by the English is an open question with a variety of opinions on that.
 * The Nazis saw themselves as being an "Aryan" entity = e.g. "Northern European"/"Germanic". The Nazis saw other ethnicities as being inferior to theirs, even if they were a joint German/Austrian organization - and in any event, Austria = "Oesterreich" - the Western Reich - Austria's ethnicity is German, not "Austrian"; Austria does not greatly differ from Germany. Austria is to Germany as Bavaria is to Prussia.
 * In sum, you do have a point - other nations have been partially multiethnic - but since there are more Americans, for example, who claim German ethnic ancestry than there are Americans who claim British ethnic ancestry, America has taken that concept to what one might term the "next level". America's half-Kenyan President-elect might be an illustration of that point.Katana0182 (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I most humbly apologize for my less than perfect understanding of German grammar, User:141.35.186.133. Katana0182 (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Movement of edits; new opposing views section; tags added without discussion; "ethnocentrism" suitable references; editorializing.
I moved a detailed argument re: Am. exceptionalism in the "initial section" to a new "Opposing Views" section; detailed arguments belong in sections; not the introduction to the article. Katana0182 (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed references to books that referenced their Amazon.com pages, rather than the book itself. References to books must be made to books, not their bookseller.
 * Several tags added to the page need to be discussed on the talk page when adding them. Since no discussion has been initiated on the talk page by the originator of these tags, these may be removed without notice.
 * Claims of ethnocentrism need to establish that there is an American ethnicity to center around. Please establish the existence of an "American ethnicity" prior to making claims of ethnocentrism.
 * Please do not make statements of opinion in the article; this is an encyclopedia, not a discussion board.

Oh, yeah, and who came up with the idea that American exceptionalism = American superiority? De Tocqueville clearly states it in terms of American difference. Reverted description of American exceptionalism to "qualitative differences", not "superiority". Katana0182 (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That was the mid 19th century. Today, Am. exceptionalism is clearly an allusion to superiority when used in most contexts. The article needs to reflect that. Gregorik (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Without references to Leftist/Eurocentrist viewpoints, the whole page feels like right-wing PR, no less. I hope a consensus will be reached. Your version of the lead was way too uninformative, sorry. Gregorik (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference to ethnocentrism deleted (for now). Article needs huge revision by objective reviewers (that means non-conservatives w/o vested interest). Gregorik (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Occupies a special niche among developed nations"
Rephrased the first sentence because the previous wording ("differs qualitatively from other developed nations") sounded flat-out jingoistic even for a pro-Am. Gregorik (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edits still constitute synthesis and original research. The quantity of references does not matter as much as the quality does. Since most of the sources you quote do not verify what is cited or are not reliable (i.e. blogs, comments on blogs, sources from unknown origins, etc.) nor does this editor understand how exactly the some of the sources you reference verify the material cited, this editor finds that you are:
 * 1. using a shotgun-citation approach, where it seems that you google the word exceptionalism and then just cite whatever comes up;
 * 2. trying to pov-push using unreliable sources;
 * 3. and through this - trying to make this article into your own personal manifesto;
 * This is completely unacceptable and shows a dangerous trend of bad faith editing to conform this article to what you view as reality regardless of what reality actually is. As such, this article is being watched closely, and this editor - through her innumerable, quite dynamic IP addresses, and likeminded friends - will not hesitate to question citations or other bad-faith referencing tactics and academic dishonesty such as bibliography padding (http://www.purdue.edu/ODOS/osrr/integrity.htm; http://www.umanitoba.ca/student/u1/images/Recognizing_Plagiarism.pdf).
 * BTW, if "differs qualitatively from other developed nations" somehow was not neutral...your phrasing "Occupies a special niche among developed nations" is even more pro-U.S. than it was before - because it claims America is "special", not just "different". This editor does admit that English is a hard language to master...and some may have trouble with it. But it still is no excuse for this sloppiness.71.127.8.114 (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't debate with IP's. Anyway, I find your quite pretentious usage of certain phrases ("academic dishonesty", "bibliography padding" etc.) and your insistence on "innumerable, quite dynamic IP addresses" a case of overkill. What this article needs is a torrent of objective edits as currently it still reads as a neocon manifesto. Not from me though, I'm getting bored of the subject. Remember: at the end of the day, editing Wikipedia is a hobby. Excuse me. Gregorik (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so I don't have the time to clean this article up in its pretty ugly entirety, but I made two short changes.
 * One: I changed 'developed nations' to 'nations of the world,' both to reflect the Frederick Jackson Turner piece being (kind of uninformatively) cited there and to avoid giving a sense that the term was coined to refer particularly to the U.S. relative to one set of countries; the term's meant to suggest--in much uglier fashion, I would say--that the U.S. is exceptional in the history of cultures as such (going at least back to the early religious settlers and to the Arabella Covenant).
 * Two: I cut out the reference to Obama's remark that he "believes in" AE. This was in the opening overview, and has no business at all being there, because a given president's belief or non-belief does nothing to clarify the overall contours of the term.  In my opinion, it doesn't have any place in the article at all, all the more so since I think he was trying to deflect a question and in the process treated the term as though it meant nothing in particular.  Mind you, I would love to see this term become simply a historical footnote, on a personal level, but since it still has some currency, we should have examples in the article that reflect that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.15.8 (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Your open dislike of the term is commendable I guess, but you delete too much: Obama's sentences do have their place in the lead; these were significant remarks arguing overtly against Am. exc. by the 1st Democratic President since 2000, no less. Gregorik (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A. I re-fixed 'developed nations'; quite simply, AE has nothing to do with the U.S.'s place among developed nations in particular; it's a global doctrine, and has been at least since John Winthrop's "city on the hill" bit in 'A Modell of Christian Charity'.
 * B. I'm about to cut the Obama stuff again. Though I don't personally agree that the remarks were particularly significant, that's not what's at stake.  Even if they should be "significant remarks arguing overtly against" AE, they wouldn't belong in the lead section of an encyclopedia article--if you feel they belong somewhere in there, by all means put them in the controversy/opposition section.  This seems simple to me: the opinions of *any* contemporary political figure about the *value* of a doctrine aren't key information for the *introduction* of that doctrine.  In this regard, the fact that O's the first Dem pres. in two terms is meaningless (much, again, as it pleases me personally); his tacit dismissal of AE is great, but it just doesn't add to an overview of the term.

