Talk:American exceptionalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 POVness 2 This article needs a lot of work 3 Longevity table 4 List of oldest things 5 Delete "In historical context" 6 American Exceptionalism Exists Today 7 Let's Be Truthful for Once! 8 stay on topic 9 Let's be Truthful for Once! 10 Bush Doctrine 11 Is this hopeless? 12 What is "exceptional" in this context 13 All wrong 14 confrontation with other national "exceptionalisms" 15 American Values 16 (mostly) fixed in my opinion 17 Werner Sombart 18 What are you attempting to say? 19 deletions 19.1 Opportunity and meritocracy 19.2 Political rights 20 No experience with other forms of government? 21 Self-reference 22 Biased article 23 Horrible 24 Proof of de Tocqueville 25 Aspects of arguments for American exceptionalism?! 26 Weasel words 27 Who writes this crap? 28 Um, anyone hear of the Marshall Plan? 29 In response to "Who writes this crap?" 30 To the author of the "anti-american" weasel words... 31 POV Statement 32 This article is absolutely awful 33 meaning changes wildly in context 34 Distinction between American Exceptionalism and Claims of American Exceptionalism 35 Sources, please 36 This article still needs a lot of work 37 Proposal for "Socialism in US" section

[edit] POVness

On February 18th, Stevertigo made a major series of changes to this page that, in my opinion, were completely POV. I reverted the page to before these edits took place but moved back into the article usefull information (not written by Stevertigo) about the Marxist view of this idea.

My problems with the edited page:

1. The title ethnocentrism limited the concept of American exceptionalism to a racial one when it can be seen as social, cultural, and political as well
2. The use of quotes when describing American exceptionalism ideas throughout the page mocked the idea
3. The tone and content of the page was distorted to create a strong view against the concept

I'd love for you to put back in some of the ideas about race/ethnicity in American exceptionalism - I myself will start that process. However, please respond on the talk page before editing. --Alex S 17:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didnt see this when it happened. I dont think the above criticisms are right or wrong, nor relevant spefic to the article as it is today, but its not typical that we write in such a passive voice that 'Stalinism' for example might seem perfectly acceptible, as long as it was in context. Thus why would an "exceptionalist" view of another kind be defended with an only self-serving interpretation of NPOV? -Stevertigo 06:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

When discussing issues such as this that people often feel very strongly about, it can be easy to lose sight of what the purpose of the article should be. In my view, an article on American exceptionalism should discuss the claims of American exceptionalists and present counter-arguments, but the counter-arguments should challenge the idea that America is exceptional, not the idea that the products of the exceptionalism are desirable. The latter properly belongs in Anti-American sentiment.

(( Um, I'm not quite sure how to put this, but America *is* exceptional. It's status as sole superpower is unique, it's economy the largest in the world, and it's society is not quite like any other. It may not be apparent why the US deviates from many global norms in so many ways (our disinterest in 'football' is minor but notable), but that it is an exception to many global 'norms' is indisputable.

-Rosignol@nwlink.com ))

For instance, David Monniaux added a bit about how homosexual sex was only recently decriminalized in many U.S. states as a counter-argument to how the American system prevents a "tyranny of the majority". This example, however, actually supports American exceptionalism: It shows that states which held the minority view (on a national scale) that homosexual sex was a social ill were allowed to keep laws that reflected that minority view. An idea behind federalism is that if you don't like the laws in one state, you can go to a state that's more accepting of your opinions. David (and I) happen to think that these laws were prejudicial and were right to have been overturned, but the fact that they still were valid in the 21st century provides ammunition with which to criticize the social values in parts of America, but not with which to debunk American exceptionalism.

It may be a valid criticism of American culture that it has in general a more "backward" view of homosexuality, but it isn't fair to criticize American exceptionalism on the basis of this exogenous factor.

I think the current formulation is quite good. I don't quite buy personally the argument that one may move to another state if one disagrees with the policies of one's states. After all, this was somewhat true of a large part of the world save for the closed "Communist" countries. Yet, having to relocate because of abusive, intolerant decisions from the majority is clearly a hardship. David.Monniaux 17:47, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And indeed it is the slogan of the intolerant "If you don't like it move to f***in' Russia." etc. Rich Farmbrough 12:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs a lot of work

Unless credit is given to scholars like Seymour Martin Lipset for this concept this article is merely a personal essay. I agree with VeryVerily that this article needs a lot of work (see page history as of now). 172 19:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

VV removed a lot of text, which was flawed. However, I don't know if it's utterly unsalvageable. Perhaps someone familiar with the relevant scholarly literature can fix it up and restore it. ([1]) I'd do it if I did not have to finish a couple of other articles instead. 172 20:06, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have restored it, and will clean it up. VeryVerily's hack job was unjustified, and his comments about it being a "personal essay" are no doubt an attack on me; rather than actually dealing with the material itself, (which apparently doesnt fit his narrow concept of what the article should be about) he has chosen the typically obtuse method of deleting material, rather than actually editing it. One would have hoped that VeryVerily might have become an editor by now. What say you VeryVerily? -Stevertigo 06:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I never said it was a "personal essay", and it was not an attack on you. As for your attack on me, it just bores me. Here are a few examples from the text which are problematic:

American exceptionalism, as an ideology, is dissectable into its components of capitalism, personal liberty, and expansionism.

Is it really? How is expansionism part of the ideology of exceptionalism? And what about ethnic nationalism? Democracy? Limited government? This reductionist approach does not look promising.-VV

Verily Verily is the jingoist mascot, I have run across his ditrades in all of the controversial wikipedia pages. He erases a lot of valuable information, and then attacks the authors. Problem is he never actually ADDS anything of value to the articles. List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945 (for example) He is better ignored as a troll.

Did I say it was perfect? What else would you add VV, and why didnt you? This notion of "limited government" is simply a propagandism; if you can write the article, and explain in logical terms how this ideology would have any material effect in the Old World that was equivalent its so-called effect on the US, then there would be something there. As it stands, you cannot extricate "limited government" from the context of "American expansionism," nor even from the alternate interpretations of what the term "limited government" really means. Would you like me to explain that to you too? Try to use less subjective terms to describe this "exceptionally" subjective term. -SV

VV You did not "say it was perfect" per se, but you wrote it in the article as though it were definitive and in compliance with the NPOV policies of this encyclopedia, which it is not. Your "propagandism" talk is neither here nor there, as we are not endorsing exceptionalism (nor seeking to rebut it).

