Talk:American exceptionalism/Archive 6

Example farm tag
I put an "example farm" tag at the Pre-emptive declinism section because it does not summarize the topic for the reader. Instead, the reader is given a host of examples from which to pick out the meaning on his own. An encyclopedia is supposed to be able to tell the reader what the topic is about without making him work so hard to figure it out from examples. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I restored the tag, as the very brief addition to the section did not, in my estimation, eliminate the concern about being an example farm. When did pre-emptive declinism begin to show itself? What is it exactly? Prose please, not so many examples. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, if no-one else will improve the section, I will, time permitting. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  17:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Origins of the Term
This article is "exceptionally" long and detailed but manages to avoid saying anything about the actual origins of the term "American exceptionalism" in the theories of Jay Lovestone and his allies within the Communist Party USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.66 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Lovestone and Bertram Wolfe used the term in the late 1920s after Nikolai Bukharin's concept of exceptionalism within Communism. Josef Stalin used the term in 1929, as "the heresy of American exceptionalism" to describe Lovestone and his followers. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Another connection between Lovestone, Communism and American exceptionalism defined unlike anything presented in this article. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This analysis sets Lovestone's American exceptionalist ideas in 1927 in a paper about the power of American capitalism. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Marx had predicted that the U. S. as the most advanced capitalist society would be first to have a socialist revolution, leaving Engels and Lovestone to explain why socialist parties failed to take root there. Stalin and others on the Left, rejected their explanation, because the implication was that the U. S., not the Soviet Union, represented the future.  TFD (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

1927 American Communism
A section about the 1927 American Communism definition that I added to the lede was taken out altogether by Gregorik. According to WP:LEAD, the section I added should have been expanded in the article itself, but it wasn't. If Gregorik had quoted WP:LEAD as the reason for its removal, I would have understood, however, the edit summary for a wide swath of change initiated by Gregorik was "Get real." I have re-added the same section to the article, but I still consider its presence there an incubation of what it could be. For instance, the section ought to be more smoothly integrated. Nevertheless, I think it is worth including, even in its current state. Here's the material in question:

"In 1927 Jay Lovestone, leader of the Communist Party in America, defined American exceptionalism as the increasing strength of American capitalism, a strength which he said prevented Communist revolution. In 1929, Joseph Stalin, unwilling to believe that America was so resistant to revolution, called Lovestone's ideas 'the heresy of American exceptionalism.' In the 1930s, academicians in the U.S. redefined American exceptionalism as befitting a nation that was to lead the world, with the U.S. to serve the older European societies as an example of a liberated future free from Marxism and socialism. More recently, socialists and other writers have tried to discover or describe this exceptionalism of the U.S. within and outside its borders."


 * Fried, Albert. Communism in America: a history in documents, pp. 7–8, 19, 82–92. Columbia University Press, 1997. ISBN 0231102356
 * Pease, Donald E. Editors: Bruce Burgett and Glenn Hendler. "Exceptionalism", pp. 108–112, in "Keywords for American Cultural Studies''. NYU Press, 2007. ISBN 0814799485
 * American Exceptionalism - Washington Post