99.31.15.8 (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First, gain some credibility please by not using an anonymous account, especially when trying to improve such a controversial article. Second, you shouldn't cut the remarks without a trace anyway, but move them into the Opposing views section. I think it goes without saying that Obama's criticism of Am. exc. does have its place in the article. You've also removed some well-referenced lines concerning the Dem. Party, making the lead too short. Gregorik (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: credibility. If anonymity makes you incredulous, that's unfortunate.
 * Re: lines on the Dem. Party. Reference was not a scholarly source, and was contradicted by several scholarly sources.  As far as some deeper truth goes, that may not mean anything, but for the language game of encyclopedia-writing, it's pretty much definitive. 99.31.15.8 (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Added to WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias
I think we all benefit from adding the article to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WikiProjectCSBTasks Please discuss before deleting stuff unilaterally. Thank you. Gregorik (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nota Bene Section
I think this section would be very difficult to read for someone who wasn't familiar with Kantian terms. Also I think the title of the section ought to be renamed, I don't think many people will recognize this Latin term and will probably just skip over it. -13:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutananadilewski (talk • contribs)

Biased and misleading? Not really!!!
An above article stated that this was biased and misleading. I have read the article and think this person was refering to the list about the types of exceptionalism and why they are around, in which there would be no reason to have the Anti-Exceptionalism viewpoint. This user is clearly against the idea of American Exceptionalism, and is trying to make it read as though it is a crazy ideal of America first, that has no reason for coming to light. It is nothing more than an communist ultra equality scam.

