Talk:American exceptionalism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

suggested reorganization

I'm new to this whole editing business and don't want to start with a a wholesale rewrite, especially given the contentiousness of the sourcing here, but I agree this article is a mess. In addition to the biased content, and the constant switches from one bias to the other, it seems to be jumbling together multiple uses of the word “exceptionalism.” How would people feel about breaking it down into two basic sections: One for the Lincoln/De Tocqueville/etc. use of the term, which I would summarize here as focused more on the combination of traits that make/made the U.S. unique (in the opinion of those thinkers, of course), and the arguments against that particular connotation. And then a second for the more contemporary use of the term that implies a greater degree of superiority — more of the Huckabee/Palin/Cold War mentality that American culture is not simply unique, but better than all the other cultures.

This is obviously not a hard-and-fast distinction, but the quotes from Zinn and so on, and the exposition of various immoral periods in U.S. history, seem far more relevant to the second view of “exceptionalism.” De Toqueville made a point about democracy being ingrained into every part of American culture, and there is a response to that based on other countries. Others make an “America is the greatest country on Earth” argument, using the term exceptionalism, and there is a response to that, as well. But this article seems to be mixing up all four of those positions, and I think they would all make more sense divided up into these two broad uses of the term, and the arguments for and against each.

Any thoughts on this structure? Paul kinsey (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure Paul has it straightened out. Yes there are multiple meanings, both pro and con, but the theme of being the greatest country in the world because it has the best political system is Founding Fathers -- that's Jefferson's "Empire of Liberty" and Lincoln's "last best hope".Rjensen (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Which would mean that the founding fathers were all right-wing and smug themselves, which cannot be true. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 12:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"But we’re American...": a paper by Olaf Du Pont

To reiterate: from Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." The Du Pont paper was selected for presentation at an international conference on Rhetoric, Politics, Ethics at Ghent University (incidentally one of the top 95 universities in the world). The paper is available for free on the Ghent University site and was published by VERSITA (Central European Science Publishers), University of Lodz, 2007. http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?10PLAAAA08041. Thus it was peer-reviewed by two separate community of experts. These facts combined mean that it's a reliable source when quoted in context. The context here is to clarify the original meaning of the AE thesis: the fact that it was not regarded as a given but was conditional. It's a crucial point aiding in the understanding of the original meaning of American exceptionalism. Binksternet & others are welcome to argue, but I don't see why should anyone delete the citation. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 21:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

yes DuPont is an OK paper to cite. No it does NOT tell the "original meaning" because the meaning came much later. The Puritans did introduce the metaphor of the city on a hill, which would be a visible model for other Puritans, but they did not introduce the key concept of American exceptionalism --that concept was due to Tocqueville two centuries laterRjensen (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if determined a useful reference, the weight we give it is not at all equal to de Tocqueville, nor to any other giant in the field. Du Pont is not widely cited, not widely known. This article is not here to promote scholars who are still in the early part of their career. Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an easy one: if I agree on this, then it also makes the Huckabee quote grossly out of place in the lead. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 10:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the lede

From the lede:"Belief in American exceptionalism is more characteristic of conservatives than liberals. Howard Zinn and Godfrey Hodgson[3] said that it is based on a myth, and that "there is a growing refusal to accept" the idea of exceptionalism both nationally and internationally.[4]".

I see two problems with this. Firstly it needs to make clear that the 'conservatives' and 'liberals' referred to are American ones, and secondly, the source cited for the "growing refusal to accept" exceptionalism makes no mention of international opinion - in fact it seems to imply that American exceptionalism was internationally accepted at one time, for which I'd like to see some verifiable evidence.

