Happy New Year and congrats on the soon to be launched new site!

You are on to something in declaring American Exceptionalism means different things to different people. As far as definitions, the most simple and vague one is the U.S. is different from other nation-states. We are unique. This prompts the question, how are we different?

You mention a few examples in your post but you left out an important element of what you describe as “the third and bizzarre form of ‘American Exceptionalism’”. Namely, the rights we have in the U.S. and which are enshrined in our consitution are given to us by our Creator, not by our government or our political leaders. The notion that political rights are provided to by a divine Creator are far different from the notion of rights in other liberal democracies like the UK and France. This is an incredibly important element of American political history and political development.

Continuing on the importance definitions, I encourage you to reassess the notion that the US went to war against Iraq “because neo-conservatives in the United States thought they could plant a democracy in the middle of the Islamic world in order to win a war on terrorism.” Neocons largely supported the Iraq War but the primary policy makers and decision makers of the war were not neoconservatives unless you use a definition so broad as to include President George W. Bush, VP Cheney, Sec of Defense Rumsfeld and Sec of State Rice. I realize the Left uses the neocon label in a cavelier manner but it is important to be specific in our language. The neocons, with the exception of Undersecretary of Def. Wolfowitz, were advisers and pundits. Neocons supported the war, but the people who were in the actual positions of power were not neocons. This is an incredibly important distinction to make.

–TNC

“None of this type of behavior would be tolerated in a corporate setting, where the specter of litigation over charges of sexual harassment hangs like a Damoclean sword. Yet, even two decades removed from the Navy’s 1991 Tailhook scandal, it remains a deeply ingrained part of military culture.”

Hogwash. I’ve had a career in the military and now work for a fortune 500 company. Comparing shipboard 24/7 life to 8 hour work days in glass towers is ridiculous. What many watch on their TV screens after they go home each night is several times as sexist and homophobic as what happened on the Enterprise. This is not to say that was an appropriate thing for an XO to do. Indeed, Captain Honors has been relieved of his command and DADT is dead–and that’s a good thing, though I agree it should have happened before. But please explain how this somehow indicates that the military doesn’t get it and that this behavior is pervasive in uniform? To the contrary, it’s an isolated incident and that’s why it got the attention it did. IMHO, sexual harassment is no more pervasive in the military than it is in the private world. Those that say otherwise likely haven’t served in both worlds since 1991. Have you ever noticed how headlines are written about Cops, Politicians and Military members crossing the line, but we never hear about Walmart, GE and Apple employees that do foolish or illegal things? It’s certainly not because those is private enterprise are all angels and all law abiding 24/7. When it comes to system-wide honor, duty and respect, I’d put my former shipmates right up there with the best in the private world.

Hogwash. I’ve recently finished a career in the military and now work for a fortune 500 company. Comparing shipboard 24/7 life to 8 hour work days in glass tower is ridiculous. What many watch on your TV screen after they go home each night is several times as sexist and homophobic. Captain Honors has been fired and DADT is dead. Please explain how this somehow indicate that the military doesn’t get it and that this behavior is pervasive? There are bad eggs in the coporate world and they make headlines–and sexual harassment is no more pervasive in the military than it is in the private world. Those that say otherwise haven’t served in both worlds since 1991.

On the right today, American exceptionalism has become a kind of shibboleth: if you accept it, you’re accepted; if you don’t accept it, you’re the enemy.

The term limits issue is a tough one though. The Supreme Court already ruled them unconstitutional back in ‘95. I haven’t looked much into the issue, have some think tanks come up with some new ways to go at the issue from a legal standpoint? Otherwise it’ll just get struck down in lower courts.

While some may have meant some fo the other definitions given, I believe some variant on this last interpretation is closer to the hearts and minds of more of those who would use the term. And that interpretation is also quite consistent with De Tocqueville’s ‘Democracy in America’ (one of my favorite books on my bookshelves.) The settlers of America didn’t have a nanny state to take care of them, and yet they accomplished more than any nation before them in the history of the world. That was American Exceptionalism – even with all its warts.