Talk:American exceptionalism

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

• Does America really have the finest military in the world?, salon.com , Thursday, Jan 6, 2011--87.145.0.168 (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there any other articles on this? --79.230.35.127 (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing problems with this article

It's important that an article of this type is objectively about the subject and not written as a promotion (or the reverse!). A number of sections have been tagged since 2009, without (apparently) any attempt to resolve particular issues. I intend to delete obviously dubious passages within the next few days. Please feel free to comment etc. as necessary. Regards etc. --Kleinzach 01:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking forward to your pruning. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If in doubt, take it out. TFD (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Olaf Du Pont

Thank you for the comments made on an article by me quoted in the discussion. The purpose of the contribution was to show that certain concepts/metaphors can change through time and/or be interpreted to suit different agendas.

The examples taken from speeches of President Bush, Gov. Schwarzenegger and Mayor Giulliani have been taken to show:

1. that the metaphor of 'a city upon a hill' is used in current political rhetoric 2. that the metaphor has been used widely in American politics, starting from, but not limited to the Puritans 3. that the metaphor has been used through time to refer to strictly Christian, religious contexts (a convenant with God), as well as in more 'civil religion/patriotic' contexts 4. that the metaphor has been used as a crutch for various, diverging and even competing views, including foreign policy 5. that these examples illustrate the power of images and metaphors and that their widespread use acts as a kind of flag identifying the speaker, in this case as somebody who holds American tradition in high respect, but that the underlying message can be very diverse

With this aim in mind, I wish to not pronounce myself on the nature of American exceptionalism, but merely point out that a metaphor that is used to describe this fluid concept can be used as a rhetorical strategy for a whole array of political ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olafdp (talk • contribs) 10:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a more modest goal than was taken by an editor here who used your paper to say that American exceptionalism was founded on an entitlement from God, supposedly given to the Pilgrims if they kept the faith. This idea is not mainstream in AE: mainstream thought is that de Tocqueville saw in Americans a sense of equality. There was nothing religious in the first appreciations of AE.

I have disputed your paper in previous talk page discussions: Deleting Noonan, Twain, Sellevold, Du Pont, and "But we’re American...": a paper by Olaf Du Pont. I do not think your paper can be used very much in this article, if at all, because its ideas are too far from mainstream thought, and are not yet important enough to qualify as a significant minority viewpoint. If you wrote a book and it was well-reviewed and cited by others then that would make your opinion more notable. Right now, there is nothing from you in the article, but that could change in the future. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

International perspective on American exceptionalism

It would be highly interessting to know what political scientists in other western countries think on it. A mere US perspective ist POV at its finest. Any sources?--173.245.84.127 (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We generally think of scholarship as international and to divide scholars into Americans and non-Americans would imply a bias. If there were sources that claimed this of course we could mention it. For your information, Canadian scholars Gad Horowitz and George Grant supported the thesis, while New Zealander J. G. A. Pocock writing is used to reject the theory. TFD (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Communist Party USA in lead

A new editor has been removing referenced text in the lead section saying the following:

The term "American exceptionalism" itself was first used by members of the American Communist Party in the 1920s, in reference to their belief that "thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions, America might for a long while avoid the crisis that must eventually befall every capitalist society." (Fried, Albert, Communism in America: A History in Documents. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), p. 7.)

There are two problems with the removal:

• The text satisfies WP:LEAD which requires us to summarize the article's contents in the lead section. Indeed, the text refers to a section of the article which discusses the reaction of communists to America's strength.
• The text is taken from Albert Fried, a top scholar in his field. He would not misrepresent the topic.

The removed section should be restored. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have restored it. The editor should explain why it should be removed. I noticed the editor's comments on other users' talk pages. While double sourcing is required by newspapers, it is not required here because we rely on sources that have already undertaken fact-checking, e.g., newspapers that require double sourcing. And no, there is nothing in the article that contradicts the view that American Communists were the first to use the term. TFD (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

agreed. Rjensen (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, the link that is cited in this instance, in no way claims that the Communists were the "first" to use the phrase. Hence, not only should the "first" be removed from the quote, the quote should be removed from the summary area. Alexis de Tocqueville mentioned the exceptionalism of America well before the 1920's. The term comes from his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.148.212 (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Communists were the source of the term, while De Tocqueville never used the term "exceptionalism". TFD (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Should I just take your word for it? Or do you have a reference that actually makes that claim? Nowhere in the Fried reference does it say that American Communists were the first to say "American exceptionalism". Am I missing something here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyJ160 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can find an earlier reference to the term "American exceptionalism", then please provide one. TFD (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So, because you say that American Communists were "first", I have to prove that they weren't? I'm relatively new to this, but please explain to me, why you shouldn't have to prove that they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyJ160 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

