American Exceptionalism Evolution Submit-Chilly Conflict

The enduring ethos of American exceptionalism has formed U.S. overseas coverage throughout a number of presidential administrations, influencing each home politics and worldwide relations. This idea is deeply embedded within the nationwide id of the US, asserting that America possesses a novel function on the planet, characterised by an ethical mission to steer and a future distinct from different nations. Whereas a lot has been written concerning the origins and historic functions of American exceptionalism, there’s a essential want to look at its modern implications and transformations, particularly within the context of quickly evolving world challenges. This dissertation seeks to bridge this hole by analyzing the idea’s affect on U.S. overseas coverage within the post-Chilly Conflict period, providing a complete examination of its trajectory by means of 4 successive administrations.

American exceptionalism has been pivotal in defining the US’ strategy to worldwide engagement, from army interventions to diplomatic methods. The notion that America acts not solely on behalf of its pursuits but in addition for a supposed better world good has justified each unilateral actions and a overseas coverage marked by exemption. This twin nature presents a paradox that’s central to understanding American worldwide affairs: the steadiness between performing as a world chief and adhering to the identical worldwide norms and legal guidelines that govern different nations. By inspecting this dichotomy, this examine goals to uncover the nuances of American exceptionalism and its sensible results on worldwide relations.

The importance of this analysis lies in its potential to make clear how American exceptionalism has tailored and endured, influencing each the methods and the rhetoric of U.S. administrations to justify them. As the worldwide order turns into more and more multipolar, with rising powers like China and the resurgence of Russian geopolitical affect, the US finds itself at a crossroads. The methods wherein American exceptionalism shapes U.S. responses to those challenges can have profound implications not just for worldwide stability but in addition for the U.S.’s function on the world stage. Thus, you will need to present new insights into how entrenched ideologies like exceptionalism adapt to new political realities, influencing coverage choices which have world ramifications. Moreover, this analysis contributes to the tutorial discourse by exploring the intersection of ideology, coverage, and engagement by means of the lens of American exceptionalism. It provides a essential evaluation of secondary sources and builds on present scholarship to current a nuanced view of how U.S. overseas coverage has developed in response to each inner beliefs and exterior pressures. By doing so, it provides to our understanding of how deeply held nationwide narratives can form, and typically constrain, a rustic’s overseas coverage choices.

The first goal of this dissertation is to elucidate how  American exceptionalism has been redefined and employed by completely different U.S. administrations within the post-Chilly Conflict period, with particular consideration to its impression on overseas coverage choices. Chapter I, the literature overview, will provide a complete historic background of the idea of American exceptionalism each in academia and overseas coverage. All through Chapters II to V, I’ll study the conceptual shifts in American exceptionalism from the Clinton administration by means of to the Trump administration, assessing how these shifts have influenced U.S. engagement with the world, and evaluating the implications of those insurance policies for worldwide legislation and the present world order. By means of this evaluation, this dissertation goals to contribute to a extra complete understanding of American exceptionalism, enriching the tutorial and sensible discussions surrounding U.S. overseas coverage and its world implications.

Chapter 1: Current Literature

Origins of American Exceptionalism as an Imperialist Ideology

American exceptionalism is an idea that has developed over time and throughout numerous presidential administrations. The idea finds its roots within the early expressions of America as a novel entity, diverging from European precedents with a definite mission and id. It encapsulates the assumption in the US’ distinctive function and future, fuelled by historic, philosophical, and spiritual influences which have developed in American civil society. 

The primary creator to explain America and its establishments as being distinctive in comparison with different nations was Alexis de Tocqueville (1839) in his guide Democracy in America. There are lots of theories of how the American folks started to consider themselves as distinctive, and so they all contribute to the broader debate of how this explains the composition of beliefs that kind the American nationwide id. The assumption in America as an distinctive entity is an idea that started to take form even earlier than the event of the U.S. as a sovereign nation. Smith (2003) highlights the function of early Puritan settlers in creating a way of American id because the ‘chosen one’. Though Puritanism in colonial America represents the early growth of what’s now referred to as American exceptionalism, different spiritual denominations have been additionally distinguished throughout that interval (Stark and Finke, 1988). Every contributed to the pervasive perception that America was a nation chosen by God, a sentiment mirrored within the Structure following the nation’s independence.