(VV 08:43, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) To reiterate my point, my quarrel was that "this reductionist approach does not look promising", so asking me what to "add" is of course off.)

See my comment on "off (topic)" below... -SV

Because American existence as an influential and powerful society is due to its vast resources...

Is that all it is? How about solid alliances and past victories? A healthy distance from the theaters of WW2? Its large cultural output? Its progressive ideas of individual liberty? And by resources do you mean natural resources or just wealth? By the way, those sentences are missing verbs. -VV

Im sorry if the basic truths sort of shake your nuanced and glorfied image of what things are and how they came to be. The fact of the matter remains that the US to this day depends on land division and development to sustain its growing (expansionist) economy. Do you disagree? Perhaps you think it was "good old fashioned American ingenuity" that drove the show? "Victories?" Subjectivity! What does "victories" mean here? The ethnic cleansing of Native American populations were considered "victories" at the time; is that what you meat by "victories"? You bring up the role of individual choices in shaping destiny; as much as Im a true believer in the butterfly effect, one cant possibly begin to quantize such nuance, nor can they expect to bundle up all these disordered and separated decisions into a single ideological package, and not be criticised for its POV! Talk about things being temporally distant from each other?-SV

VV I don't think I'm going to bother trying to respond to you anymore, as this is excessive ad hominem. What do you know about my "glorified image" of anything? Anyway, NPOV policies say you are not entitled to use this article as a podium for your personal opinions.

I will not argue with you either. Either you can deal with the citique point by point, or it remains invalid. NPOV does not bound us to keep articles bland, confused, conflicted or even stupid. So, if you want to write a support for the notions expressed in "exceptionalism" please do so; the article can represent both the criticism, and the support. If you support does not match my criticism, well thats no reason to delete the criticism. I agree that criticism/refutation could be separately contained, but you cant possibly be saying that observations and material facts from the last 140 years cant reshape the very way in which the article is presented. I do not intend to mock the notion; I simply intent to show that subjective terms like "personal freedom" are either in quotes, replaced with neutral terms, or put into some context - rather than just being thrown out there, expecting the reader to be Fox-News literate. -Stevertigo 19:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Even long before the United States ever came into being, the very discovery of the New World brought a stir to the old, that sparked renaissance of ideas regarding wealth, society, government, liberty, and even God.

Oh, so that's what caused it. How simple! (And relevance?)-VV

If you have a better reason to challenge this other than simplicy, I would like to hear it. Im sure its very long and involved though. While simple has the burden of appearing simplistic, it at least demands that you demonstrate in simple terms, how "simple" is incorrect. "Relevance" is the context, under which the cultural lore of "American ingenuity" "American know how," "the American way" and the "exceptional American" came to be.-SV

VV It is ridiculous to impute all of Europe's evolution of ideas to the discovery of the Americas; you may as well say it was all due to the Fall of Constantinople. And if what actually happened is not relevant, it should not be in the article at all, as it probably shouldn't be.

(BTW, I never wrote that "all of Europe's evolution of ideas" were attributable to the discovery of the Americas.) This is really really basic history; I dont see how anyone who gives it a moments thought can dispute it. We impart events and chains of events to catalytic events and discoveries; it is always subjective. In this case, we are dealing with two competing subjective views; "exceptionalism" versus "expansionism" Knowing what you do about human nature, which do you imagine is the more realistic and practical explanation. "Exceptionalism" which is an outdated attempt to unify a whole bunch of ideas as 'catalyzing events' that themselves fall under a general theory, or "expansionism" which simply explains that people tend to gravitate to where less hardship, more space, more food, and more easy living is. I thought conservatives liked practical explanations.-Stevertigo 19:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

After the dissolution of Britain's corporate rulership, the War of Independence, and numerous territorial disputes, treaties, and purchases, (Spain, France, Russia, Mexico, etc.), the basic design for what was to be the United States' territory was outlined.

These are rather temporally disparate events, and I don't see the connection of the East India company, either. Nor do I see what this has to do with exceptionalism.-VV

In giving a general history of the world, one can jump quite a ways; does this mean that the information is not valid, or useful to give perspective? To say that one fails to understand how American history is related to American lore about its history is kind of like saying "I dont know how God has anything to with a discussion of Jesus," or "I fail to see how Superman is relevant to Spider-Man. Only by the subjective rules of the lore itself is the context irrelevant. By any other standard, including NPOV, and encyclopedia material, they are not irrelevant.-SV

VV You were claiming to locate an event in time, but gave a smattering of disparate events. Like most of your comments, everything else you say is off topic.

Im sure you mean off-topic in the same way "travel abroad" and "starvation" are "off-topic" in North Korea, but I can only go on impressions, since your responses are so lacking of material to deal with. -Stevertigo 19:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because the existing powers needed the services of (and preferred the company of) Europeans, preexisting Old World restrictions on social class and status were overlooked.

Is that all it was? Nothing about many of them deliberately fleeing such restrictions, or disbelieving in them on principle? And what does the parenthetical have to do with this? And were they overlooked everywhere, including, say, Virginia? -VV

The advent of Labor unions would be the culmination of the cultural mythos of freedom, with the practical reality that labor can, in a new and limited society, control their destinty to a large degree.

The culmination? Labor controlling their destiny..., I'm speechless.

Are you so blind as to expect that your simplistic and reflexist prejudice toward organized labor be unchallenged? I'm not saying labor unions are Gods gift; rather that people like yourself should perhaps entertain the thought that 6 year old kids would still be working overtime in polluted and abusive sweatshops, were it not for organized labor. Start with that thought, and then consider how things developed up until Enron/Arthur Andersen; being the latest incident where this self-delusional notion of business benevolence was completely and indesputably refuted (except among the comatose or otherwise unaware) -SV

VV What view exactly are you imputing to me anyway? Your psychic abilities clearly outstrip mine, otherwise I'd have any idea what in hell you think these comments have to do with anything. VV 08:12, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The controlled, incentivised, distribution of the land's ownnership would be the single material driving force behind America's development, overshadowing any moralistic or ideaological claims of influence. Regardless of the ideology, the reality of colonialism dictated that there be a shift in culture values, leaning toward the practical and the simple.