Re: "The end of American triumphalism"
I am concerned by section 5.3, "The end of American triumphalism". The section purely consists of a quote, offering no context. Perhaps it should be removed? Cordovao (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, it is a section promoting one viewpoint. I agree some sections in some articles can serve just one viewpoint, but I don't think "The end of American triumphalism" is applicable.  Cordovao (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be bold, and remove the section. Cordovao (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You were being too bold, section expansion/rephrasing is preferred over complete deletion, esp. in this case, sorry. Gregorik (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies. However, with notification by me of this issue for several days and no constructive work being done on the section, wouldn't it be better to remove the flawed section until such time as someone can insert a much better one?  As of right now the section only contains a quote, and promotes only one side, which is inherently POV and unencyclopedic to have just a quote without context.  In view of the POV problem I really urge the section should be removed at once.  Cordovao (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Improvement is better than complete removal, but in this case if it can't be improved in short order I agree that it should be removed entirely, especially since the source can only be read in its entirety if you are a subscriber to The Economist, meaning that the quote can't even be seen in its original context by the majority of our editors. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur. Would anyone mind, if the section isn't improved in 2 weeks, I go ahead and remove?  Cordovao (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. 217.44.215.134 (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Way too many references per cite
I have twice removed a number of references that were arranged in a string as support for one concept within the article. Many of these refs were poorly formatted (raw URLs) and not quoted. The reader doesn't know which reference is supporting what statement. A careful reader who is checking each source will be swamped with work, and will find that too many of the references are tangential at best. To me, this looks like a larding of the article with low-quality volume and mass, not focused content, in an attempt to bluster past any opposition. I think one very tightly focused reference is quite enough for each statement that needs a cite, and I think that this high-quality reference should be given an author, a publication, a date and, if needed, a supporting quote taken from the source. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Quality, not quantity. Rather than spewing a large number of unformatted refs, put in one good one where needed. Think like the lion, not like the cockroach, in your urge to put children of your thoughts on the planet. The lioness concentrates on one cub, maybe two, and trains them thoroughly. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If somebody is quoted, it doesn't take more than one URL to back up this fact. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * happened after you removed one of the references supporting the statement which was removed. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That statement, Democrats are "fundamentally opposed to American exceptionalism", wasn't supported by the reference http://www.americasright.com/2009/05/democrats-newspapers-and-fall-of.html, a blog post which Saddhiyama removed, so Saddhiyama was in the right. The statement is supported by the URL http://newledger.com/2009/05/american-exceptionalism-and-its-enemies , an opinion piece by Ted Bromund, a non-notable right-wing think tanker. It's true that I took out the only one of the two URLs that supported the statement, and for that I'm sorry. So why were there two URLs? At any rate, the Bromund opinion piece is a low-quality reference; he is not a notable commentator, and the forum he published in is not mainstream, like Time magazine or whatever. The New Ledger is a blog hosting site.
 * I expect that my next move will be to take out the blanket statement, as I've read other opinions that give a less stark view of Democrats, less of a black-and-white polarity. Bromund took the easy line, one of non-analysis, and I don't think he gave it a lot of effort. Contrary to what he wrote, I have read that some Democrats feel one way, and some Democrats feel another, and that the party platform is in flux on the subject American exceptionalism, depending on who is defining it and during what administration. Now to find that reference... Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed. That opinion piece was from a non-notable observer and is hosted at a POV blog site. Additionally, Godfrey Hodgson's book The Myth of American Exceptionalism punctures Bromund's bald statement by noting that ''analysis shows such different strands of opinion within both political parties..." Black and white global statements should always be suspect in a gray-area continuum involving public opinion. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no. First, I guess the New Ledger would be pretty upset if someone called them a "blog hosting site". Second, Ted Bromund is notable; among other things, he's a commentator on Commentary Magazine and the Yorkshire Post: http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/tedbromund.cfm Also, see these quotes from my 2 new references: "The concept was expressed perfectly by Republican talk show host Hugh Hewitt, when he referred to Democrats as “a party of bitter hostility to the idea of American exceptionalism”." "In the past week, both McCain and Palin have defended patriotism and American exceptionalism both concepts that the Democrats deride. It doesn’t get more basic than that." All these convince me that the majority of Democrats are opposed to Am. exc. Gregorik (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Other pieces to consider: "It is possible that American exceptionalism may wane in the next few years, particularly if the Democrats can recapture the presidency." http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/wc06/wc12.htm "I asked Beck why Democrats rarely share his overwhelming sense of American exceptionalism and Francophobia." http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein26-2008dec26,0,5178459.column  However, I now agree that there are some references online indicating that Democrats are divided in this question. Gregorik (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One outstanding example of neoconservatism within the Democratic party is the Coalition for a Democratic Majority, formed in 1972. They got together because they believed in American exceptionalism. Regarding The New Ledger, I guess we'll have to agree to differ. I don't think your boy Bromund is the heavy hitter you describe, but at least his opinion piece is presented as an article by the host site. Your two other raw URLs are outta there, though. They don't support the exact quote that Bromund made; only Bromund's article does. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As per the OP in this thread, I deleted the following reference:

"Research shows that "there is some indication for American exceptionalism among the [U.S.] public, but very little evidence of unilateral attitudes". " In point of fact, it's actually a decent source (unlike many still in use throughout the piece), but even a quick glance shows that it's being used in a muddleheaded way. That is, the article explicitly states up-front that it's looking only at the more recent variant of 'exceptionalism' (what someone has kind of helpfully distinguished in the main article as a priori exceptionalism), but the usage of the quote left that entirely unclear. I would have just added a brief clarification, except that I would then have had also to explain what the author means by comparing unilateralism and exceptionalism, and the quote didn't seem like it was adding enough to justify the closer reading of the source. If someone else wants to, I think this would be a reasonable thing to re-add, given appropriate context. Ira —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.15.8 (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical exceptionalism
Pope Leo XIII, who denounced what he deemed to be the heresy of americanism in the encyclical Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, was probably refering to American exceptionalism in the ecclesiastical domain, when it is specifically applied to the teachings of Christianity and the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. At the end of the 19th century, there was definitely a tendency among the Roman Catholic clergy in the United States to view American society as inherently different from other Christian nations and societies, and to argue that the entire understanding of Church doctrine had to be redrawn in order to meet the requirements of what is known as the American experience, which supposedly included greater individualism, civil rights, the inheritance of the American revolution, Anglo-Saxon cultural traditions, Anglo-American analytical philosophy, economic liberalism, political reformism and egalitarianism, Church-State separation, etc. ADM (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the Lead
The sentence in the lead that begins with "The term itself did not emerge until after World War II..." has several problems. First of all, the source states that it had emerged well prior to World War II, but that it was "canonized" after. Second, this is an unreliable source. It is not peer-reviewed, it does not appear to have an author, the introduction states that, "This is a work in progress," it is not from a reliable source, which all disqualifies it per wp:verifiability. As such, I propose that the sentence be deleted. Opinions? EJNOGARB 16:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not really. First of all, the verbatim quote from the source is: "While the roots of the term, then, date back to Tocqueville's famous sojourn in the mid-nineteenth century, American exceptionalism, as a term, did not emerge until after WW II." Second, the source seems to be the "American Exceptionalism" entry of the official "ED253A: Technology, Education and Society: Conflicting Perspectives" course at UCLA (2003) which makes it reliable. The source itself is supported with many references and it appears to be fine. The "work in progress" refers to the page itself as it was supposed to be constantly updated by the lecturer, whose name seems to be Douglas Kellner Phd: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/index.html. No problem here. Gregorik (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Opposing Viewpoints
Just so folks know, I did an overhaul of this section. It should now be a reasonably coherent of what it already was, and also ties in the meaning-shift that happened during the Bush years and that Obama seems to have (more or less intentionally, I grant you, Gregorik) contributed to. I moved things around, added a reference or two, and wrote stronger transitions. Ira. 99.186.236.121 (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's still very much biased toward the POV opposing American Exceptionalism. Please, pretty please, for Chrissakes expand the section with the arguments supporting American Exceptionalism with more info and quotes.  Or else cut out some of the quotes at the end of the "arguments against" section, I don't see how they refute the idea of American Exceptionalism other than to hammer the point home through sheer repetition.  (BTW, do you notice that many if not most of these quotes I'm referring to come from foreign nationals and organizations?)  Frankly, as an American nationalist and patriot, I'm appalled by the obvious anti-American bias in this article.  Danny.  98.234.126.251 (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I wrote at least half of the Opposing view(point)s section, and I have to agree you did a good job here. I certainly won't "re-rehaul" it. I'm not sure about earlier sections, but this section does not have an "anti-American bias", while it's anti-AE to be sure. Gregorik (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was talking about the article as a whole having an anti-American bias. I'm gonna add a POV tag at the top to reflect this.  Danny.  146.74.230.81 (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You will have to explain in more detail what it is that you think is anti-american POV in this article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tags deleted from the top. Individual sections are already overflowing with POV tags. Gregorik (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For one thing, the "Opposing viewpoints" section is about TWICE as long as the "Aspects of arguments" section -- and that's an example of anti-Almerican bias right there. Also, quite a number of the quotes cited in the last part of the former section are frankly anti-American and intended primarily to denigrate America and her various aspects.  I'm adding the tags again, if you don't see the bias then you need to see either an eye doctor or an English teacher. 98.234.126.251 (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For an example of what I mean about the quotes, just take a look at the big block quote by Sellevoid, it bashes the very idea of American patriotism and presents it like some kind of fascist ideology. Also, the entire subsection on "preemptive declinism" smacks of the same old "corrupted, decaying Western world" rhetoric that used to be proclaimed daily in Soviet-bloc media. 98.234.126.251 (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 98.234.126.251: Someone deleted the Arguments section several weeks ago as the section was deemed downright jingoistic; you're free to revert it; the point is that this article is bound to hurt some feelings no matter how it is written; its 'pro' and 'contra' sections have the potential to hurt both non-Americans and Americans, respectively. But it has none of that "decaying West" rhetoric: that's your bias right there. I think you mix up the sentiments of American exceptionalism and American patriotism. Please try to improve the text instead of tagging it. Gregorik (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel the article is skewed by a somewhat uncritical assumption of the inevitability (that is, universality) of nationalistic philosophies. On both "sides" of the arguments which are occurring here. Mydogtrouble (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Immigration
Quote from Immigration section: Second, unlike many old world countries, where citizenship is based on blood, immigrants can become US citizens by passing a test showing a basic level of skill in English & US History & Government, demonstrating good moral character (not being convicted of a felony), residing in the nation for seven years, and pledging allegiance to the Constitution of the United States ... is quite untrue. Every 'old world' or 'western country I can think of has similar or even more lenient citizenship requirements. Intend to delete reason two unless anyone comes up with a better wording. E x nihil (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, that sentence is wrong and should be deleted. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Took out the second reason as above as untrue. I think this article is generally getting confused between the original meaning of exceptionalism as being 'set aside' and not judged as other nations and the colloqial idea of exeptional as meaning 'something really good and desirable'. E x nihil  (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong
Here is what American exceptionalism is:
 * American exceptionalism designates the belief and practices that explicitly or implicitly regard the United States as exceptional. It means that the United States is outstanding from other nations in ways that are good. Further, in most instances, what people denote by "American Exceptionalism" is the belief that America is exemplary. 