Nonetheless, it’s the 1776 revolution that appears to have created the premise of a nationwide id that has its foundations in being distinct from the remaining. Greene (1993) regards this concept as a direct consequence of the top of British colonization, noting that the U.S. was the primary colony to interrupt free from the chains of the world’s largest empire on the time. A mix of revolutionary achievements, spiritual influences, and the aspiration for Enlightenment beliefs to flourish cultivated a way of accomplishment that developed right into a perception in American exceptionalism. Bowden (2009, p. 203) factors out that “the baton of a normal bearer and forger of civilisation was believed to have handed from Europe to America”.

Ceaser’s (2012) work makes an essential distinction between the 2 attainable meanings of this idea. He highlights that exceptionalism could be both “one thing completely different about America or one thing particular about America” (Ceaser, 2012, p. 8). ‘Totally different’ basically refers back to the empirical variations of American society compared to different nations. It merely serves for descriptive and comparative functions. ‘Particular’, however, carries a normative declare to those variations, implying a sure superiority of American uniqueness. Consequently, Ceaser goes on to elucidate that this supposed distinctive nature of American society has an intrinsic missionary character. Thus, this perception of exceptionalism as a mission turns into one foundational foundation of American justifications for imperialism (Litke, 2010).

American Exceptionalism as an Instrument of International Coverage

Exceptionalism is expressed and carried out by means of overseas coverage. Consequently, it may be noticed and analyzed by means of the “concepts and actions” of states and their representatives (Holsti, 2011, p. 382). The broader idea of exceptionalism will not be completely an attribute of American worldwide affairs, as numerous nations have manifested completely different types of exceptionalist discourse, embracing both the exemplary or the missionary variant of the idea (Nymalm and Plagemann, 2019). Nonetheless, American exceptionalism has been extra prominently displayed than every other kind within the worldwide system, particularly within the post-World Conflict II order. Through the Chilly Conflict, the efforts of assorted U.S. administrations have been aimed toward creating a world order that mirrored U.S. establishments and at stopping Soviet communism from establishing an identical degree of worldwide affect. This mission is deeply influenced by extra than simply the plain financial positive aspects that sometimes drive imperialism based on extra conventional Marxist views. Additionally it is rooted within the perception in a supposed universality of U.S.-led establishments. Ruggie (2003, pp. 1-2) argues that this stems from the idea of uniqueness and superiority of American establishments, which have formed their nationwide id in ways in which transcend conventional notions of “blood and soil”. Consequently, this distinctive basis of exceptionalism not solely permits however actively encourages the U.S. to advocate for its common applicability.

One other key attribute of American exceptionalism is its historic reliance on unilateralism. This strategy is pushed by a perception within the distinctive future of the US amongst nations, which in flip ceaselessly motivates and justifies its unilateral actions in worldwide relations (Khong and Malone, 2003, p. 14). An instance of this may be seen throughout a 1998 interview with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, when she replied “We stand tall and we see additional than different international locations into the longer term” upon being requested about U.S. direct army involvement within the Gulf Conflict (U.S. Division of State, 1998). Ruggie (2003) means that it’s this mixture of unchallenged energy and missionary unilateralism that defines the exemptionalist character of American overseas coverage, because the US will not be topic to worldwide legislation the identical approach different sovereign states are. Nonetheless, it’s value saying that exceptionalism may also be related to a nonexemptionalist overseas coverage, as states also can select a non-confrontational diplomatic technique and have interaction in multilateral policymaking. Nymalm and Plagemann (2019, p. 18) argue that this was the case with Nehru’s India, in addition to Turkish overseas coverage earlier than 2016, as each international locations proclaimed that their distinctive nature drove their dedication to worldwide legislation and their particular function in mediating conflicts.

Nymalm and Plagemann (2019) spotlight that this missionary facet of American exceptionalism presents a paradox that’s essential to notice. The paradox lies in what Laclau (1992, p. 87) names the “chasm between universality and particularity”, as a nation’s declare to a novel understanding of common values – influenced by its particular cultural, historic, or institutional context – requires its success in overseas coverage to realize these values globally. Thus, the worldwide achievement of those values depends upon the actual historical past and actions of this nation, suggesting that world advantages are tied to the success of 1 nation’s distinct path. This implies that what’s positioned as universally relevant should first be filtered by means of, and probably restricted by, the singular lens of American expertise and energy dynamics.