This material is worthy, and well-referenced. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem now that it's out of the lead. I was being less than helpful; my apologies. Gregorik (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "In 1927 Jay Lovestone, leader of the Communist Party of USA defined American exceptionalism as the increasing strength of ... capitalism."
 * It sounds like Lovestone is agreeing that America is exceptional and is attributing that to capitalism. If this is so, then it seems unlikely Lovestorne could be a Communist; a communist praising capitalism? 68.50.221.230 (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lovestone indeed thought that America was exceptional, a stance which angered his Soviet masters. This did not stop Lovestone from personally embracing Communist beliefs. He was not praising capitalism as much as he was realistically assessing it as too strong for Communist revolution. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Unsustainable fiscal path"
Can anyone give a rational explanation for what this section is doing in the article? It may be true, but again, it may not, but either way, the US is hardly exceptional in having debates about economic sustainability, and nor is it in thinking such debates are peculiar to its own circumstances. To me this section looks like a bit of coatracking, sneaked (sorry, 'snuck' in Am. English) into the article in the hope that isn't noticed. Then again, as an outsider, half of what this whole article about seems to be pretty well incomprehensible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it fits into the 'Criticism' section like a glove, as the AE theory, in its deeper workings, suggests that nothing can go really wrong for the US, which includes its fiscal path. Long-standing domestic financial troubles, including that "the U.S. national debt is projected to be $18.4 trillion" in a decade, keep acting as a wake-up call to some, if not many, who are/were proponents of AE. As you said, there is nothing exceptional in the state and flow of US economy, even though exceptionalists would have it otherwise. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  08:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy, you are absolutely correct: it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. That "financial troubles...keep acting as a wake-up call to some...proponents of AE" is both wishful thinking and original research, and I note that Gregorik made no effort to make that connection in that section--because they know it would be cut as original research. Rather, it is placed there with references to suggest some sort of criticism of AE. I'm sure, though, that Gregorik will read these remarks as stemming from my supposed virulent American exceptionalism. I was wondering about this section when I first read the article, over a week ago, and couldn't figure out what it was supposed to do--given that you had the same issue, I feel confident in removing it per WP:COATRACK, as well as WP:THIS AIN'T GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Now Gregorik, if you wish to argue that a. the current fiscal path is unsustainable and b. this is due in part to the US recently waging two immoral and incredibly expensive wars and c. that they wage these wars based on American Exceptionalism and finally that d. such exceptionalism is leading the country to financial (let alone moral) ruin, I probably would not disagree with you on content--but I would urge you to write that essay and publish it somewhere else, not on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't revert it -- but I think it has much to do with Am. exceptionalism. Drmies, what about the other sections? ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  20:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't disagree that a connection can be made, but that's probably not our place. I have no objection on principle to any other section; there's much good in there. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that those who support the inclusion of this kind information have no understanding of what AE whatsoever. AE has nothing to do with normal issues that confront all nations. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 21:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * AE has everything to do with 'normal issues' precisely because it attempts to distance the US (its history, politics and economy) from those. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  21:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Says who? Cite please. Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Says common sense and a basic grasp of politology and historiography (and a bunch of reliable sources I'm sure). Your insistence on including citations for trivial stuff now borders on self-parody. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  08:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * AE does not attempt to "distance the US" from other nations. AE "in its deeper workings" (whatever those are), does not suggest that nothing can go really wrong for the US. Where do you get this stuff? That is the question, the request for a cite. You appear to be reading from a different playbook than Koh or Lipset. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the neocon (70's to 00's) brand of AE. I'm getting "this stuff" from Gingrich and others, including yours truly. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  20:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The lead
The current lead appears to present a minority view of American exceptionalism based on non-academic sources. I will therefore replace it with one that is consistent with mainstream understanding of the topic. TFD (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That was not a very commendable move as your rewrite throws literally 2 years of talk page debate out the window. Besides, your perception is wrong: the lead does not present minority views, more like current thinking on the subject. Your "shining city on a hill" definition is seriously obsolete, see Manifest Destiny. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  14:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your writing style indicates an agenda. I suggest your tone it down with left-wing radicals like Howard Zinn. That's not scholarly in the least. This article is for people to learn what AE is, and not filled with supposition and biased opinion. Just because Zinn says something, does not automatically make it fact. The source is biased to begin with, just look at his own article. It's not about conservatives or liberals either. The fact that this is one of only two such articles, speaks volumes in itself. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 16:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Left-wing radicals"?.. That would be Lenin and Trotsky, definitely not Zinn. And since AE is part of a conservative ideology to begin with, liberal opinions should be voiced in the lead as well to avoid bias. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  20:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, AE is not specifically conservative or liberal, left or right. All of America is addressed by the topic, no matter the political leaning.
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should just about write itself. What it is, is a summary of article contents. The reason we are having so much trouble writing the lead is that the article is a mish-mash of content and a flock of squawking examples. If the article were a clearly written story, taking the reader from one point of view to another (including left and right views, conservative and liberal), we would have no difficulty. It's a bit bassackwards to try and tweak the lead without having a neat and logical article. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My objection to the inclusion of Zinn in the lead is that he wrote very little about AE, none of which was published in academic literature, and his definition and criticism of the term have received little academic acceptance. TFD (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Below is the text of the new lead that you reverted, which was sourced to Lipset and Koh. Please note that the lead should be neutral.
 * American exceptionalism refers to the opinion that the United States is qualitatively different from other nations. Its exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming "the first new nation", and developing a unique American ideology, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire". This observation can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville, who was the first writer to describe the United States as "exceptional". Although the term does not imply superiority, some writers have used it in that sense. To them, the United States is a "shining city on a hill", and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries.