Ism does not mean theory. And, exceptional does not mean different in quality. American exceptionalism means America is great, and the argument in the press is over that. The meaning of American exceptionalism does not include that argument. If you deny that, you’re being dishonest. --75.36.33.18 (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Your wrong" assumption is that T. David Gordon defines American exceptionalism the way you think he does. Gordon is much more ambivalent; he says the definition of American exceptionalism "is somewhat fluid." He says "One could either defend or deny the idea of American Exceptionalism depending on the definition." It appears that you have cherry-picked his words to push a point of view. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 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." Hence it is not surprising that the editor, Charles W. Dunn, would use the term that way.  When terms may have more than one meaning, we use disambiguation.  For example, we have separate articles on Mars the planet and Mars the candy bar.  TFD (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is referencing, American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword, Seymour Lipset seems to be the source of the misuse of Exceptional-ism. In the introduction, on page 18, Lipset wrongly claims, "Exceptionalism is a double-edged concept." Well no, there are not two sides to the meaning of exceptional. It is always speaking of something favorably. Lipset then states ". . . we are the worst as well as the best . . ." Whether or not he used the term first, he was really writing to disagree with the notion of America being exceptional. The expression really means the United States is qualitatively ahead of other nations; our revolution was before that of France; We established a republic, invented Wikipedia, and so forth. -- Anonymous please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.118.118 (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Lipset did not mean there were "two sides to the meaning". Rather the way in which the U.S. differed from other nations made the U.S. worse in some ways and better in others.  He used the examples of crime and education at time when the U.S. had high crime rates and superior education.  And exceptional does not necessarily mean better - that is an exceptionally poor argument.  Everyone discussing your comments  has a registered account except you, who are an exception.  TFD (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's some some info I found. I'm not sure how it could be worked in (I really don't have the time to spend a lot of time on improving this article although I was supprised at its definition of the topic): Exceptionalism says that in certain instances exceptional circumstances will result in distortion of a generally predictable course. Some English proverbs say a timely intervention prevents problems, such as “a stitch in time saves nine” stitches. An exceeptionalist is someone who believes or advocates exceptionalism. For example, an exceptional child is one who needs psychological aid or special education in social adjustment, because of being uncommon from either superior or inferior abilities. So, maybe it's not about being great or wanting to be, or about being qualitatively different either. In 1961 I think they considered it a philosophy of prevention or of intervention.--69.3.118.118 (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Back in 1963 in The First New Nation, Lipset wrote, "In a real sense, this book pursues two substantive themes with which I have been concerned in previous writings the problem of what was once known in the Marxist literature as "American exceptionalism" and the conditions for stable democracy." TFD (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Illiteracy
Presuming that Your wrong is intended to mean You're wrong, and presuming further that the author of that headline is an American believing in exceptionalism (You're unique - just like everybody else.) then perhaps illiteracy rates in the US compared against other industrialised nations should form part of the topic. If a discussion of illiteracy gains no consensus of finding its way into the article, then perhaps American architecture, as aptly showcased right here:
 * http://www.drbukk.com/content/23-the-trailer-park and here
 * http://www.drbukk.com/content/24-other-trailers could be mentioned. These items are unique to America. Therefore, why would anybody object to the use of these items in proving American exceptionalism?--Achim (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * as far as trailers are concerned, I lived in one as a small child and they are ubiquitous. They represent a very high degree of geographic mobility that is an American characteristic. American really do pick up and move 200 miles to a new job, or even 2000 miles.  Maybe the Chinese are getting a taste of it in the last 20 years as millions move to factories in cities. Rjensen (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Education has been discussed as part of exceptionalism. The U.S. was among the first to attain a high degree of literacy and education levels were far higher than in Canada for example.  I do not know if anyone has written about modern comparisons in terms of exceptionalism.  TFD (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That sounds doubtful. Sources needed indeed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * See Google answers which provides links to various sources saying that the literacy rate in early America was much higher than in the UK and Europe. See also Lipset's American Exceptionalism, p. 22, where he writes that the U.S. had long had the highest proportion of young people in higher education. Even in 1994 it was higher than anywhere in Europe or Japan.  Even today, while much of the industrialized world has caught up or surpassed them, the U.S. still scores high in these areas.  TFD (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Mormonism?
Isn't/wasn't American Exceptionalism a central teaching of the Mormon religion? Its not mentioned here. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The true nature of Mormonism is showcased on the following Wikipedia page: All About Mormons.--Achim (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The above link discusses a Simpsons Cartoon episode. Wikipedia also has real Mormon pages, of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism Robinrobin (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article I cited above is from South Park, not Simpsons. But that does not diminish its educational value. --Achim (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, because antagonistic cartoons or silly songs created by opponents/critics are a great way to learn about atheism. --2610:E0:A040:A9FD:D3F:DE34:AEC:CC2F (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"qualitatively different from other nation states"
is America a "nation state"? --173.76.108.247 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not matter - it is part of the definition of American exceptionalism. We are not saying the U.S. is a nation state.  TFD (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, merely as a matter of sovereign legitimacy, the United States is generally considered a nation state. I could see weak arguments being made for considering it a multinational state based on territories and other outliers (Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.), empire (based on distaste for overseas actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) or (prior to the relatively strong federal government) confederation. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Please be more POV with this article
Neoconservatives must continue to add non-neutral points of view to this article to provide amusement for the rest of us. Because you care about the primacy of Ronald Reagan, Peggy Noonan's quotes about American Exceptionalism are of vital importance. The people must know what Peggy Noonan thinks! It's verifiable! It's not original research! Plop it in the article. Yay!! There. Feel better? Good. Because you care about Marxism, Jay Lovestone and Joseph Stalin discussing America's possible exceptionalism in relation to Marxism is of vital importance to you. That's why the people must know that Stalin himself coined the term despite the verifiable fact that it appeared in print in the same context months before Stalin allegedly coined it and despite the fact that The Times of London discussed America's exceptionalism in print in relation to America's civil war decades before Stalin allegedly coined the term. But the people must know what Stalin said! It's also verifiable that he said it first! Plop it in the article. Create an entire subsection about American Exceptionalism in Marxism. Yay!! There. Feel better? Good. An entire subsection about Marxism and quoting Peggy Noonan are sufficiently POV to indicate to a bright 9th grader that this is an article that is best avoided because it was edited by nutty people, but more POV editing is needed to steer younger children away from it. That's why I encourage editors who care about unaged cheese, soccer/football, and a wide variety of other things where verifiable resources exist that discuss American Exceptionalism in the context of their interests must come here and create quotes and subsections for their bits of interest. From a very young age, children must learn that biased editors are here. What we really need are huge photos of Ronald Reagan on one side of the article with a halo around his head and an equally large photo of Joseph Stalin on the other side holding a pitchfork. That will drive the message home. That will tell the story that we all want to see. That will make all of us feel wonderful. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So what would you suggest? The obscure mention in The Times is included, as is the idea that the concept if not the term goes back centuries.  