American Exceptionalism within the Submit-Chilly Conflict Order

An essential facet of American overseas coverage is its recurrent portrayal of worldwide conflicts as a binary conflict between ‘good versus evil,’ with the U.S. constantly casting itself as the previous whereas typically arbitrarily assigning the latter function. Lipset (1996, p. 20) argues that “Individuals should outline their function in a battle as being on God’s facet towards Devil,” suggesting {that a} sense of ethical superiority is critical to justify their mission. Wallace (2013) contends that this binary framework, deeply infused with spiritual discourse, was essential in garnering help for U.S. overseas insurance policies that, regardless of their predatory nature, have been aimed toward defeating the Soviets within the post-World Conflict II order. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was no quick ‘evil’ entity to problem Western civilization, resulting in the momentary dissolution of the outdated moralist binary narrative together with the communist menace. Nonetheless, it could be a mistake to conclude that American exceptionalism had disappeared. U.S. overseas coverage throughout the Nineties, notably within the latter half of the last decade, continued to replicate this ideology. McCrisken (2003) argues that the emergence of a brand new unipolar world endowed the U.S. with each the ability and the mission to form a brand new worldwide order. On this context, the U.S. continued to steer, adapting American exceptionalism to fulfill the brand new challenges it confronted.

Nonetheless, many authors argue that the terrorist assaults of September 11, and the following ‘Conflict on Terror’ marked the start of a brand new period in American overseas coverage, one deeply entrenched in American Exceptionalism (Patman, 2007; Rojecki, 2008; Wheeler, 2003; Saito, 2008). This shift is illustrated in Pont’s (2007) evaluation of quite a few speeches by President George W. Bush, the place he identifies an growing prevalence of exceptionalist narratives. The speeches notably revived the ‘good versus evil’ binary, typically grounded in spiritual assumptions of ethical superiority. The army interventions and unilateral methods pursued by the Bush administration considerably tarnished the U.S.’s popularity in worldwide relations and led to elevated scrutiny of its function as a frontrunner within the world order. Löfflmann (2015) means that this backdrop compelled the Obama administration to reevaluate how the U.S. engaged globally to pursue its aims, resulting in the adoption of a method referred to as ‘main from behind.’ This strategy concerned redefining the appliance of American exceptionalism in overseas coverage, sustaining a extremely interventionist stance, nonetheless. In distinction, some students argue that the Trump administration represented a shift in the direction of isolationism and restraint, advocating for main by instance (Dimitrova, 2017; Abdulkareem, 2018). Nonetheless, many contest this view, asserting that Trump’s insurance policies mirrored a type of absolute unilateralism much like Bush’s (Stranne, 2020). Regardless of appearances of isolationism in his speeches, Trump’s overseas coverage in observe continued the exceptionalist trajectory that has characterised a lot of U.S. overseas coverage since World Conflict II (Abrams, 2017; Odriozola, 2017; Stranne, 2020).

Chapter 2: Selective Humanitarianism and Clinton’s Method to American Exceptionalism

A New Worldwide Order and Clinton’s Selective Humanitarianism

American overseas coverage throughout Clinton’s administration didn’t observe a simple sample one can simply analyze or categorize. In line with Schlesinger (1999), the primary 4 years of his presidency marked a transfer away from idealism in the direction of a extra sensible strategy to dealing with worldwide affairs. That is because of the utterly new worldwide political construction his administration inherited. With the autumn of the Soviet Union in 1991, Clinton was the primary president to serve two full phrases in a world that was now not divided into two opposing blocs, main a lone financial energy in a world order that didn’t provide any competitors. This era is commonly thought-about the peak of American hegemony, and it naturally produced new challenges that required new approaches to overseas coverage. The tip of the Chilly Conflict didn’t instantly set up a brand new world political order; as an alternative, it supplied the US a possibility to increase its affect because of the destabilization it brought about in lots of areas. Subsequently, the usage of American exceptionalism throughout Clinton’s presidency could be examined by means of how his overseas coverage aimed to form this new political order by participating with these related areas.

