Talk:American exceptionalism#Moral Basis of Idea is Ignored

The article's first sentence ("American exceptionalism is the belief that the United States is inherently superior to other nations") is inaccurate. It is a critical appraisal of the term rather than a neutral definition. It emphasizes belief, and therefore perspective, rather than defines the concept. It contradicts the italicized definition immediately above it ("This article is about the theory that America is qualitatively different from other nations. For the ideology that America has an exceptional mission in the world, see Americanism (ideology).") and conflates the two terms (American exceptionalism and Americanism) that the italicized definition distinguishes. Subsequent text in the article makes this distinction.

The source (p. 18 of American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword by Seymour Martin Lipset) provided as a reference for the article's first sentence explicitly contradicts the first sentence. The referenced text states: "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, that it is an outlier. Exceptionalism is a double-edged concept. ... [W]e are the worst as well as the best, depending on which quality is being addressed." So the article's first sentence may just as well read, "American exceptionalism is the belief that the United States is inherently inferior to other nations." This would be just as misleading and unsupported by the referenced source.

Much of the rest of the article is dedicated to critical appraisal, i.e., perspectives and commentary on it, since much of the understanding of this term comes from commentary on it. However, accurately and neutrally defining the term at the outset, rather than substituting an appraisal for a definition, is necessary in order to understand what it is that critics are appraising. The current first sentence is not only inaccurate, but also misleading. It is important to understand what the term means not only to understand its implications within a critical or ideological framework, but also to understand the precise nature of America's qualitative difference from other nations. Conceiving of the nature of this difference has to be descriptive before it can be normative.

The (intended?) impression that the article's first sentence creates is simply false. A subject is not controversial because it is wrongheaded; it is controversial because there are wildly divergent perspectives on it and feelings about it. The first thing to do in approaching it is to fairly define what "it" is, not what it should be or what one side believes it to be. Then we can get past the first sentence. CeilingFan2Sea (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

“Kammen says that many foreign visitors commented on American exceptionalism including Karl Marx, ....”

Marx never visited the United States Rudyguy21 (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

:Go ahead and fix it.  — Freoh 23:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

:The source said "foreign observers," so I changed it. If you find this sort of thing again, it's easiest to check the source and correct the text. TFD (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The article's first sentence ("American exceptionalism is the belief that the United States is inherently superior to other nations") is inaccurate. At the time of America's founding, it was not a belief or theory of superiority, although its founders did believe it was an improved design. At the time of its founding, America was indeed unique, or exceptional, because it was very different than other nations around the world. For example, Its design included self-government, meaning the citizens were the government.

Mlk75 (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)