The entire article seems to have been written from a purely US perspective. Are there reliable sources that suggest that 'American exceptionalism' has ever been accepted as a meaningful concept in the wider world, rather than being seen as a particular example of nationalist ideology? If not, I'd suggest the lede needs to make clear its narrow context. Wikipedia is an international project, and articles need to reflect this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The article confuses two uses of the term American exceptionalism. One use refers to the establishment of the U.S. as a liberal nation, which is how the term is used when referring to De Toqueville, Marx and Louis Hartz. The other is that the U.S. is superior to other nations. It seems that the second theory, which is fringe, misrepresents the first theory, which is mainstream. TFD (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoa--fringe? Ich don't think so...I hear it all the time. (Sure that's original research.) I remember an American college student, early in my college career, explaining patiently to me that societies follow Darwin's laws also and evolve. The US had reached, he said, the highest stage in evolution, and he said he could not conceive of a higher status possible or of any other nation or group of nations approaching the US. I wish that his view were fringe. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You hear it all the time because you're possibly in that kind of an environment. The theory is obviously a very unpopular one among US liberals, the US Christian Left, Canadians in general, Mexicans in general et cetera... Put it simply, it's a popular theory with the American right wing and an unpopular one with everyone else. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 14:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, hold on. That second use, that is precisely the meaning Winthrop set aside for his New Jerusalem--that is precisely what being a city on a hill means. I'm sure he was not talking about financial or military supremacy, but I'm also pretty sure he wasn't envisioning a liberal democracy. The two, rightly or wrongly, have everything to do with each other. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• [I'm copying this from my talk page, a response to Gregorik--for what it's worth.] I think the lead is too short and insufficient. To me, it doesn't read very Republican, and I think that the Huckabee sentiment balances out the opposing view: I would not have advocated taking it out. Then again, the lead ought to be a bit more general--it matters not so much what Huckabee said, but what people like Huckabee say (which the quote captured very nicely, I must say); he matters only in being representative of a fairly broad train of thought in the US. The more general statement (in the lead) is always better. If Huckabee had been elected president it might have been different, of course, but then, lots of things would have been different. ;) As for that other edit, "theory" captures it a bit better, perhaps, than "thesis"--but I personally would use the word "ideology", which conservatives will no doubt read as a put-down. Perhaps the trick is to find more sources, more general sources, that evaluate a bit more objectively what the issue is and how it can be described in a bigger, fatter lead. I also think that the organization, starting with "overview" and followed by "causes", is not productive: I would want a historical overview, beginning--of course--with Winthrop. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • [Also copied from my talk--Drmies]: ::One thing about the Du Pont piece that we discussed already on the article talk page is that Du Pont mistakenly applies a Mark Twain quote to the concept of American exceptionalism, but the quote was one where Twain was discussing Imperial Russia specifically. There's another mark against Du Pont. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Someone help out here please. Lodz Papers in Pragmatism doesn't strike me as a highly notable journal--no hits in WorldCat (but I am not that familiar with the new interface--please point out the holdings if I erred) or the LoC, or through any database my library subscribes to. I can't find it on the Versita website (apparently they used to publish it). Where is it? What is its status? How reliable is it? Drmies (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Look it up at http://versita.com/lpp. Yes, quite notable, but it's decidedly (Central) European. "Lodz Papers in Pragmatics (LPP) is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal released biannually. (...) Broad, comprehensive and interdisciplinary picture of current research in pragmatics. Articles by established linguists, editors and advisors to Journal of Pragmatics and Pragmatics and International Review of Pragmatics". ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 18:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

yes. Indexed in Language and Literature Behavior abstracts, DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks DGG and Gregorik. How odd that it doesn't show up in a search for the title on the Versita website--that search gave me the page linked above, and a link I found in different places on the internets, http://versita.com/science/socialsciences/lpp/, led to the main site. I don't seem to have access to LLBA through our library. The journal is not accessible through JSTOR, Academic Search Premier, or EBSCO, as far as I can tell. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

(out) Below is a quote from Seymour Martin Lipset in his book, American Exceptionalism. This seems to represent the normal way of viewing the topic. Two of sources used for the lead, Understanding American politics, p, 21,[1] and Understanding America, p. ix-xii,[2] use the term in a similar way. Two others, Godfrey Hodgson's The Myth of American Exceptionalism[3] and Howard Zinn on the other hand define it as "that the United States alone has the right, whether by divine sanction or moral obligation, to bring civilization, or democracy, or liberty to the rest of the world, by violence if necessary".(Zinn)[4] Both these authors speak against exceptionalism. I suggest that we follow Lipset's understanding which allows us to refer also to the definition by Hodgson and Zinn as minority.

Tocqueville is the first to refer to the United States as exceptional - that is, qualitatively different from all other countries. He is, therefore, the initiator of the writings on American exceptionalism.... When Tocqueville or other "foreign traveler" writers or social scientists have used the term "exceptional" to describe the United States, they have not meant, as some critics of the concept assume, that America is better than other countries or has a superior culture. Rather they have simply been suggesting that it is qualitatively different.... The United States is exceptional in starting from a revolutionary event, in being "the first new nation," the first colony, other than Iceland, to become independent. It has defined its raison d'etre ideologically. The American Creed can be described in five terms: liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissea-faire." (pp. 17-19)[5]