Following the breakup of Yugoslavia, the conditions in Bosnia and later in Kosovo introduced important challenges to the Clinton administration’s overseas coverage. The warfare in Bosnia was a overseas affair that Clinton inherited from the earlier presidency. In reality, earlier than the battle erupted, the Bush administration had misplaced any curiosity within the area because of the finish of the Chilly Conflict, assuming that Yugoslavia had “outlived its significance” (Danner, 1997, p. 7). Clinton’s marketing campaign in 1992 recurrently attacked the neutrality of the earlier administration concerning the battle in Bosnia, promising “rather more aggressive positions” (Clarke, 1995, p. 4). Curiously, the Bush administration believed America’s finest curiosity was in prioritizing the peace efforts led by the European Union. This stance provides two advantages: first, it strikes away from the exceptionalist narrative that America is superior in information and bears the accountability of main the trail to peace, notably in a battle inside a area beforehand uncared for and deemed unimportant by the US; second, as Clarke (1995) explains, it acknowledges that for a decision within the area to be reached, the EU is the plain candidate to steer the negotiations, given its nearer proximity and its historical past of interactions with the concerned events.

Nonetheless, Clinton’s marketing campaign rhetoric advocated for a extra direct American intervention within the area, adopting an ethical activist stance. He closely criticized the earlier administration, claiming it had uncared for Milosevic’s tyranny (Clinton, 1992). Regardless of many critiques of how the earlier administration dealt with this disaster, is essential to acknowledge that Clinton’s marketing campaign was not nearly exposing Bush’s lack of engagement with the Balkans. Past this critique, Clinton (1992) articulated his 3-step plan for America’s overseas coverage in a brand new worldwide order:

In the present day there are new exams of management as properly. The primary is to understand how the world we reside in has modified. The second is to say a brand new imaginative and prescient for our function on this dynamic world. The third is to summon all of our power, our financial energy, our values, and, when needed, our army may within the service of our new imaginative and prescient.

Understanding in what methods the worldwide order has modified because of the collapse of the Soviet Union is considerably simpler at this time with the benefit of over three a long time of educational analysis. It’s cheap to contend that conducting such an evaluation within the quick aftermath introduced an awesome problem for Clinton’s administration. Nonetheless, Clinton articulated his imaginative and prescient for the US’ function on this new world early on, as he additional defined:

My administration will get up for democracy. We’ll provide worldwide help to rising fragile democracies within the former Soviet Union, and Jap Europe, and create a democracy core to assist them develop free establishments.

In these statements, the missionary facet of US exceptionalism turns into obvious. This isn’t solely as a result of Clinton believed it was the responsibility of the U.S. to help these affected areas in turning into democratic, but in addition as a result of he advocated for the institution of establishments which might be “free” based on American requirements. The third and closing step of his plan focuses on how he intends to understand this imaginative and prescient, particularly by means of leveraging the political, financial, and army energy of the U.S. to implement its will and safe its pursuits. This strategy highlights a broader narrative of American exceptionalism that views the US not merely as a rustic amongst international locations, however as a mannequin of democracy with a novel functionality and mission to form the brand new order after the collapse of the Soviet Bloc.

Regardless of these guarantees of decisiveness and motion, Clinton’s administration confirmed some restraint throughout the first two years of his presidency, particularly concerning the Balkan disaster. This hesitation stemmed from a mixture of inadequate political backing for intervention and the broader prevailing perception that the area didn’t align with US pursuits (Larres, 2004). The scenario modified in 1995 when NATO airstrikes performed a vital function in quickly ending the battle in Bosnia. The airstrikes have been performed with none particular United Nations Safety Council decision authorizing them instantly. Regardless of the involvement of a number of NATO members on this operation, the intervention can’t be thought-about de facto multilateral. This is because of NATO’s construction, which, though meant to facilitate cooperation between international locations, really concentrates decision-making energy disproportionately within the fingers of 1 member, the US (Weber, 1992; Ruggie, 1992).