TFD (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest more of the same. I've already suggested giant photos of Reagan with a halo and Stalin with a pitchfork. Maybe a green label saying "GOOD" on Reagan and a red label saying "BAD" on Stalin would help along with a Fox News logo and a portrait of Roger Ailes's lawyer. Let's throw in photos Chomsky and Code Pink women around Stalin's head and a cute teen girl waving an American flag at a Nascar event above Reagan's halo. Citing Peggy Noonan, the well-respected Oxford historian and peer-reviewed author of countless journal articles on the topic, is not enough. We must cite other objective historians who are well-regarded by everyone worldwide like Dinesh D'Souza and Steve Emerson. Phrases like "left-wing/socialist and right-wing/aristocratic" need to be expanded further into something like "left-wing/socialist/potatoes/lesbians/body-hair and right-wing/aristocratic/capers/Mr. Grey/ooo...ooo...ooo." Above all else, we must cite less material that was written before 2005 because it's completely irrelevant to the important thing: defeating Barack Obama's legacy. When I worked on this article in 2005-2006, the phrase meant something entirely different, so the article should be changed even more from what it was back then. One "Debates" section isn't enough. There must be a separate section for any time that Obama has used the phrase in any context. In fact, let's put Obama's photo above Stalin's head along with Chomsky's and the Code Pink women. Yes. That's what's best for the reader. Flying Jazz (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead
The beginning of this article (as it stands right now) is self-contradictory. The first sentence says that American Exceptionalism implies a qualitative difference, yet a paragraph down it says that it doesn't imply it's better or worse. Furthermore, the second sentence belongs as part of the paragraph describing how many republicans have used the term. The article has problems and doesn't address the fact that there's more than one sense of the word "Exceptional", and that this has led to different interpretations of what "American Exceptionalism" means. Originally, Toqueville clearly meant it in the sense of being the exception to the rule, whereas republicans have used it in the superlative sense. These are very different word meanings. I feel I'm being charitable when I acquiesce to describing the term as having two meanings since all of the original meanings had to do with 'being the exception'.Ivemadeahugemistake (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Qualitatively different" does not mean better, it means having different attributes. Furthermore the expression is used by experts on the subject. Also, this is not a dictionary article where we explain the various ways a term can be used, but an encyclopedia article about a topic.  We do not need to provide extensive discussion about alternative uses of the term, merely acknowledge they exist.  And we should not refer to academic theories as "assertion[s]".  TFD (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Qualitatively" refers to a measure of quality; when comparatively, either better or worse. In English, to say that "a country is qualitatively different", technically that means that the country as a whole is either better or worse than others; it does NOT mean that its "attributes" are different in quality.  One would have to use different word choices/ordering in order to say that.  If that is what is intended, then the article ought to be edited to reflect it.  The word choices of experts on the subject, when misleading, should not be copied verbatim.  Furthermore (and more to the point), the intended implication of saying that "the U.S. is qualitatively different" is understood by all to mean that it is better, which IS in contradiction with the second paragraph.  The second paragraph doesn't mention the fact that the term doesn't imply better or worse out of pure technical semantics--it mentions that because of the term's meaning as a whole, yet that is in contradiction to the clear, understood implication of the first sentence as it's written now.  We can either talk about pure semantics or we can talk about the intended meaning of the term, but we need to be aware of which at any particular time.  If the article focuses on semantics in a section, it must recognize the different senses of the word "exceptional"--either being superlative, or else referring to being the exception; and we can keep the phrase at the beginning of the second paragraph about how it doesn't imply being necessarily better or worse.  Or we can talk about the meaning that the phrase holds, but if we do that we should certainly mention that it has two quite different philosophical meanings, one of which is a much more recent invention that has to do with the U.S. effectively being "best".  Take a look at all of the old usages of the term.  They all refer to America being the exception.  The exception to the rules in Europe; the exception to the Marxist-imagined rules of political-economy.  This is indeed an encyclopedia article and its allegiance is to the public, whereas the allegiances of the experts may have been to their own political ideologies and agendas.  When an "expert" phrases things in order to waffle or obfuscate--even slightly--to make their position seem more credible or acceptable, that tricky language ought to be ignored by encyclopedia writers, whose job it is to offer clarity of meaning, as people will understand it.  Were an expert to say that many of the attributes of the U.S. are qualitatively different than other countries, then that would be so uncontroversial and clearly factual as to be pointless to articulate.  Obviously, the U.S. has attributes that are different--so do all countries because countries are not clones of each other.  But that is not what is meant by the phrase or else people wouldn't reference it.  It wouldn't be meaningful.  So User:The Four Deuces is wrong--we cannot let the article stand as is because the English meaning of the phrasing implies what we all know is true about how people interpret this phrase, yet that's in contradiction to the second paragraph.  If we change the phrasing to be more explicitly to what he argued it means, it loses all importance, and it doesn't matter if an expert argued that's what they mean by the phrase--we know that that interpretation would be a philosophical smokescreen meant to seem unassailable on its face, yet meaningless, which doesn't stack up with the popularity of the term's use.
 * This article must address the "exception" interpretation of "American Exceptionalism" precisely because that is the meaning that the phrase held for the overwhelming majority of its use. The current version does not do that explicitly--rather, it confuses the reader by implying one definition, but switching to the other meaning when citing early examples.  The current version's lead is poorly written because of the confusion.  It doesn't take much to solve the problem.  Please don't simply revert the edit I offer.  User:The Four Deuces makes an argument for reverting that doesn't even make sense: that this is an encyclopedia article, not a dictionary definition of ways that the phrase could be used.  This seems meant to imply that the "exception" interpretation is not how the phrase was used in practice.  That is a very dishonest argument; all one need do is take a look at any of the early uses to see that it is false.Ivemadeahugemistake (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * While quality may mean "degree of excellence", its primary meaning is "peculiar and essential character." (See definition in Merriam-Webster.)  "Qualitatively different" means different in essential character.  It is to make clear that it is not "quantitatively different", i.e., different in degree of excellence.  A Google search of "qualitatively different" shows its standard usage.  While no other reader has said they have read the term the way you do, Rjensen has changed the expression to inherently so one hopes it will be clearer to readers.  TFD (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for not simply reverting. This new lead is certainly much better written.  I still have a philosophical niggle with it though, and it could be easily fixed.  I think the way it's phrased now is well-poised for a small change that could incorporate all interpretations if we were to alter part of the first sentence to say "...is the theory that the United States is or ought to be treated as inherently different from...".Ivemadeahugemistake (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see the meaning of or ought to be treated as --- who is supposed to be doing this treating? what would the treating consist of? Rjensen (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Pro-forma COI declaration
I'm co-editor of a book that's out now from the Dutch academic publisher Brill. I've added it to the further reading section and just thought I should make my connection clear. —Tim Davenport /// Carrite (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on the book and thanks for the reference! my experiences is that real scholars are appreciated on Wikipedia, but they have to use their real names on their user page so people know their credentials. Rjensen (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the book. It is a great contribution to understanding the history of the subject and certainly is a valuable resource for readers who want further information.  TFD (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Dick Cheney/Liz Cheney book
I do not think the article should contain a link to Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America. The book is not about the topic of this article, which is that America is qualitatively different from other nations, rather than better. The authors write, "Our children need to know that they are citizens of the most powerful, good, and honorable nation in the history of mankind, the exceptional nation." It does not appear to be particularly significant or influential.