Okay, I can't take anymore. VV 13:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I understand that your brain hurts, VV. Think of it like riding a bicycle to get into shape; the hills will be a strain the first couple times, and you will say "I cant take it anymore" - just keep it up, and the hills will seem like a piece of cake. But two weeks out of the routine, they say is like having to start all over again. :( -Stevertigo 07:48, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for deigning to extend a hand to a dunce like me. If only more geniuses could be like you! VV 08:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let's de-politicize this discussion, shall we? This doesn't need to be a divisive subject. This article just needs more attributions to scholars from Tocqueville to Lipset, that's it. 172 13:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For a start, someone who knows more than most about American exceptionalism should divide the article into many sections and sub-sections. Then we will have manageable paragraphs to work with. Mat334 07:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Longevity table

This table is bound to be debatable. It is impossible to compare ancient Egypt with colonial empires, let alone with a twentieth century state. There are no universal criteria to measure the influence of any given nation. Even the longevity itself is problematic: for most countries only the period they were a 'great power' seems to be counted. Or is it the time they felt 'exceptional?' Both criteria are quite arbitrary and need explanation. Even if the table remains in the article, something more should be said about these problems. - Djadek 09:41, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And someone has laughably confused the Franks (and several other nations) with the French in dating the beginning of the "French Kingdom" to Clovis. - Nunh-huh 22:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. This table is quite nonsensical. David.Monniaux 10:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I suggest we remove this table. Many "Empires" are missing, where is China? Where are the Spaniards and the Portugese in the 16th century? Bontenbal 22:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not see the connection between longevity and the topic of the article. I support the deletion of the table. It is not thoroughly done, anyway, and at best at a draft stage. Robbe007, 17 Nov 2004

All these points are valid. A longevity table is fairly useless. However, a table of other empires that have considered themselves to be exceptional is useful. This table could just happen to list approximate dates during which the empire considered itself to be exceptional. Mat334 07:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. It is part of the concept of a nation that it is exceptional in comparison with other nations. Otherwise there would be no purpose in having any at all. Additionally, the table contains false facts, such as the duration of the "French kingdom" (see France). Also, it implies completeness but omits important nations. While interesting by itself, I think that the table does not help understanding the concept of American Exceptionalism. robbe 14:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If what you say is true, that "it is part of the concept of a nation that it is exceptional in comparison with other nations", then this table is useful. The table is relevant to the argument against American exceptionalism. It supports the idea that America is not exceptional by showing that there are other empires that have considered themselves to be exceptional. Because Wikipedia is NPOV we need to include all points of view. This table supports a particular point of view and so we should keep it. Just because has factual inaccuracies or is incomplete does not mean that we should delete it. If that were the case then half of Wikipedia would be deleted. No, instead we need to verify the table and expand it. Therefore keep the table. Mat334 17:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and remove it. After all, it has been months since my first comment on this issue, and most of those who reacted agreed it should be removed.

Mat334: It is not because I disagree with the point the table tries to make that I want it to be removed; on the contrary, personally I agree with you that the United States are not that exceptional. But still, it's a nonsensical table, unfitting for an encyclopedia, for several reasons.

1 It is impossible to compare the influence of old civilizations like Rome and Egypt with European colonial powers or with modern states. Even if you try to do this, it would be very arbitrary and you would need an explanation far too long to put it in a table like this.

2 The same is true for exceptionalism: you can't measure it, so putting it in a table is misleading.

3 Then there is the point of the longevity. One would say this must be measurable - but as others stated above, it is hard to determine the start and the end for an empire. Is the kingdom of the Franks the same nation that conquered Egypt centuries later? I don't think you can say that, but others will disagree. Pastinakel 12:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of oldest things

Someone (MeltBanana) sensibly changed "has the oldest" to "it claims to have the oldest" (or words to that effect) . I have inserted a few challenges to these claims, and a few references supporting them. However a better wording is needed at the top, if indeed this section is worth keeping. "America claims" really means nothing in this context. Perhaps "Some claim" .... Rich Farmbrough 09:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Delete "In historical context"

That whole ridiculous section In historical context could be removed from the article, making it much shorter and more readable, without losing anything. VV 09:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In two months there has been virtually no improvement. It reads too much like a essay rather than an encyclopedia article. VeryVerily 13:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can there really be no-one whose knowledge of the concept of American exceptional surpasses that of most? All we really need is for someone to have a shot at dividing everything into manageable sections. Mat334 07:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It really reads like an essay. While it always hurts to delete anything that was written, massively shortening the article would certrainly improve the encyclopedianess of the page. Is there any way of putting all the material on an external page and linking to it? robbe 14:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't put all of the material on an external page and link to it. Instead we should delete all phrases that are explained elsewhere - particularly the historical content. I suggest that someone with knowledge on the subject breaks the page down into sections and sub-sections in order to make it easier to work with. This would also break it down from an essay. Mat334 17:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] American Exceptionalism Exists Today

[edit] Let's Be Truthful for Once!