You will need to be aware that Bosnia was not the exception throughout Clinton’s presidency. The Nineties have been a decade the place humanitarian interventions began to grow to be normalized and carried by means of in different areas too, extra famously in Somalia, Haiti, and later in Kosovo. They typically justified on the ethical grounds of stopping atrocities and defending civilian populations, epitomizing a interval the place American overseas coverage was closely influenced by the beliefs of humanitarianism. Nonetheless, this strategy additionally uncovered inherent contradictions inside American exceptionalism. It typically led to selective interventions, as evidenced by the contrasting inaction throughout the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, in addition to different extra modern conflicts akin to those in Syria, Burundi, Yemen, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic (Cunliffe, 2017, p. 467). This selective nature illustrates a type of political exceptionalism the place choices to intervene are primarily based not solely on humanitarian wants but in addition on political pursuits and broader strategic targets. It displays a dedication to say and keep U.S. management within the world order post-Chilly Conflict, because it advances a story of selective ethical accountability. This strategy aligned its overseas coverage with the missionary overarching objective of shaping a world system conducive to American values and pursuits, ostensibly underneath the pretext of humanitarianism (Tusan, 2015).

Chapter 3: The Bush Doctrine of Exceptionalism and America’s New Campaign

September 11 and the New American Mission of ‘Good vs Evil’

International coverage was a difficult space for George W. Bush throughout his preliminary presidential marketing campaign. Satirically, his presidency is basically remembered for this actual topic, regardless of persistent doubts all through his marketing campaign about his experience on this space. He closely relied on his advisors for details about worldwide occasions and attainable acceptable responses (Daalder and Lindsay, 2003, p. 2). However, this didn’t deter him from having his private view on America’s place on the planet. All through his marketing campaign, he advocated for a extra reserved strategy to U.S. overseas coverage, criticizing what he described as Clinton’s mistake of “overcommitting our army around the globe” (Bush, 2000).

Between his election and the terrorist assaults of September 11, it was evident that he favored a overseas coverage centered on strengthening the army by means of unilateral means. He unsigned the Rome Treaty that established the Worldwide Legal Courtroom, withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and repudiated the Complete Nuclear Check Ban (Patman, 2006, p. 972). These actions replicate a continuation of an exceptionalist overseas coverage aimed toward satisfying the military-industrial complicated and enhancing capabilities unilaterally. As the only world hegemon, the U.S. possessed all the required means to pursue this strategy, and Bush didn’t hesitate to take action. Thus, it’s troublesome to totally grasp the profound impression that the September 11 assaults had on each the Bush administration and American civil society as a complete. They shattered the phantasm that the hegemonic energy main the post-Chilly Conflict order was untouchable.

The assaults marked a turning level in Bush’s overseas coverage as they offered a brand new enemy that justified the continuation of American management. Thus, they gave the U.S. a brand new mission, one which was unilaterally determined and unilaterally performed. Nonetheless, the primary problem for the administration was to assemble a story that might rally home help for this new trigger. Bush (2002a, para. 35) used the commotion created by the assaults to ascertain a binary narrative of ‘good versus evil’, positioning the U.S. because the unequivocal chief:

We’re in a battle between good and evil, and America will name evil by its title. By confronting evil and lawless regimes, we don’t create an issue, we reveal an issue. And we’ll lead the world in opposing it.

This attitude outlined a mission wherein the U.S. was to steer the world, a situation that allowed no room for neutrality. Nations have been both in alignment with the U.S. or, if not, they have been labeled as evil and handled as enemies. Maybe this missionary ethos was most vividly showcased throughout Bush’s 2004 State of the Union handle:

America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes from our most elementary beliefs […] Our goal is democratic peace […]  America acts on this trigger with mates and allies at our facet, but we perceive our particular calling: This nice republic will lead the reason for freedom.

Bush didn’t understand the terrorist assaults as a response to a protracted historical past of problematic American overseas coverage within the Center East. As a substitute, he perceived them as an assault on American values, responding by reinforcing an exceptionalist view of America’s place on the planet, one which emphasised a mission to reshape a whole area based on these values (Britton, 2006, p. 131). As soon as established, this exceptionalist narrative was actively employed by the Bush administration to justify unilateral interventions within the ensuing wars that deepened U.S. army entanglement within the Center East. September 11 didn’t essentially mark a turning level in U.S. overseas coverage—on condition that interventionism and unilateralism have been already identified key elements of American worldwide engagement — it did, nonetheless, usher in a brand new mission. This mission, very similar to throughout the Chilly Conflict, was framed inside a stark “good vs evil” dichotomy, serving to justify U.S. management towards a brand new enemy.