TFD (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Seriously obsolete" is a complaint that seems to be pushing a point of view. The idea of American exceptionalism came from 1831, so naturally it is an old idea. Many of the best thinkers will have taken stabs at explaining it, and many of those will now be dead. I do not think 'obsolete' is a word that should be used to remove material from this article.
 * I put TFD's lead back in, along with some named refs and wikilinks. Lipset and Koh are certainly giants in the field. Koh unquestionably held that AE offered some positive characteristics along with the negative ones.
 * The bit about "shining city on a hill" is Ronald Reagan's wording. Trimmed of 'shining', "City upon a Hill" is John Winthrop's 1630 wording, taken from a concept in the Bible. Godfrey Hodgson argues that Winthrop was only telling Englishmen such as himself that they would be in full view of other Englishmen. Stephen Brooks says that Winthrop's words have been fashioned after de Tocqueville into their own narrative, a national myth. Lipset does not trace AE from John Winthrop. If we introduce that phrase, it must be put in context as being revived and mythologized much later. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the only point of view I'm pushing here is that I cannot OK a lead that fails to mention the very alive and sizable opposition to AE. It should simply be a part of any description of AE. (Yes, Obama is clearly a part of this opposition, no matter how some folks try to twist his words.) Unfortunately, my fellows at WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias seem to be a lazy bunch these days, otherwise they'd be up in arms against some of the current editors of this lead. Second, a basic tenet of the original AE is that the notion of being an example or exception was not a given, but was conditional upon the strict adherence to the will of God. This means that American exceptionalism never argued for America being chosen by God (which is a rather far-right notion, mind you), but for America choosing herself to become an example, which in itself is politically neutral and is much less problematic. Why would someone argue with, let alone delete, this description? ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  17:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, the will of God was not in the original de Tocqueville piece. That part of AE was later cladding, and not foundational. Just because Winthrop is from 1630 and de Tocqeville is from 1831 does not mean that Winthrop's contribution to AE came first. No, his contribution was bolted on much, much later. The God bit has been completely absent from AE longer than it has been present. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I am not convinced that Obama is opposed to AE in its original non-God form. Seems to me that anybody who wants to be President of the United States has a good dose of classic AE in them. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm yet to see a country that doesn't believe it's exceptional. The US is different in the fiery passion of its right-wing that propagate (classic or neocon) AE. I think that Obama tries to fight against even classic AE. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  09:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No they do not believe they are "exceptional". They believe that they are different or better.  Read for example the Canadian historians Gad Horowitz and George Grant for example explained the persistence of Toryism and the emergence of socialism in Canada (which did not happen in the U. S.) as evidence it did not share American exceptionalism.  TFD (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Cold War - Sounds like a Superman Blurb
This is part of a sentence in this section (the one that starts with "American exceptionalism became evident"):
 * during the Cold War when the American Way of Life engaged in a battle against totalitarianism, led by the Soviet Union.

"The American Way of Life" is not a person or government and therefore cannot be engaged in a battle. Similarly, totalitarianism can't battle either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.221.230 (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Causes in Their Historical Context - Needs Explanation
I have only a passing knowledge of the concept of American Exceptionalism. Thus, I am the type of reader this encyclopedia article should be helping.

Several causes are listed, but not all explain how historians see these as causes making us "exceptional." In some cases, the reader can guess how they contribute to the notion of American Exceptionalism. However, just because something in America is different from other countries doesn't mean it's "exceptional," at least not as that word is used in this context. For example, the section on Immigration basically says that a lot of people want to come here and that we accept a lot more immigrants than other countries (although I would like to see a per capita comparison and not just absolute numbers). I can see how these might contribute to the concept, but it isn't explained in that section. The section on Slavery basically says that we were the only "great" country that had slavery on its mainland after 1790. I don't see how that makes us "exceptional" except in a very negative way. What the heck does slavery have to do with American Exceptionalism? It seems to me that the presence of slavery, and indentured servitude, negate any advantages resulting from the absence of feudalism.

As to republicanism laying the foundations for the concept of American Exceptionalism and de Tocqueville saying in 1830 that we were a very advanced democracy, I can see where that led to a belief in the 1800's of Exceptionalism; at this point we are surely not the only nation that believes in the sovereignty of the people and that has a democratic, republican form of government. So, how does this apply now?

Thinking about this raises another issue. I can't tell if this section is setting out the sources that led to the concept of American Exceptionalism, or the sources that led to us being Exceptional. In other words, is this section explaining the development of the concept, or is this section advancing reasons for the viewing the US of A as exception?


 * Scholars have explored possible origins of American exceptionalism.

versus
 * Scholars have explored possible origins of the concept of American exceptionalism.

Then you need a topic sentence. "Among the most widely cited causes/factors are: ..." or something else.