One of the devastating facts about Americans is their denial of the unkind and injust treatment of people that historically EuroAmericans believe inferior. This nation has a black spot on its soul for the genocide and encampment of the surviving Native Americans. The manifest destiny arose long ago because of the ignorance, sinful nature, greed, and lack of conscious of the white man. From generation to generation, the sons gleefully took their inheritances of their fathers, secured by stealing, exploiting, killing, enslaving, and the sweat of people of color. Whites ignored God's commandments they are arrogant and think that their actions are above the sins of other men It is easy for them to justify their actions because of the false belief that they are superior. Indians were human when Columbus stumbled upon the West Indies. Yet, He and his fellowmen were too prejudice and evil to acknowledge it. (The land was occupied by humans whose culture, language, and ethnicity was different. They were human). The barbarians were the Europeans who had no regard for the lives of others, so they massacred, tortured, and stole the resources and land from a gentle people. Man's Christianity was not the Truth, and differed from God's Word or Christian faith. Ironically, the Indians were held as inhuman, but the Church demanded that the Indians convert. Today, the average white man still believes he is superior to people of color. They also still believe that the world evolves around them, rather than accept that they too on earth for a short time along with all other people. They are still ignorant, frightened of men of color, and will still exploit others. What is lacking in their souls is compassion, love, and concern for all humankind. Just live among them as a person of a beautiful golden brown complexion and learn the degree of hate, hostility, and superiority that they possess. They will not accept the faults of their forefathers or apologize for the grave sins of the forefathers. The assets are acceptable but not the liabilities.

• Wah. --Looper5920 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

---

says who? that's the problem with this article.

[edit] stay on topic

lets be concise. Discuss american exceptionalism as an ideal. Next offer the opposing POV which should be that america is NOT , in fact, exceptional by this criteria. History can be offered but not to advance a narrative of america as good or bad. The history should describe what the ideal first was, and what it has evolved to be. Do not lose sight of the topic. Do not lose sight of what the pro and con positions are (re-read first sentences). Keep it in scope.

[edit] Let's be Truthful for Once!

While we are being truthful lets talk about the muslim slavers who sold the blacks to the "evil white man." In fact lets look at slavery of africans as a whole. Practiced by muslims throughout their whole existance - even today. In fact the first group to end slavery of africans were the brits. White, Christian, Brits.

Meanwhile the arab muslims continued a practice laid down by their "prophet"

Which is the manmade religion now?

Every religion is man-made, there is no doctrine that we categorise as a religion that has been devised by some animal or other (living) entity.

i cant stand when people compare "Muslims and whites" or "Muslims and Americans." Muslim is a religion, not a race or nationality. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.106.140.254 (talk • contribs) .

If "the white man" was evil (or other generalised sentiments), then I second the reminder that it was the British who abolished slavery first and conduced others to do so (the first time this was done by a major power in world history). Read up on the history of the Royal Navys west Africa squadron and the existance of Sierra Leone. The British may not have a perfect history in this general area, but, when compared with "the white man" who was a US-style patriot then the comparison leaves the British shining in humanity. Read up on the US wages wars in the article on Indian Removal. One of the reasons for the US war of independence was the so-called Intolerable Acts, including the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which sought to limit incursions into American Indian territory. "US patriots" were more interested in a land grab than and high ideal principles, the sort that are trumpeted nowadays as the things that make the US special and great. Perhaps if Americans were fed a more balanced and historically accurate version of their own history they would realise that they are no more special than anyone else. The sooner they understand this the better, as it will make their transition from a world power to being the number 2 (or lower order) in the world pecking order (to China, India et al) much easier to swallow as that happens over the next 50 - 100 years. I do not have much hope - you only have to look at the American election system to see that Americans live more by b/s marketing style "facts" over reasoned argument.

In response to your support by reason of the 'Intolerable Acts', those acts were never put in place to protect the Natives. They were put in simply because Britain did not have the resources to fight more wars with the Indians. The reason they were intolerable is because many of the colonists did not have the resources to live without expanding west, whether it was good for the natives or not.

HAHAHAHAHA so do you think that the slavery abolition was done because the british "shine in humanity"? The United States are contemptible ******* but the UK is just as contemptible as...UK abolished slavery to guarantee the black people at Africa, surely we all know what happenned next to Africa right? The UK explored everybody since they had the strength to do it....why do you think France and some other countries helped in the USA indepedency? The UK left Portugal in RUINS for example...and if it weren't for Gandhi and Nehru and the others I don't know what would have been of India...and what the other guy said about the 'Intolerable Acts' is perfect too...oh man you got to open your eyes...--WagSF 15:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bush Doctrine

Should Bush Doctrine be added in as having a possible link to American Exceptionalism? Certainly the war for democracy seems to fit.

--

No, that's more of a Wilsonian thing (a particular variety of American political thought) than an American Exceptionalism thing.

As a clumsy way of illustrating the difference: Wilsonian idealism would inspire Americans to think the middle east needs Democracy... American Exceptionalism is what causes Americans to think the US is capable of establishng that Democracy.

They are related, but not the same thing.

[edit] Is this hopeless?

My thesis: American exceptionalism really exists, even today, but probably to a somewhat lesser extent than years ago, although it is hard to tell it at times in the conduct of American foreign policy. There are relatively few Americans today (although they certainly exist) who still attempt to justify slavery, the treatment of Native Americans at the hands of settlers, or even the World War II internment of Japanese-Americans, and it is arguable that all of the above discredit the idea of America being exceptional, but probably not entirely. It still seems that after all of the edit wars that the article is still basically a fairly Marxist POV. While the Marxist critique of American exceptionalism belongs in the article, along with other critiques, this should not provide the underlying framework, but seemingly now it still does. It looks like after all of the sound and fury that everyone gave up, which is unfortunate, as apparently lots of heat got generated, but little light, and Wikipeida is saddled with a long-lasting article that is seriously POV. Anyone want to try again, or is it not worth the effort? Rlquall 11:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

A big reason why the article is currently garbage is because it contains no source citations. Without citations, any controversial topic on Wikipedia turns into an amateurish, opinion piece tug-of-war. Until someone gets serious about enforcing that policy, which is a lot of work, then there's probably little hope for the article. My advice to whoever wants to "fix" this article: remove every single undocumented passage, revert every single undocumented addition. Build from there. --Kevin Myers 23:55, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's still a bit Marxist. This IS wikipeida, after all.

[edit] What is "exceptional" in this context

The word has two related meanings:

• One meaning is "different" or "unique", obviously derived from "exception".

• The other meaning is similar to "excellent".

The US is certainly unique in many respects; but I don't think that the US is unique in being unique. All nations have their foibles and follies; the US is no different.  :) Of course, being a superpower causes the pecularities of the US to be magnified and more likely noticed than those of say, Greece.