My reading, and that of other editors, of the source is that the Communists were first to use the term. If the source is wrong, then it should possible to find a source that dates the use of the term earlier. TFD (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the editor making the change, particularly in a case where sourced material is being removed. Acroterion (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The American Communists are the first group that can be found who directly used the exact term "American exceptionalism". If you find an earlier usage you can replace the American Communists as being first to use the term. Binksternet (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Here (p. 58) is a link to a more detailed discussion of the origins of the term. TFD (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That is perfect! That's all I was asking for. Though the reference clearly says that Stalin was the origin of the phrase, when the original section claims that American Communists were the first to use it. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but doesn't this new source invalidate the old one? I don't have a problem with the Stalin origin being in the lead using this new source. I just didn't see the support for the claim that was being made using the old one. JohnnyJ160 (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Albert Fried describes how the term was first used by Joe Stalin, frustrated with America's unusual inherent resistance to (Communist) revolution. When he used it, Stalin was talking to the American Communists, trying to get them to push harder for revolution. The American Communists used the term back at Stalin. We don't have to throw out the original cite, just tweak it slightly. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Might replace the word "used" with "introduced". TFD (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I don't have a problem with any of that information being included, as long as whatever is done is properly supported by the references cited. Maybe citing both the Fried reference and the Pease reference at that point in the article would be appropriate. JohnnyJ160 (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Okay, I added some of Stalin being first, with the new reference tucked into the the previous text and references. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. JohnnyJ160 (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Neoconservatives

Although the term does not imply superiority, some neoconservative writers have used it in that sense.(Seymour Martin Lipset, American Exceptionalism, 1997, pp. 17-19)

An editor has added the highlighted term "neoconservative"[1] although it does not appear in Lipset's original text. We should not change the meaning of the sources used, and therefore I will remove the term. (The editor asked me in his edit summary to find a source to support his edit.) TFD (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Roots

"...American exceptionalism dates back to the seventeenth century, when religious exiles fancied the colonies a new Jerusalem ordained to Christianize a pagan land..."

• How we became a nation of warriors-Over the last century, militarism has warped our foreign policy -- and our soul. Can the budget crisis save them?

Further Reading: Stephen Glain: "State vs. Defense: The Battle to Define America's Empire",2011--91.4.249.121 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

a) yes there are colonial hints and roots; b) the 17th century usage did NOT use the terms "American" or "exceptionalism" and did not have any concept whatever of the USA. Rjensen (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

POV in lede resurfaced

Once a year I revisit this article and every single time I find that the lead is tweaked and pruned again to present a decidedly sympathetic view of American exceptionalism -- with the significant domestic (circa 50%) and overwhelming international opposition & criticism to this thesis either downplayed or pruned completely. And by the same two users apparently. Any suggestions, or is it time to call some admins here? ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 17:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Once a year you find your editing work challenged because of the flaws it contains, such as your text not supported by your cites. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

This edit, which is captioned, "inflammatory material deleted from lede", removes mention of the "shining city on a hill", and adds "anti-Semitism... unfortunately influenced the U.S. Government's refusal to accept many Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust", although the source does not mention exceptionalism. It also adds that "many left-wing authors have rejected American exceptionalism", which does not reflect the source. I see no reason for these changes and ask that the editor explain them. TFD (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

POV changes unsupported by cited text. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

These two users, exactly. You guys are certainly tenacious, but we all know that your version of the article (and the lede) is so POV it's not even funny. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 11:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Article makes a mockery of itself!

"the well-being of ordinary people"

This phrase is ridiculous and should not be in the article! In USA ordinary people often go bankrupt due to medical costs. There is nothing to protect them from industrial environmental pollution and unhealthy food produced with max profit in sight. US popular culture ecourages shallowness in all human relations, so workforce can be easily uprooted and shuffled coast to coast to maximize profit. Crime rates are way too high. There is no paid holiday or sick leave in law and many salary-people spend years without ever seeing a weekday off-work. Negro ghettos still exist and the poor hispanics are quickly becoming the new slave-class in USA. How does all this constitute "the well-being of ordinary people"?