TFD (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That source pushes into the fringe all theories which base American exceptionalism on religious beliefs, on the feeling that God grants or allows the Americans this character. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is clearly a good thing, as any theories that "base American exceptionalism on religious beliefs, on the feeling that God grants or allows the Americans this character" are closely related to Fascism and even Hitlerism, even if they partially go back to the 17th century. This point is crystal clear among liberals in particular and non-Americans in general. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 14:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump's first post in this section should be strongly considered, both for using comparative political terms restricted for US geography, as well as the subject being viewed both domestically and internationally. I will note that perceptions have also changed over time, with increased US participation in the world. One could note some tarnish on the exceptional shine starting with Teddy's big stick, but Wilson's Fourteen points can be RS'd to buff that considerably; even though the victorious European powers were aghast at his consideration of 'self-determination', it got high marks in many places that lived without it, including the Middle East, based on the findings of the King-Crane Commission at the time. But that has certainly tarnished in the present day also. There are also other views from differing/opposing economic ideologies; I note this one from early 20th Century Marxian socialism; or maybe this one, otherwise discussing jurisprudence. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion

Here is a suggestion for the lead based on Lipset's writing above: "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." TFD (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well written and clear. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I like your suggestion as well, but I think it would be important to mention that the term AE did not emerge until after WWII, and the fact that it was post-WWII Neoconservatism that strived to alter its meaning to imply superiority. Any thoughts on this? ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 19:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet on the first three sentences, and generally with Gregorik's points on the last one. In the second sentence however, I see an item that is not included and should be, because it is a basic contextual condition for its development; developmentally, it was starting from scratch, a new build not a rehab, a clean slate (albeit with some colonial mindset). For the sentence's first phrase, I suggest: "Its exceptionalism stems from its emergence in a New World following revolution against Old World control, becoming..." I hope that works. For Gregorik, I'd suggest 'end-Cold War', rather than 'post-WWII' for the neocons, note there are few facts, but consider 'hubris' an RS'd term. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It is older than that. Marx and Engels wondered why socialism was weak in America, which was the most advanced capitalist state. Louis Hartz revisted the topic in The liberal tradition in America and the U.S. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence used the theory to explain why the U.S. had higher crime rates than Europe, the U.K. anc Canada. It is not a neoconservative theory. TFD (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The new, aggressive meaning behind AE is clearly of neoconservative origin and goes back 40 years or less. Marx and Engels must have referred to America's accomplished capitalism, not exceptionalism. I've studied American history for years as part of my graduate studies (for the record, that was 2001-05, in the midst of the Bush years). Then I made my own little research that convinced me about the explicit term AE not emerging until the Cold War, and its second, newer meaning being promoted by neocons and extreme Republicans, and not much others. I believe this should be reflected in the lead. As an aside, Obama made it clear that he doesn't even acknowledge the existence of AE's second, extreme meaning. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 07:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

People were using the term explicitly before WWII, certainly during the late 1920s and throughout the 1930s. If the notional "new, aggressive meaning" is brought to the article, it will have to be through other devices than your own research. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Gregorik, do you have any sources that explain your point? TFD (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, a major part of the 2009-10 talk pages deal with trying to refute my sources and citations. The sources include Zinn, Hodgson, Harold Koh, Thomas Bender and others. Time permitting, I'll find new ones if no one else does. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 18:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is what Koh wrote: "The term, usually attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, has historically referred to the perception that the United States differs qualitatively from other developed nations, because of its unique origins, national credo, historical evolution, and distinctive political and religious institutions. The phrase sometimes also connotes the idea that America's canonical commitments to liberty, equality, individualism, populism, and laissez faire exempt it from the historical forces that have led to the corruption of other societies. In American political life, the concept flows through the rhetoric of nearly every American president, from Washington's Farewell Address, to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, to Reagan's image of a "shining ciry on the hill," to nearly every post-September 11 speech of George W. Bush."[6] That seems to agree with what Lipset wrote and connects social scientists' use of the term with the neoconservative one. TFD (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Harold Koh has very ambivalent views on exceptionalism, like most of my sources. He also writes: "I prefer to distinguish among four somewhat different faces of American exceptionalism, which I call, in order of ascending opprobrium: distinctive rights, different labels, the "flying buttress" mentality, and double standards. In my view, the fourth face - double standards - presents the most dangerous and destructive form of American exceptionalism. (...) [H]ow should we respond to American exceptionalism? In recent months, four distinct approaches have emerged to answering this question, which for thumbnail purposes I call: triumphalism; criticizing the critics; blaming American culture; and my preferred solution, triggering transnational legal process." [7] ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 20:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Koh's "how to respond" advice is not applicable to an encyclopedia. We simply describe; we do not prescribe. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