As far as excellence goes? Depends on to whom you speak; and in what way. The US is obviously a military and economic superpower; its citizens enjoy a rather good standard of living; and many seek to emigrate here. OTOH, there are many things to criticize; some of them are moral outrages which should offend any human being; others are essentially matters of taste (for example, I don't believe the diminished stature of soccer in the US is indicative of anything substantial)

The article, and this discussion, often use the above two meanings in a schizophrenic fashion.

==
Both definitions of the word prove that the idea of exceptionalism is nothing more than the product of an ego-centric worldview. The first meaning of the word applies to any country, and one of the distinghuising parameters (such as size in population or "power") does not augment the other parameters, so the US is in no way more unique than any other country because of its "superpower" status. In the technical sense, where one can define "uniqueness" as the distance between countries in the complete parameter space, there are ones that must be taken as very unique (that are far apart from the mass center of the distribution), because of very specific ethnological and cultural features (for instance some almost vanished african tribes). Most certainly, the US is much closer to many other (mainly called "western") countries in this parameter space and therefore closer to the mass center and hence, less "unique".

The second meaning of the word is dependant on cultural and ideologic background, of what one sees as advantageous or "good things". A strong economy or military power are parameters that are not universally regarded as being "good things". In the kapitalist framework, economy might be imnportant, but there exist other ideologies in which economy is no (or a much less important) parameter. Moreover, one cannot discuss "a good standard of living" without first defining a value system wherein to compare "standards of living". And since the American value system is not universal (seriously!) the whole second meaning of the word 'exceptionalism' is rendered meaningless.

I have to agree with the idea that exceptional doesn't necessarily mean better than, it just means different. And the US is different from most other developed nations in the world in a whole host of things. If you compare public attitudes in the US and Europe on the role of the state, capitalism, religiosity, etc. the differences are night and day Mattm1138 20:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense "differences are night and day". Clearly the person who wrote that comment hasn't travelled much around the world. Political opinion is very varied in North America and in Western Europe. The weightings of the various left/right opinions may be subtly different, and those may be excentuated by different political systems (including the US system which ingrains partisanship). But there is an immense more in common between the peoples of both areas than, say other peoples. Those two areas account for (as a rough guess) a quarter of world population. How about comparing ideals of democracy and human rights that Europeans and Americans broadly share with another quarter of the world population, in the PR China. That might be more worthy of a "night and day" generalisation. But then again, maybe not, because no-one has asked the Chinese for their political opinions of late. I suggest poor generalisations resulting from poor geographical, cultural and factual awareness are taken with a bucketfull of salt.

[edit] All wrong

This article just talks about American Exceptionalism as if it were just a continuation of Manifest Destiny theory; they're not at all the same. They mean completely different things; this article needs to be rewritten from scratch, and perhaps Manifest Destiny is foreigners' best way of understanding it, which is, perhaps, why it's viewed as a form of ethnocentrism; that's not at all what it is. Maybe culturocentrism(?). It's also all POV.

[edit] confrontation with other national "exceptionalisms"

Wouldn't this article benefit a lot from a confrontation with other national "exceptionalisms"? I'm thinking for instance of the Swiss Sonderfall: A nation that is also based on ideals and not linguo-ethnics, built on direct democracy and neutrality; or German "exceptionalism" with its interesting (though often merciless) history; or, of course, Jewish "exceptionalism".

I think all these phenomenons (and many more of them) are very similar to the American exceptionalism, so a mention of them and a comparison would improve the article. -- j. 'mach' wust ^{ˈtʰɔ̝ːk͡x} 09:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American Values

Should American values really redirect to this page? I don't think you need to be a believer in "American exceptionalism" to believe that American culture prioritizes certain values that are not necessarily as high a priority in other cultures. It's pretty common, for instance, to hear Canadians contrast the "Canadian values" (that phrase is taken directly from this Wikipedia article) of peace, order and good government with the United States' priorities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 68.226.239.73 05:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] (mostly) fixed in my opinion

There were a few very good NPOV points made in the otherwise rambling tangential un-neutral POV first section. Deleting it entirely was bad because those points would disappear. Keeping it in as-is was bad too because of its POV, so it just seemed to sit there and stink up the article for a long time. I reworked the neutral points that section made into a (hopefully) much more NPOV section that incorporates other parts of the article. Most of that section was deleted and I justified each deletion in my edit summaries.

The entire article still has problems...like some repetition with for/against arguments in the history section and (more importantly maybe) a lack of expert opinions or references to them, but as long as NPOV is maintained, I hope knowledgeable folks (who can keep in check the axe they want to grind) will come here with their footnotes eventually and make the thing better. This is a really important topic. Show some restraint about what you put in there, and leave the article better than when you arrived. Flying Jazz 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Werner Sombart

There should probably be some discussion or reference or link to Werner Sombart's "Why is there No Socialism in the United States?", which was an influential background to a lot of the scholarly debate on the subject in the first half of the 20th century... AnonMoos 18:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please add it. You are more familar with it than anyone.Travb 21:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I doubt if I ever read the whole thing, and I haven't read any part of it for at least 15 years. But it's important to this page... AnonMoos 01:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What are you attempting to say?

I moved this sentence to talk:

Some of the critics who say that these views oversimplify a supposed world view as positive which in fact also has negative aspects. They point among other things to sociological analysis which suggest that a persons exposure to opportunity can depend on the social circles in which their family moves. Or in the case of meritocracy that while supporting the rise of the able, those living in a social context which did not support the growth of their talents are overlooked.

1. Please do not use the weasel words "supposed" and "some critics".
2. please cite your sources, preferably quoting them here, with footnotes.
3. In its current form, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Please clarify your agruement, again, preferably using quoted, footnote sources

thank you for your contributions. I hope this does not discourage you.Travb 21:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

all you comments were fair, mine is actually that that section has nothing to do with article, so i've removed it. --DuLithgow 22:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deletions

DuLithgow deleted the following:

[edit] Opportunity and meritocracy

The United States of America is nicknamed by some as the "Land of Opportunity". It has traditionally had less rigid social classes than other nations, and has no system of nobility. While this is not to say that indications of a class structure cannot be found, those constraints are not strictly inhereted birth. Americans are often attributed with having the belief that a strong work ethic and personal fortitude is the key to success, rather than being born to the right family or making the right friends.