The brand new wave of exceptionalist entanglement

The 2003 invasion of Iraq and the official justification given by the Bush administration function a transparent illustration of how American exceptionalism could be helpful in blurring a story in favor of warfare. As we came upon after the occasions that occurred, there was a transparent distinction between the rhetoric publicly pushed to justify army intervention and the de facto causes that led to the invasion, which was in the end unilaterally determined with out UN help. Even members of the Senate overtly questioned the exceptionalist rationale behind the case for warfare, as evidenced by Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold’s 2002 assertion within the Senate:

We’re being requested to vote on one thing that’s unclear […] We argued, Mr. President, to get on board and produce the American folks with us, however we don’t know the place the ship is crusing.

Certainly, the justifications for a full-scale invasion and regime change stay unclear even at this time. The official rationale hinged on the connection of two weak claims. The primary was that Hussein’s regime had hyperlinks to al-Qaeda and worldwide terrorism. Though Bush by no means instantly made the hyperlink between September 11 and Hussein’s regime, Gershkoff and Kushner (2005, p. 525) demonstrated that the best way he constructed his official speeches addressed to the nation “compelled listeners to deduce a connection”. Moreover, they concluded that the overwhelming help for the invasion wouldn’t have been as substantial with out Bush publicly selling a story that advised this hyperlink. The second declare posited that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that have been a menace to U.S. safety. This assertion was supported by the alleged connection between Hussein and al-Qaeda, suggesting that Hussein’s regime may doubtlessly provide these weapons to terrorist organizations. In the present day, this declare is well known as a fabrication, as these weapons weren’t discovered. Furthermore, the underlying premise {that a} regime would switch such costly and beneficial belongings to an unstable and uncontrollable get together is basically illogical. If a terrorist group ever used such weapons, it could actually indicate extreme retaliation towards the provider state, highlighting the implausibility of such an argument (Sagan and Waltz, 2013, p. 183-184).

The binary nature of the ‘good versus evil’ framework adopted by the Bush administration in the end led to the creation of problematic and brutal engagement methods. For the reason that enemy consisted of ‘rogue states’ and worldwide organizations motivated by evil somewhat than particular political motives, the Bush administration understood that conventional legal guidelines of warfare, developed over centuries by the ‘good’ states and their establishments, have been inapplicable throughout the warfare on terror (Saito, 2008, p. 71). This was the exceptionalist rationale that led to many human rights violations by unilateral actions of the U.S. throughout the Conflict on Terror.

For example, the Bush administration’s choice to detain over 600 alleged terrorists at Guantanamo Bay jail, which was designed to carry solely 250 people, raised worldwide considerations. Suspects have been held with out cost or trial, labeled not as prisoners of warfare entitled to Geneva Conference protections however as “enemy combatants” (Gregory, 2006, p. 414). This designation enabled the bypassing of established worldwide legislation and denied detainees primary authorized rights, resulting in sanctioned situations of torture following Bush’s (2002b), memorandum, which stripped these prisoners of their internationally acknowledged human rights. This was not the exception, as related abuses have been reported on the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq, the place U.S. troopers tortured detainees on overseas soil (Gordon, 2006). These actions symbolize the U.S.’s profound disregard for worldwide legislation, demonstrating ethical and moral exceptionalism in deviating from standard norms (Einolf, 2020, pp. 152-154).

The narratives surrounding what occurred in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, in addition to the broader overseas doctrines of the Bush administration, are a transparent illustration of the paradoxes of American exceptionalism. The “good vs evil” paradigm that outlined the Conflict on Terror was in the end aimed to venture a supposed American ethical superiority, in addition to a unilateral proper to outline and administer justice globally. Nonetheless, the strategies employed in an effort to implement an ethical stance deviated not solely from worldwide norms however U.S. constitutional ideas too.

