|Hail to the Chief?|
|Persons of interest|
“”You wouldn't know American exceptionalism even if it smacked you in the face.
|—Michelle Malkin, exemplifying American exceptionalism.|
American exceptionalism is a belief that the United States is unique or exceptional when compared with the historical development of other countries. It would be easy to pigeon-hole as nationalism, but it is more expansive and more concentrated than that. It is a popular ideal held by many American conservatives, though the temptation is not entirely limited to the right. Several liberal historians and politicians have embraced certain aspects of American exceptionalism, in particular in the "vital center" and "end of ideology" views popular among American liberals in the mid-20th century following World War II. American exceptionalism is also a core belief within neoconservatism.
One major characteristic of American exceptionalism from a historiographical viewpoint is its tendency to gloss over what it would consider "bad" history, and emphasise and in many cases mythologize the founding struggles and subsequent consolidation of what is the modern United States.
American exceptionalism may view the United States through the lens of a special historical determinism for the United States, separate from broad historical trends in the rest of the world. It may, for a variety of reasons, view the U.S. as a nation that is immune (or should be immune) from things like terrorism and dictatorship — "It can't happen here." The U.S. in turn is supposed to assume an activist role around the world in promoting "freedom" or being a "shining example" to the world (the "City on a Hill"). This sort of presumptive moral superiority
isn't always is virtually never welcomed by other nations, and is often almost always resented, particularly when the U.S. has a long history of engaging in gunboat diplomacy itself.
The belief by Americans in American exceptionalism is one of the reasons for worldwide resentment or dislike of the USA.
 Impact on American foreign policy
From colonial days, the English-speaking, European descended residents of what was to become the United States viewed their colonial societies and (more or less) shared culture as unique or at least virtuous. American uniqueness was a theme developed by Calvinist preachers in New England, and worked itself into the foreign policy of the newly independent republic. Rather than military alliances with the European powers as part of that continent's balance of power diplomacy, political elites in the new United States sought to trade with Europe and to establish regional hegemony over its own sphere of influence (Latin America). The focus was not on the entangling alliances with which Europeans tormented themselves, but on ensuring Europeans did not interfere with what was perceived as an American sphere of influence. This had dual effects, such as protecting Latin America from undue European interference, but also insured America kept itself out of the struggles to assert a "balance of power" in Europe. It is often said that the US was sympathetic to Britain diplomatically, but played little part in the great game of European diplomacy.
Another way in which the United States saw itself as fundamentally different from the European powers was in its eschewing of imperial ambitions. That said, there were important tensions between American rhetoric about the evils of empire and actual political practice. The doctrine of "manifest destiny" was a blatantly imperial program that involved exercising power over, or simply eliminating, other peoples. Also, the U.S. exercised sovereignty over a number of overseas territories, including Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, the Philippines, and Cuba. Paradoxically, Americans' belief in its exceptional nature helped to inform the acquisition of such colonies, as Americans believed they were uniquely suited to ruling foreign peoples benignly.
Even when not under direct U.S. rule, many Latin America states felt the weight of US influence in the formation of their political institutions. Simply put, American exceptionalism insured that Castro, Allende and Chavez got into power.
American exceptionalism also led the US to employ idealistic and democratic rhetoric, even when getting involved in brazen "sphere of interest" or geopolitical engagements, like the various coups in Latin America, or World War I.
To this day, the US still tends to be idealistic in its justifications for interventions. In the 90s in particular, there were many interventions that had zero basis in national interest (including Somalia and Yugoslavia). Many scholars, like the entire realist school of international relations, have a hard time understanding this part of US foreign policy. Today, it rests on the assumption that the US military is naturally a force for good (think of the neoconservative hawks of the Bush administration) and that any country they get involved in would recognise this fact. However, an Iraqi villager watching his mosque being destroyed by an American bomb may have a differing opinion on this. Ditto for the Pakistani child whose parents were killed by a drone. The over-confidence in "American values" has a larger impact considering that where the US military goes, many other militaries follow.
 See also
- Is America exceptional? Liberals, conservatives agree -- and disagree: Essay by UC San Diego political science professor David A. Lake
- ↑ Michael Bailey on American Exceptionalism
- ↑ Such as slavery, treatment of the Native American, segregation, the Jim Crow South...
- ↑ The Founding Fathers as demigods, the Constitution, Washington as the supreme example of commander-in-chief...
- ↑ The frontier, the Western tradition, the immigrant tradition, the capitalist tradition...
- ↑ Except, perhaps, for blowing up their stuff and interfering in their governments, yadda yadda.
- ↑ See the Monroe Doctrine.
- ↑ See George Washington's famous Farewell Address in 1796.