"The well-being of ordinary people" is much more characteristic of countries in Northern Europe or Singapore (maybe even Japan, although they work way too much). 82.131.210.163 (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The article does not say that the comments are true, merely that that is how they see themselves. In fact there is a segment of the American public that does want to expand accessibility to medical care, while others oppose popular culture. TFD (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Stalin cite

Regarding this recent dispute about the claim of Stalin being the first in the English language to use the term. Because of my geographical location I do not have access to full text or even snippet view of this source, and the quoted text does not mention the term "American exceptionalism" at all. If the source does mention this term, it would be nice if people having full access to the cited source added the term to the quotation in the footnote. But of course if it doesn't mention this term it should not be a source for this claim. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Any Google Books search using the terms Stalin and American exceptionalism brings up a number of Books verifying this fact. I just added another with full page access. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Good job. Though my first try did result in a "This page is not accessible from your location", my next try did in fact open the linked page which verified the cite. It does indeed fully support the claim, so I withdraw my objections. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and cheers back. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing in Pease's notes which in any way supports his claim that Stalin used the phrase. I am not used to this interface, so forgive me if this is not formatted correctly. Why is an unsupported claim, even if it is from an "academic" source, a better source than Stalin's original speeches, which DO NOT use the phrase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.109.231 (talk • contribs)

Pease's assertion stands the test of being a scholar discussing something under his area of expertise: words and terms in English. We do not have to tear Pease apart to find the stuffing; there is no controversy or contradiction from another scholar saying that the term did not originate with Stalin or with Communism's attempt to describe America. Per WP:NOR, we are not going to try and figure out whether Pease was exactly correct or greatly mistaken. Pease is support enough for his own statement. Instead, we should look for other scholars who give contradictory information, or who directly rebut Pease. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Stalin didn't say it.

I checked the original speeches. He discussed the CONCEPT of American exceptionalism, to disparage it, and to justify the purge of two members from CPUSA. He did NOT use the term. Please explain why a google book copy of a book that has the citations missing is considered a better source than the original source material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.109.231 (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read our verification policy WP:V which clearly states if it can be verified by a reliable source it is good to go. What you are attempting to do is your own research; this is actively discouraged per our no original research policy. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Pease's own notes do not support his claim. I don't think anyone could reasonably conclude his book is a "reliable source" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.109.231 (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This information is supported by two books and many more can be found. Just try this search on Google Books. However if you are still not convinced you may want to verify the reliability of these sources by asking at the reliable sources noticeboard. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's another another one: America's kingdom: mythmaking on the Saudi oil frontier Stanford studies in Middle Eastern and Islamic societies and cultures Author Robert VitalisEdition illustrated Publisher Stanford University Press, 2007 ISBN 0804754462, 9780804754460 Length 353 pages p. 7. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

we all seem to agree that Stalin introduced the concept of "American Exceptionalism" -- he spoke in Russian not English of course. Here's a 1934 US Communist Party document that makes use of the English term: Political Affairs p 1034 Rjensen (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"We" agree to no such thing. Stalin appears to have used the concept, but so far, I see no indication whatsoever that he used the phrase, and it would be even more absurd to claim he ORIGINATED it.--T.E.Watts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.109.231 (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

we agree he used the concept--in Russian of course. His use is the first one that historians have published--maybe someone used it earlier but until a RS discovers an earlier usage Wiki goes with what scholars now say. As the Communists said in 1934, "Especially should it be remembered that it was Stalin who led the fight against the theory of American exceptionalism, as far back as 1928, when it began to be defended by Lovestone." cite 1934 document Rjensen (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) The reliable sources that I have seen so far all agree with the fact that the term was coined by Stalin. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Fried does not say Stalin originated the phrase. Pease's notes do not support his own claim that he did. This is absurd.--T.E.Watts 97.123.109.231 (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"Absurd" is unwise language in a serious debate. Trotsky used the term in 1930: "The opportunism of Lovestone, Brandler, and their supporters lies in the fact that they demand recognition for ... of the inseparable bond between American "exceptionalism" and the "exceptionalism" of the other parts of the world." Trotsky 1930 online Rjensen (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing here but hot air. I see no scholarly sources being brought forward to provide a rebuttal to Pease and Fried. Until I do it is a non-issue. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Fried doesn't claim Stalin used the phrase. Pease's own notes do not support HIS claim that Stalin did. Rjensen's source attributes it to someone else altogether. His other source shows Trotsky using the phrase, which in no way supports the claim Stalin did. --T.E.Watts 97.123.109.231 (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is that Watts does not trust scholarship--he has his own private views. Pease is Donald E. Pease is Avalon Foundation Professor of the Humanities at Dartmouth College, author of numerous books, and this one is published by Univ Of Minnesota Press; those outstanding credentials demonstrate he is a RS -- something Watts cannot handle. Watts has cited no sources to support his private views, and has cited no RS critical of Pease. The American Communist magazine in 1934 was pretty clear: "Especially should it be remembered that it was Stalin who led the fight against the theory of American exceptionalism, as far back as 1928, when it began to be defended by Lovestone." Rjensen (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your comments. I think we should close this discussion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

We go with sources not OR. TFD (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)