This divergence between superb and motion reveals a essential rigidity throughout the idea of American exceptionalism. On one hand, it purports to advertise a world customary of legislation; on the opposite, it justifies exceptions to those requirements once they serve a nationwide curiosity, both financial or political (Track, 2015). The occasions of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib turned symbolic of those exceptions, difficult the worldwide group’s notion of the U.S. as a mannequin of democratic governance post-Chilly Conflict. Bush’s mission to advertise freedom was one which now’s remembered for torture and different human rights violations, in addition to for its failure. The ensuing world backlash not solely diminished U.S. ethical authority but in addition highlighted the risks of exceptionalist considering when it undermines the very values it goals to advertise (Johnson, Mora, and Schmidt, 2016). American Exceptionalism underneath Bush additional exacerbated already strained relations between the US and the Center East, with repercussions that proceed to resonate at this time. It prompted a regime change in Afghanistan that was doomed from the beginning. It deepened U.S. army entanglement in a area that has been grappling with the implications of Western imperialism for over a century, with no obvious finish in sight.

Chapter 4: Libya, Drones, and Exceptionalism Redefined Beneath Obama

Redefining American Exceptionalism

In 2009, when requested by a European reporter at a NATO summit if he believed in American Exceptionalism, Obama replied “I consider in American exceptionalism, simply as I think that the Brits consider in British exceptionalism and the Greeks consider in Greek exceptionalism” (Obama, 2009). This may recommend that he dismissed the idea as merely a show of nationwide delight, a sentiment that just about all international locations have at all times sought to domesticate, particularly within the period of nation-states. Nonetheless, later in the identical interview, Obama articulated his imaginative and prescient for American management, one which diverged from the post-war American overseas coverage custom:

I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary function in main the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that management is incumbent, depends upon, our potential to create partnerships as a result of we are able to’t resolve these issues alone.

This place diverges from the standard exceptionalist narrative employed by each Clinton’s liberal interventionism and Bush’s unilateralist obsession, because it endorses a better diploma of collaboration than the earlier two administrations (Loefflmann, 2015). This imaginative and prescient advocates for the notion that the US, as an already established hegemon, possesses a novel potential to collaborate with different nations, and it ought to reap the benefits of this standing to legitimize its management not by means of army may or individualizing world pursuits, however by means of multilateralism (Lindsay, 2011). Obama tried to redefine American exceptionalism, shifting from a doctrine of singular management to a blueprint for multilateral engagement, emphasizing not merely partnership over predominance, however asserting predominance by means of partnership.

Nonetheless, redefining American Exceptionalism doesn’t by any means implicate abandoning its underlying political goal of justifying and sustaining a US-led worldwide order. Whereas the idea has developed to embrace trendy realities and world expectations, its foundational goal—to take care of America’s management function on the world stage—persists. A transparent illustration of that is the 2012 Division of Protection report titled ‘Sustaining U.S. World Management: Priorities for 21^st Century Protection’. This report basically capabilities as a form of ‘manifesto’ detailing the strategy the US intends to absorb its overseas coverage and the first areas of focus for engagement.

The publication of this report yields two important insights: Firstly, it reveals that the Obama administration sought to tell apart its strategy from the errors related to the Bush doctrine by reshaping the strategies the US makes use of to realize its aims. This shift emphasizes technological superiority, agile army forces, and a community of worldwide alliances and partnerships, illustrating an effort to modernize the appliance of American Exceptionalism in overseas coverage. Secondly and most significantly, it confirms the continued presence of a basic political goal, demonstrating that American International Coverage inherently embodies an exceptionalist perspective, not simply strategically inclined in the direction of main a world order but in addition perceived as predestined for this function.

Main From Behind in Libya, Drones, and the Continuation of the Conflict on Terror

The strategy of ‘main from behind’ that the Obama administration adopted throughout the Libyan disaster of 2011 serves as a compelling illustration of the redefined idea of American exceptionalism mentioned above. This technique was basically about coordinating worldwide efforts, leveraging the US’ capabilities to help and allow a coalition, somewhat than positioning the U.S. on the forefront of army intervention. The US consciously allowed a NATO and an Arab coalition to take extra seen roles within the operation, limiting itself to offering different indispensable capabilities akin to intelligence, logistical help, and precision bombing (Mueller and Challenge Air Pressure, 2015). However, the operation demonstrated a type of management that’s distinctive in its reliance on diplomatic affect somewhat than on army may alone. Bellamy and Williams (2011, p. 843) stress that the approval and collaboration of the League of Arab States (LAS) performed a key function in influencing Obama’s choice to intervene. This strategy involving the League of Arab States reveals Obama’s efforts to steer his administration away from Bush’s engagement insurance policies with Arab international locations and establishments, insurance policies that considerably broken US ties within the area and that Obama needed to distance himself from (Gerges, 2013, p. 301).