TFD (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to change the definition of American exceptionalism
"American exceptionalism is a doctrine fundamented on three ideas." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.66.46.191 (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The point in the lead is that U.S. exceptionalism can have different definitions, but its main definition in reliable sources is not a doctrine but a theory. That some Americans believe their country has a unique destiny is evidence that the theory is true.  TFD (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A theory requires a lot more than that, and the belief of a minority of people in something is not sufficient to establish a delusion as truth. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * doctrine vs theory?? the distinction is not clear. The first def is a historical statement that is contested as more-true/less true by various scholars. The three defs are distinct--one can hold to zero, one or two or three of them.  Rjensen (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not think it is a delusion that U.S. history and its social and political attitudes differ in some ways from those of Europe or even Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the three countries with which it has greatest similarity. There are different connotations between the term theory and doctrine.  E = mc2 is a theory, transubstantiation is a doctrine.  TFD (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * i think neither E = mc2 nor transubstantiation are useful models here. Rjensen (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I am just saying that the term doctrine is more often used for a tenet of faith or belief, as in doctrinaire. TFD (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

history
copy ex Rjensen talk page
 * Dear Rjensen, you reverted my deletion of the section Origin of the term with the comment "keep fully sourced history of the term (later sections deal with the concept but not the term)". It is rather unclear what the distinction between the term and the concept is but two things are clear, one is that the contents of each are largely repeated and the other is that they actually conflict.  The origin of the term is integral to its history anyway, the term can only be understood in the history of its development.  It would be better if we did away with one or other of the sections and integrated them under History, or a better heading if you prefer.  The whole article has grown in a rather incoherent way, it would be helpful if we could cull out a great deal of it and tried to get some discipline into the structure.  I suggest that we retain the History, starting with the origin of the term in de Tocqueville, any content considered to be of value that is unique to Origin of therm can be retained within History, but actually there is almost none in there.  The other thing I tried to do was to make History a history, and that was already developing as a timeline with dates but I note that Post War development - 1945-1999 has been replaced with Uniqueness, which seems to be introducing a random conceptual idea into what is otherwise a chronology.  You can probably do a better job of it than than I did but I would ask you to reconsider the wholesale reinstatement of Origin of the term on the basis that it is redundant.  E x nihil  (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * it's a bad idea to erase fully sourced uncontroversial material. Wikipedia articles do grow like topsy--there is no masterplan. Narrative history and biography can work on straight chronological terms but this sort of conceptual article can be problematic. The section on " 1945-1999" was misnamed and badly done--Ross was including ideas from the 19th century (post-Millenialism is 19th century and does NOT say it applies only to the USA; Germanic origins idea = late 19th eg Herbert B Adams--it's the opposite of exceptionalism since he held that all Germanic nations were covered). The section really talked about a related issue (uniqueness) so I revised it accordingly.  the term was a mainstay of Marxism for many years (1920s-1940s). Rjensen (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Tone of criticism section
I take issue with the presented dichotomy of "historians" (who are critical) and "empirical social scientists" (who are affirmative). Why are social scientists called "empirical"? Seems a rather laudatory introduction.