Stating the reason as:

Opportunity and meritocracy - notions of these qualities are not unique to the US, this cannot be used as an arguement for exceptionalism without some references.)[2]

[edit] Political rights

A common claim is that the United States is unique in that it has from its founding guaranteed political civil rights to its citizens – such as freedom of speech, the right to vote, and the presumption of innocence, and that respect for these rights is a uniquely strong component of American political culture. Critics of this position argue that these rights mostly came from England and diffused into all countries under English, and later British, influence: they never were distinct to the US - the US merely consolidated these rights into a single source document which highlighted their prominence. Indeed it can be argued that the practical application of certain civil and political rights in the US lagged other western democracies, and it is argued that there is no US constitutional right to vote even today - see suffrage today.

Stating the reason as:

Political rights - 'A common claim', 'Critics of this position', 'it can be argued' and 'it is argued' are not real statements of position, they are weasel words (as someone rightly pointed to me[3]

Signed:Travb 22:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No experience with other forms of government?

The entry states, "The mythology of American culture is inextricably linked to its government because the culture lacks the experience of other governmental forms."

That's simply inaccurate. The fact is that America is comprised of individuals from every country around the globe, who collectively have experience with every form of government that exists. The vast majority of Americans (with exception, of course) are descended from immigrants who chose America. The fact that people around the world continue to pour into America, legally or illegally, shows there is some distinctive quality about America that those people desire above other countries of choice. Every immigrant, current or ancestoral, came to America with their experiences of other forms of government. That collective sharing of why we each came to America continues to shape the way Americans mold their government. America is the first and most experienced country whose government is continually crafted by the people, who bring to the table their collective awareness of what works and does not work best in forms of government.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.223.156.223 (talk • contribs).

I agree with you about the entry.

The reason why people come to America, I believe is economical. America is the richest country in the world. Americans seem to think that this somehow excuses American foreign policy, which is fallacious. Travb 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've remove that whole section. As noted, it is inaccurate. It is also an argument, not an encyclopediac description of an argument, and to my knowledge it is not frequent/notable argument worth documenting. The nature of American government, that whole "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal", is an often cited source of national identity and exceptionalism, but that is much different than mere longevity. And as another problem... um, the experience of living under another form of government, namely a monarchal tyranny, was fundamental to the people who wrote, voted for, and adopted the Bill of Rights based on that experience. 171.159.64.10 01:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-reference

Isn't it funny how words like Americentrism and American exceptionalism assume that United States = America? Piet 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be because in English the United States = America. Sorry. Perhaps you can correct this in Spanish Wikipedia. 171.159.64.10 23:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the thing is, the name of the country is the "United States of America". America is the short form of the country. Why not "the United States" alone? Because there are other countries which are "united states". The United States of Mexico. The United Kingdom. Etc. America may also be a continent or two continents, but the regional affiliation with America is not the issue. The country's name is "United States of America". Going around saying "We are U.S. citizens" instead of "Americans" is kind of dumb. And I am strongly opposed to American Expceptioonalism. I still feel like the people of the "United States of America" have a strong right to be called by default "Americans". Just like people of Mexico have a default right to be called "Mexicans". --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Zaphnathpaaneah geography quiz: the western hemisphere is made up of South _______ and North _________ You seemed to have forgotten this little fact. signed:Travb 06:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Travb--geography quiz: the western hemisphere is also made up of more than a few European nations. You seemed to have forgotten that little fact as well. Steven --68.93.199.219 14:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Almost. The western hemisphere used to be the west half of Europe and the Americas, but now it is all of the USA, Canada, Australia, Great Britain, Russia (depending on source), and basically any country outside of Asia major, the middle east, and South America. Tyler 11:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Zaphnathpaaneah, just because "U.S. Citizens" sounds kind of dumb doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. It just means that it sounds dumb. America is the continent, and anyone on either continent has the right to call themselves americans. Including Mexico and Canada. By the way, I seriously doubt if a Mexican citizen would could himself a Meican, nor a Canadian consider it his right to be referenced as Canadian. So the US does not have a "default" right to be called American, they can call themselves American, Mexican, or Fish Sandwiches. Just because the USA shadows the rest of the Americas does not give it any more right to the word than any other country there.--Tyler 11:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the line "Americans are much less interest in equality and security" because it is terrible grammar and I'm not sure what the intent is. Given the "war on terror" can Americans be described as uninterested in security? Or is job security or economic security meant? 171.159.64.10 23:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased article

How can a country be stereotyped like this? no country brings any less or more, this article is biased.

[edit] Horrible

This article is horribly biased in every way. "Some loosely use the term to indicate a moral superiority of Americans, while others use it to refer to the American concept as itself an exceptional ideal, which may or may not always be upheld by the actual people and government of the nation." This is shocking for a site that prides itself on NPOV. In fact, seeing the higher crime rates etc, statistical evidence shows that, in fact, the opposite is far more likely. It also has a horrible redirect. I typed in Americentrism, as in Eurocentrism (the historical practice of seeing the world through Europe) and it directs me to American exceptionalsim. "Some charge that anti-Americanism stems from jealousy" This cannot be father from the truth. True, America has problems as all other countries do, but this article, it's shocking. I assure you, Australia, or, say, Sweden are as, if not more, culturally exceptional as America, as there is no 'norm' that can be referred to. If this article is not rectified soon, I will be nominating it for deletion.Cyp43r 12:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