After explaining exceptionalism, Koh then quotes Lepgold and McKeown who said that in foreign policy, the notion of American exceptionalism generally "holds that Americans deprecate power politics and old-fashioned diplomacy, mistrust powerful standing armies and entangling peacetime commitments, make moralistic judgments about other people's domestic systems, and believe that liberal values transfer readily to foreign affairs". He then tries to explain American foreign policy based on the main definition of exceptionalism. The U.S. acts the way it does because of the nature of the country which is explained by exceptionalism. Acceptance of this view of exceptionalism does not imply support or opposition to U.S, foreign policy. TFD (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD, please take a step back and examine if you have an agenda with this. You don't need to try to convince me that Am. exceptionalism and/or extreme Republicanism is a good thing -- I don't think it is, but that's besides the point. The issue is all about the lead here and the fact that it fails to distinguish between the two (moderate and radical) meanings of Am. exceptionalism, and it fails give voice to both non-American and American liberal positions on this controversial subject. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 06:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

We cannot insert into the lead section any major concepts not covered in the article. Improve the article and the lead will write itself.

Let's not attack editors who may have an agenda. We will work with all such editors to improve the article. Binksternet (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something--I don't see where TFD's POV is getting in the way of anything. I don't even know, and I can't tell, what their POV is. The quote from Koh (the 'four kinds'--four kinds for four deuces?) is very useful, I think, in that it clearly indicates that AE takes place on a sliding scale. Still, I'm not sure that 'moderate' and 'radical' are the right terms to describe it (they fail to acknowledge the theological weight of some, but not all, believers in AE). The current lead's second paragraph, I don't like it too much:

Belief in American exceptionalism is more characteristic of conservatives than liberals. Howard Zinn and Godfrey Hodgson said that it is based on a myth, and that "there is a growing refusal to accept" the idea of exceptionalism both nationally and internationally.

I think rather the point ought to be that AE is not a universally held national philosophy; whether there is a development there, I have a personal opinion, which is irrelevant, but I wonder if Zinn and Hodgson present decent evidence. That it is based on a myth--well, this is not the place for that discussion, but most political philosophies are, and I think that statement needs to go. That it has led to some pretty far-reaching consequences in terms of domestic and international [policy], that certainly needs to be acknowledged, in the lead, and right now, it isn't--and that is much more important, in my opinion, than hypothesizing about a "growing" refusal to accept it. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What you seem to suggest is root out the lead of any dissenting thoughts so that the lead comes to suggest that AE is a righteous, even objective thesis. (Where does that come from? Your declared personal opinion, I guess, which is no big sin, as this is a controversial article to begin with, and most writing on the subject takes the appearance of opinion pieces.) When several prominents (in and outside the US) argue that it is not an objective thesis, it needs to be reflected in the lead. Hey, I would even include Obama who clearly dismissed this theory the one time he talked about it. What you suggest may fit into the Manifest Destiny article, even if that's also based on a myth. We seem to agree on that AE takes place on a sliding scale; that means it can take a 'radical' or 'moderate' form in those who subscribe to the theory. I think that what you quoted from the lead -- being a myth and a growing refusal -- reflects a major part of current thinking on AE. And even then we are yet to cover non-American opinions. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 08:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Gregorik, I am rather astounded at the ease with which you jump from discussing my remarks to making some sort of judgment about who I am and my opinions. That mirrors the worst of what I see in the classroom every day: that someone's personal position is supposed to be responsible for the arguments they make, as if rationality and logic have nothing to do with anything, as if everything has to be an "opinion." I am loath to explain my personal, political opinions to you, certainly in this place--let me just say that, when you suggest that I'm some kind of believer in any kind of American Exceptionalism, you couldn't be more wrong. If you say that "most writing on the subject takes the appearance of opinion pieces" you are describing an attitude that you just exemplified.

  To make matters clear, I have problems with the lead, yes. But I have a bigger problem with your idea that any kind of factual description is by definition skewed. I also have a problem with your idea that because I want something tweaked I must be biased. Finally, I have a problem with your narrow reading of my remarks, and given what you just said, I can only assume that you chose not to read my final sentence (now updated with the missing word "policy"), which to anyone would be a pretty good indication on where I stand--that the lead need to be more inclusive of the effects of AE--which, Gregorik, are you listening?--are negative, in my opinion, but I hope not to led that bias stand in the way of objective editing.