Apex Editor (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I suppose the distinction is that social scientists have looked at the evidence, such as lack of a socialist party, while historians have questioned what conclusions can be drawn from the evidence. TFD (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

"exceptionalism is a frequent target for attacks from liberals and groups that adhere to Democratic Party ideologies"
This was previously in the lede. It very flagrantly violated WP:NPOV and I don't see a NPOV way to rework it so I just removed it. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Article completely ignores the first two centuries of the idea of American exceptionalism
This article seems to completely ignore the first two centuries of the idea of American exceptionalism, starting all the way back with "A Model of Christian Charity". Is this simply an accidental omission, or has this been systematically kept out of the article? CJK09 (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It mentions it in American exceptionalism. However, Hartz based his thesis on the U.S. after independence, so that is where the article concentrates.  TFD (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Dreadful grammar
Leaving to one side the tendentious propaganda, this is dreadfully poorly written (ghastly punctuation or lack of it, number disagreements, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American exceptionalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.politikwissenschaft.tu-darmstadt.de/fileadmin/pg/Sektionstagung_IB/Thimm-American_exceptionalism.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003152839/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0704.hirsh.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0704.hirsh.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040803210716/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19960301fareviewessay4193/michael-lind/the-american-creed-does-it-matter-should-it-change.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19960301fareviewessay4193/michael-lind/the-american-creed-does-it-matter-should-it-change.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"...google United States and Calvinism, or anything in that direction."
Um, no. That's not how we build an encyclopedia. There is a factual claim being made that is both incomplete and uncited. That should be fixed, not ignored with a snarky comment. Please do not undo a reasonable request for an improvement. PaulCHebert (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

"low moralistic values" -- "high" surely
"low moralistic values" --  "high" surely  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmarkkk (talk • contribs) 09:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I changed it. TFD (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ...and the lowness or highness of their values is a subjective question, not an encyclopedic one. PaulCHebert (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why it says moralistic, not moral. TFD (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

YAWWWNNNN.....
Seemingly wiki editors pride themselves in being "wiki editors," not wiki authors nor wiki writers. We readers don't expect professional writing here, but how did Wiki get the idea that "encyclopedic style," somehow means; dry and dusty? ...as in BAD WRITING?

Constructive criticism? Clue? What's wrong with this excerpt? Why is it so dry & dusty: "Criticism  Scholars have been polarized on the topic, according to Michael Kammen with historians generally against it, while empirical social scientists have tended to be supporters. Kammen reports that historians...."

Totally obvious, right? ...as in nobody in the real world does this?

...Like most of the article, it's past tense. Read it again...way, way past. This aint a 1950's novel, the Ugly American, it's today. And guess what, the topic is exciting...either the warm flag-wrapping fuzzies or toe curling disgust.

And where are today's exciting main players and arguments? How about some (stimulating) quotes from them? Do you guys even know what I'm talking about? Ostrich Clue: FoxLimbaugh&Co. No, removing/avoiding interesting/controversial ideas DOES NOT make it more respectable! The opposite. Ta Ta.  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:68BC:CE2A:BA27:3DC7 (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Bold textItalic textThe American Exceptionalism article states that a core principle of American Exceptionalism is that, quote, "the U.S. has a unique mission to transform the world. Abraham Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg address (1863), Americans have a duty to ensure "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." He was attempting to rally and inspire Americans, to keep a fractured nation intact, he was not expression ambitions for global expansion.

Lincoln was specifically talking about the United States, a divided nation at war, and the importance of the preservation of its own democracy, not expanding it to the world. The quote mentioned omits the clarifying words just before the partial quote.

"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

It is unfortunate to see the words of a great man, who procured the freedom and right of millions of slaves at the cost of his own life, being misquoted, and Wikipedia allowing it to stand, which shows bias. I believe in the Constitution, I am not affiliated with any political party. If Wikipedia is determined to include opinions as facts, or "themes", they should include diverse opinions. Here is a clear definition, no political, of what Amercican Exceptionalism means.

What American Exceptionalism Is

For the first time in human history, a government and country was founded on the belief that leaders serve the population, with a Constitution laying out the rules, where the rights of the individual, not the government, are supreme and dominant. We are born with rights, they are not granted to us by government.

Because America is the first and only nation to do this, it’s an exception, so the term “exceptional” is applied because it doesn’t exist elsewhere.
 * I think exceptionalism = a duty to the world not merely to its own people. Lincoln was saying that Americans have a responsibility to the entire world to prove that democracy works. Don Doyle, The Cause of All Nations: An International History of the American Civil War says, "Lincoln realized that the Civil War had taken on a wider significance—that all of Europe and Latin America was watching to see whether the United States, a beleaguered model of democracy, would indeed “perish from the earth.” Rjensen (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Phrasing
"the idea that America is a more nearly exceptional nation than are others". That is one of the most uniquely badly written sentences I've seen. Iapetus (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)