If the article is only laying out the concept and what led to its development, then I think some of the claims of bias are inappropriate. It may be a cheeky thing for (some) Americans to believe, but if the article accurately reflects the facts on the ground, then the article is not biased. If the article is pointing out the reasons we are in fact exceptional, then the article is not just biased, it is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I cannot tell from reading this article which of these two it is trying to do. For example in the Cold War section it says:
 * "American exceptionalism became evident ..." 68.50.221.230 (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The concept is explained in the lead, but a lot of the sections do not follow properly. American slavery (and certainly indentured servitude) was exceptional because it was based on contract not hierarchy.  The nature of immigration is exceptional too.  An Englishman moving to the U. S. would have to become an American, while one moving to Canada would remain British and would have equal rights with someone born there (Canada did not even have citizens until 1948.)  TFD (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The subsections do not follow the lead's argument because the current lead contains a flawed description. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  08:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is putting the cart before the horse. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article"; also, "in a well-constructed article, the emphasis given to material in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." It seems obvious to me that the article contents are what drives the lead section. If that is the case, the lead is best written after the article is written.
 * Regarding the flaws of the lead, these flaws are best addressed by fixing the entire article, not by toying with the lead. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on your arguments, you are supposed to accept that the lead should mention the (leftist) opposition as the Opposing views section is quite fleshed out by now, correct? ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 21:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The criticism section needs to be re-written. TFD (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not if you'd use the rewrite to make the opposition seem negligible or plain wrong. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  22:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Article structure based on historical eras
I think the article should develop the idea of American exceptionalism along historic lines, presenting AE as it appeared in ante-bellum America, in the Gilded Age, in the Progressive Era, in the Cold War and in modern America.

In pre-Civil War days, Americans embraced AE liberalism and equality, letting each man determine his own future. Agrarian utopianism prevailed, ruled at arm's length by a benevolent republican government. (The origins of American social science, Dorothy Ross)

In the Gilded Age, AE suffered a crisis from class conflict in newly polyglot cities. It was attacked by radical socialists who wished to guide America to a better ideal; one free from wage slavery, one with greater equality for all. The widespread American belief in AE served as a backbone of inertia and conservatism against this radicalism. The radical ideas would have given the government more power over the individual, seen by most as moving away from AE. Americans largely trusted that AE would guide America to success without making such changes. Corporations, the embodiment of inequality, dodged the radical bullet and reigned supreme. AE began to look forward into an industrial future, forming three economic paths: primarily marginalism, but also the liberal economic interpretation of history, and socialist evolutionary economics. (The origins of American social science, Dorothy Ross)

In the Progressive Era, a liberal vision of AE was embraced by those such as reformer Woodrow Wilson, but liberal reform was slowed or stopped by fears of socialism. AE was seen as being present in American society and it was also seen as a potential: it served those who wished to point to an idealistic past and those who pointed the way forward to utopian equality and prosperity. AE completed the transition from an ideal agrarian future to a strong industrial one: this new world was described as unknown to America's founders and so it required new industrial practices, new solutions. Revisionist AE set the ability to sell one's labor as the basis for personal autonomy, not the ownership of productive resources. Both Left and Right thinkers embraced AE, but for different reasons. Rightists believed in a form of AE in which competition with unequal rewards determined autonomy and social harmony in stratification, while Leftists hoped in an AE in which private goals intersected with public purposes and the common good. America's identity became more fragile, but historical examples of AE provided assurances that it would survive. (The origins of American social science, Dorothy Ross)

Et cetera... a version of the article with this kind of historic breakdown would be extremely enlightening. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would rather see it as covered by topics and different interpretations. I don't think Ross meant that AE suffered a crisis in the Gilded Age, rather that the U. S. suffered a crisis that was resolved in an American way.  TFD (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. The above material could be added for historical context, followed by your topic-based interpretations. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There may be a semantic problem here. Ross writes on p. 26, "This vision of the unique place American occupied in history was the core of a set of ideas I will call American exceptionalism. (p. 26)  "I believe that American social science owes its distinctive character to its involvement with the national ideology of American exceptionalism, the idea that America occupies an exceptional place in history, based on her republican government and economic opportunity" (p. xiv)".  But Lipset and others use the term exceptionalism to refer to America's uniqueness in among other things developing "a unique American ideology", which they called the "American creed" or "Americanism".  Then of course the term is also used to describe the belief in the creed, usually with a belief in American superiority.  We must be clear in the article how the term is being used.  TFD (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This begs the question, 'did the definition of AE change over time?' I think we should answer the question in the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think so. She wrote this before Lipset's book and she uses terms such as "I will call American exceptionalism" and the "ideology of exceptionalism".  She does use the term (unqualified) in the same way as Lipset on pp. xvi-xvii.  Since Ross (like Zinn) does not accept the theory of exceptionalism and follows the criticisms of J. G. A. Pocock, she may not see any reason to distinguish between the theory and the ideology, since both would represent a false view that could be used to defend reactionary policies.  TFD (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The intro to Noble's book,Death of a nation: American culture and the end of exceptionalism, which is mentioned in the article, also refutes the theory of exceptionalism and sees it as a myth used to justify American capitalism.  TFD (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)