  One more remark: reading over your comment again, I wonder how on earth you can claim that my comments boil down to this: "What you seem to suggest is root out the lead of any dissenting thoughts." Sorry, but my dissertation director, a good, liberal, classically trained (in Latin and Old English) American had only one word for such a careless misreading, such an obviously incorrect interpretation of what someone just said: bullshit. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had no intention to pass judgments, and I have no interest in this kind of escalation. No hard feelings, Drmies. In fact, as a self-admitted WikiSloth, I will not enter an edit war, even if my pending M.A. is on a somewhat related subject. I think we basically do understand each other. So please go ahead with the lead. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 20:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I have no intention in edit-warring whatsoever. I just want to point out that your MA is not on the topic of me. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The relevant scholastic background of Gregorik has been repeatedly mentioned by him to which I respond 'fine, let's drop it and focus on the article'. Nobody here gets a free pass for any reason. If editors are engaged and logical, if their work is based on references and founded in clarity, they are a valuable resource. Binksternet (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source that says, "American exceptionalism came to mean something more, to imply that the United States was superior to the rest of the world", and then mentions Zinn as someone who adopted this meaning and criticized it.[8] It seems that the different uses are connected as Lipset and Koh state. TFD (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Differences between the U.S. and Europe"

This section is

1. Irrelevant (more important)

This is an article about American exceptionalism. This section is pointing out supposed differences between the US and "Europe" in a "criticism" of the concept of American exceptionalism. Highlighting supposed differences is not a criticism of American exceptionalism, the above section (similarities between the US and "Europe") is. Why Europe is the focal point of such comparisons, rather than an actual country (say, Canada), beats me.

The similarities between US and Europe section has relevance (although why an actual sovereign state isn't chosen is confusing), as it is an actual critique of American exceptionalism. The differences section doesn't.

2. Just wrong. I don't think whoever wrote this can even point Europe out on a map.

There are countries in Europe that use torture. There are countries in Europe that flat out ban abortion for religious reasons and declare Jesus to be sovereign. That's Christian fundamentalism. At least one country in Europe uses the death penalty.

Europe is the most anti-vax region in the world and you're arguing that it apparently doesn't have a tradition of anti-intellectualism.

I'd like to know why this section exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.168 (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why it is in the criticism section. Or perhaps the section should be called analysis. Since the concept of American exceptionalism is based on a comparison of the U.S. and Europe, it makes sense to explain the comparison. Incidentally, the sub-section compares the U.S. with "wealthy countries" in Europe. The point of comparing the U.S. with a group of countries is that it eliminates differences that exist between any two countries. So for example Canada is officially bilingual. TFD (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Social/economic Mobility addition

I have evidence that intragenerational mobility (between generations of the individual) actually increased (1969-2011) overtime and even seemed to rebound during the recession. This seems to be unique to the US as other European countries even if they have intragenerational mobility, which from comparative studies in 1990s it seems they have less, in European countries they seem to have growing for men and stagnating for women, men and women both improve greatly. I believe this study (maybe studies?) are important to showing America’s uniqueness and it actually might be the key to why the us economy still performs well/is dynamic and why people don’t seem as flustered as they can see themselves improving overtime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.87.171 (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

False Definition

This article claims that laissez-faire economics were fundamental to a uniquely American philosophy, but the American school of economics heavily emphasized protectionism, and it is well-known that until the 1970s this was the case. ConstantineChase (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The article does not make that claim, but reports that Seymour Martin Lipset made that claim. He may or may not have been right, but we cannot change what he said. TFD (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

"America First" subsection needs help

I recently edited some heavier-handed POV out of this subsection and tried to phrase it more as "a view of America First is-" rather than "America believes that-." I believe this section still needs work though, as it has been a bit of a stub.

• More sources would always help.
• My browser will not currently load the cited source, but from a quick look at it I'm not sure its reliable enough to make such bold statements as 'America first [unilaterally] prioritizes american interests over human rights' I will look into the source further when I can find a way to.
• To bring the subsection more in line with the greater section, I think since this section is predicated on a single (possibly niche) source it should be worded like the rest, beginning with the author's name and then stating their claims, at which point it can be expanded to contain more material since more POV oriented claims could be included. But if there isn't much more to be added to the section than is already here... or the source isn't adequate...
  • The section may benefit from being removed until a more substantial and meaningful version can be written.

I would like to hear from others interested in this article's improvement on their views on these possible suggestions. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Expand Chinese exceptionalism

If you have time please expand the related article about Chinese exceptionalism. Artanisen (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)