And your nomination will be speedily dismissed. The point is not to say that America is in fact exceptional, by either the definitions of "unique/unusual" or "excellent", but to note that there is a strain in our (i.e. American) tradition that believes we are exceptional (both meanings). Obviously this is not the only way Americans look at ourselves, but it is undeniably part of it and has been since before we were an independent nation. If anything, I think the article should do a better job of noting that the phrase "American exceptionalism" is at times ambivalent or even negative, even when used by Americans among ourselves. It sounds like you have mistaken the point of the article; it isn't biased (much), it is discussing a notable existing bias. 171.159.64.10 03:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That should be made more clear, it is easy to read the article and think that your'e a bunch of... The wording is very uncyclopedic. There are also no aguments against american exceptionalsim. And that redirect is absolutley terrible, like some form of ironic joke. 58.162.236.154 08:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right, the article definitely needs to cite counter arguments. Actually, there are two issues: 1) there are compelling factual arguments against the assertion that America is in fact exceptional (other than in the sense that many nations have their quirks; Swiss multi-ethnic and -lingual democracy, French fondness for cheese, etc.) 2) there are compelling moral arguments against asserting American exceptionalism. Among the article's external links, "The American Creed" is a very good short look at a value-neutral assertion of American exceptionalism and at the same time excellent arguments against it. And "The Right to be Different", in the section written by Grover Norquist is a notable indirect condemnation of exceptionalism. I say indirect because Norquist here makes an utterly appalling display of jingoism. He actually holds up a laudable goal to have an American foreign policy with only two modes of operation, "ignore" and "kill". Any American who believes that we as a nation ought to stand for something more than the most brutal self-interest ought to be appalled at where the argument for exceptionalism can lead. 171.159.64.10 01:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Late last year, this article included counterarguments and it used to be more NPOV. However, it has never contained referenced statments, so "weasel-words" were required due to a lack of support for the statements made. That meant that anyone could remove statements they didn't like based on weasel-word or lack-of-support issues, and anyone else could include statements they did like based on the fact that the rest of the article was just as unsupported as their contribution. Hopefully, someone who can remain neutral will take the time to rewrite this article based on more sourced material. Until then, some people with agendas will keep altering this article for better, but mostly for worse, and other people with agendas will be here on the talk page being upset about it. I would support some kind of symbolic nomination for deletion if the person proposing the deletion were willing to spend hours (or days) writing a completely new article from scratch that is worthy of an encyclopedia. But the idea that Wikipedia should not have any article on this important topic is just plain wrong. Flying Jazz 12:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"Proponents of American exceptionalism often claim that the "American spirit" or the "American identity" was created at the frontier (following Frederick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis), where rugged and untamed conditions gave birth to American national vitality. Other nations that had long frontiers--such as Russia, Canada and Australia, did not allow individualistic pioneers to settle there, and did not experience the same psychological and cultural impact." What exactly is this saying? Russia, Canada, and Australia all had individualistic pioneers, and all of them had profound psychological and cultural impacts on their respective cultural psyches. Russians portray themselves as tough individuals that prevail against the odds, Canadians portray themselves as unique, fightin against the elements and Australians portray themselves as lost in a tough environment. How exactly is this article not biased? Cyp43r 16:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You have to imagine some weirdo coming to this page and actually thinking "Oh, sure, Canada had pioneers, but those Canadians didn't permit individualistic pioneers like America did!" and then you just have to laugh at that weirdo and remove his garbage if you care enough about it. Personally, I think overt garbage in an article is an indication that the article needs a huge rewrite because it's been so bad for so long that most casual editors have given up. If you are arguing that this article is poor, then I agree. It used to be better. But it was never anywhere close to being good. The cleanup tag is appropriate. However, if you are arguing for Wikipedia to have no article on American Exceptionalism then I disagree. If you care enough about the bias, remove the bias and try to write an NPOV article about this topic. If it's done well with references, people will come here and defend it. If it's not done well or doesn't have references then the article will just get junked up again. Flying Jazz 02:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proof of de Tocqueville

American exceptionalism is a term that is widely claimed to have been coined by or used by Alexis de Tocqueville, but I have found no evidence to indicate that de Tocqueville ever used the words in any English translation of Democracy In America. Is there a single sentence that can be reliably sourced in which de Tocqueville used these words? Beyond any doubt, de Tocqueville dealt with the notions that underpin our modern understanding of American exceptionalism, but only rarely did he use the word exceptional and insofar as I can determine, he never used the word exceptionalism. --Looper5920 10:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aspects of arguments for American exceptionalism?!

Where are aspects of arguments against American exceptionalism?--Greasysteve13 05:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh man.. this article... It's BAD. No, no, not just bad... I could live with bad. But it radiates a kind of "We are SUPREME!" vibe. Creepy and somewhat unsettling . :/ Javelin NL 19:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

"Americans are far more religious than Europeans, for example, and more likely to actively engage in politics. Repeated surveys also show that Americans are more likely to agree that 'with hard work, one can get ahead'. The concept is thus presented not as expression of ideals, but as a set of measurable political facts." Seriously, this should be an article about a term coined by de Tocqueville, not a blatant self-celebration. Let's keep Wikipedia a respectable place, please. Siggie 08:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who writes this crap?

I'm American and I certainly don't think that way. America is unique, I agree, but it doesn't mean that we look down on other nations. This article might as well be included on the Anti-American page because it sure as hell says nothing good about our nation. We are the way we are period. If you don't like it, move away. If you're not American it's none of your business. Can't the world find a better hobby than picking on others? Go spend some time with your family instead of writing crap about our country. (LonghornJohnny 16:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Um, anyone hear of the Marshall Plan?

How can an entire article on American Exceptionalism fail to mention the rebuilding of Europe and Japan after WWII? Contrast with the punitive peace terms imposed by the victorious European powers after WWI, that virtually guaranteed further conflict. America has a history of defeating tyranny and instituting stable democracies in their place. Does history record anyone, other than America, behaving this way? Shouldn't this article discuss the impact of American exceptionalism on foreign policy in something other than purely derogatory tones? Ronnotel 03:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The Marshall Plan was important for rebuilding Europe. But it was carried out not only to recover Europe as it was spend only to US-oriented states in Europe and was also given for the reason to (re-)establish Europe as a market for US-Goods.

More than this: Can you tell of any successful instituting of stable democracies since WWII?

Another point: You wrote that the punitive peace terms were imposed solely by the victorious European powers. That is not true as it was absolutely backed by the US. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.83.187.84 (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] In response to "Who writes this crap?"

You and I both, as well as others, might not agree with this. But don't act like we should deny or cover up the historical and current realities. Get educated.

[edit] To the author of the "anti-american" weasel words...

The belief in American Exceptionalism is an historical (as well as current) fact... an ideological reality, which is NOT held by those who are "anti-american." Just ask yourself, "Why would anyone who is 'anti-american' claim that we are exceptional?" This is a belief held by Americans since the Puritans and even today, but they have simply changed the terms.

You are the one propogandizing here!

Keep your own poltical trifle out of articles. This is the reason wikipedia continues to get so much negative attention, and I must say, it's not unjustified. This alone is enough for me to stop reading and using!

[edit] POV Statement

I came across this article in general reading but found parts of the introduction to contain information that doesn't keep to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy so have removed the following from the introduction: "Most foreigners are not familiar with the uniqueness of the United States and have no sole knowlegde about the contributions of this nation to the world. Clearly, America has won both World Wars, single handedly defeated the Nazi and Soviet regimes and freed hundreds of millions of people from dictatorships. It funds the UN so that it can exist; however, the USA does not receive much in return.". The first statement appears to be a huge generalisation especially when this cannot be backed up by sources. Yes America has made a big impact over the 20th Century but it would be incorrect to say she has "single handedly defeated the Nazi and Soviet regimes" especially when taking into account the roles played by the various nations involved. Maybe if this is a general opionion a group of people hold within America it should be stated as being this later in the article rather than pure fact in the introduction?

[edit] This article is absolutely awful

I don't think I've ever read such an over-long, poorly written, rehashed, cut-and-pasted pile of wasted words as I just scanned across. This article embodies everything about Wikipedia that's broken, right down to the unreverted POV mishmosh I yanked. Blech. FCYTravis 08:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] meaning changes wildly in context

When used in an academic social sciences context, any notion of Manifest Destiny is absent. Since Tocqueville was the originator of the phrase, I doubt that he would have considered it in such terms. Still, I don't preclude its use as such. Just please note that the phrase can be used when describing the vast differences the US government has when viewed against the rest of the world, for example. Needless to say, this article needs serious work. - Plasticbadge 04:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distinction between American Exceptionalism and Claims of American Exceptionalism

As I read through this article, it strikes me that there are many moments in which the definitions of American exceptionalism (and there are many attempts to define it throughout) are actually claims about what is exceptional about America. For instance, take the following sentence from the second paragraph:

"American exceptionalism is the idea that the United States and the American people hold a special place in the world, by offering opportunity and hope for humanity, derived from a unique balance of public and private interests governed by constitutional ideals that are focused on personal and economic freedom."

This sentence contains several claims: 1) That America is unique because it offers "opportunity and hope" to humanity, 2) that it is unique because of the way it balances "public and private interests", and 3) because its constitution is based on notions of "personal and economic freedom." So in one sentence we have three different claims about what may be unique about the US. All of these may or may not have been ways in which people in the United States thought that they or their nation were exceptional but none of them are good definitions for "American Exceptionalism."

My goal though is not to take apart all these claims, but to point out that if this entry is going to improve people need to stop trying to link the definition of American Exceptionalism with claims about what they think makes it exceptional.

American Exceptionalism after all is a term invented by contemporary critics and historians to refer to a pattern of claims that have been made over the entire history of the United States about what makes the United States exceptional. First and foremost, then, it is a category of anlaysis of relatively recent invention. I don't believe (but I could be wrong) that Toqueville ever used the precise phrase "American Exceptionalism." Rather, he claimed that America was exceptional for a variety of reasons. His work is therefore probably best seen as one of the earliest and most important works that claims that the U.S. was exceptoinal.

If this article is to be improved I think it needs to be reorganized with the idea that "American Exeptionalism" is a term of art, a category of analysis, that has been used by writers to describe patterns in a voluminous literature claiming that America is unique.

Let me suggest the following definition:

"American Exceptionalism refers to the idea that the United States was unique in comparison with "Old Europe" and that it would pursue a different path in history than the European nations.

This is I believe close to an objective statement. Whether or not you think the idea that the US would pursue a different path is true or good or bad, is irrelevant. The fact is that this is what American Exceptionalism refers to. What do others think? If this is an acceptable definition, why not scrap the existing article and rebuild the entry in the manner of a carefully structure encylopedia like article beginning with this definition? -- Ezmiller77 011:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources, please

The article states that "some americans use the term to denote a superior set of moral values...". Id like to see some sources on that, otherwise Im removing it.~~LtDoc~~

[edit] This article still needs a lot of work

Comments such as this gem:

"Citizens are allowed to move relatively easily and freely from one place to another."

(they aren't in other countries such as Canada or Brasil?)

add to my feeling that this article needs a complete research and rewrite. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also:

"Political science defines it as presence of unique traits in the United States, such as a tradition of anti-authoritarianism, individualism, a high regard for work and private enterprise, the failure of socialist parties, the geographical separation of the Americas from the rest of the world, and high levels of religious influence, particularly Protestant Christianity, that do not correlate with national characteristics in either the similarly developed nations of Western Europe and Scandinavia, or even in the lesser developed countries in Latin America or in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union"

The idea that Americans are anti-authoritarian or individualistic is laughable to most people outside America, given your militaristic mindset. Take the current president as an example. Also the implication in this paragraph is that Russians, Latin Americans and Europeans are lazy. I am going to remove this paragraph, as no citation for it has been provided and it makes some fairly extraordinary claims. Damburger 15:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for "Socialism in US" section

Good afternoon. I am writing to express my opnion in the matter of structural layout of this article. It has been brough to my attention that a topic on Socialism in the US should be included in the article. A couple of users have stated that it is "much needed". This has been discussed at length at the Socialism talk page. I think the section should mention the fact that Socialism was growing in pouplarity within the US in the late 19th century and abruptly ceased to be a major force in American politics right around the Wilson years. The section could mention the activities and political supression of figures such as Eugene Debs and present existing theories on why socialism never became an influencial movement in the US. How exactly this could be done with neutrality, I am not too sure, but I think it should be discussed. Let me know what you think. -- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 20:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of a single reason why "socialism in US" should be part of this article, even after I read your link. wgoetsch 17:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)