The marketing campaign in Libya started with UN approval by means of Decision 1973 in an effort to defend Libyan civilians, framed as a humanitarian intervention (United Nations Safety Council, 2011). Nonetheless, the mission rapidly shifted in the direction of focusing on Muammar Gaddafi and in the end ending his regime, a objective it achieved (Robson, 2024, pp. 16-21). This was largely pushed by the strategic pursuits of NATO international locations in Libyan oil (Elharathi, 2014, p. 83). The technique of ‘main from behind’ demonstrated an interventionist strategy rooted in American exceptionalism. It aimed to safe Western financial pursuits underneath the guise of selling democracy, however in the end, it failed primarily because of the lack of a post-conflict governance plan, resulting in an influence vacuum and subsequent civil warfare. The intervention escalated violence, worsened the humanitarian scenario, and enabled the rise of terrorist teams. It additionally brought about regional instability, strained worldwide relations, and undermined nuclear non-proliferation efforts (Kuperman, 2015).  The intervention inadvertently promoted additional battle somewhat than stability or democratic governance.

‘Main from behind’ was not a method confined solely to the battle in Libya. It was devised to maintain U.S. involvement in areas with an extended historical past of American army entanglement. The abandonment of a direct army intervention and occupation technique was merely changed with different varieties of army engagement that led to an growth of the ‘warfare on terror’ (Glaser and Thrall, 2017). As knowledge from the Pentagon signifies, Obama’s administration noticed a document degree of arms gross sales to its Center Jap allies (Houck and Weisgerber, 2016). This not directly escalates American capability within the area by means of the consolidation of essential alliances. This strategy permits for a type of engagement that mitigates the quick threat of American direct intervention in regional conflicts or crises (Yarhi-Milo, Lanoszka, and Cooper, 2016). Nonetheless, this technique will not be devoid of long-term penalties. The historic precedent set by the U.S. arms provide to the Taliban illustrates a posh paradox the place at this time’s strategic asset can evolve into tomorrow’s overseas coverage problem and failure (Parenti, 2001, pp. 31-37). However, the hike in arms gross sales throughout Obama’s tenure illustrates an try and shift engagement methods in the direction of the strengthening of multilateral regional alliances.

Moreover, the Obama administration sanctioned drone strikes at a frequency ten instances better than that of Bush’s (Zenko, 2017), though it’s typically regarded for supposedly favoring a overseas coverage of restraint and reconciliation. The drone coverage underneath President Obama demonstrates that, regardless of the rise in multilateral engagements throughout his administration, this methodology of conducting overseas coverage was ceaselessly put aside when handy. Woods (2012, as cited in Cachelin, 2022, p. 445) notes that the expanded deployment of army drones facilitated a transition from Bush’s “torture and extraordinary rendition” to Obama’s “industrial-scale extrajudicial execution.” Drones ensured that this transition led to a extra hid type of army intervention, with the U.S. authorities usually refraining from commenting on or acknowledging reported drone strikes occurring past acknowledged battle zones (Brooks, 2014, p. 89).

The Obama Administration’s continuation of the ‘warfare on terror’ noticed the US using drone strikes underneath a authorized rationale that stretches conventional interpretations of ‘imminent menace’ and ‘self-defense’ in worldwide legislation, successfully reinterpreting authorized norms to swimsuit its personal strategic pursuits (Brooks, 2014, pp. 91-97). This observe erodes the material of worldwide legislation, weakening the consensus on essential ideas and threatening the steadiness of the worldwide authorized order. It embodies a transparent manifestation of American exceptionalism, because the U.S. locations its interpretations and actions above established worldwide consensus, signaling a departure from multilateral decision-making processes.

Inside this framework, it turns into obvious that the Obama administration didn’t endeavor to relinquish its management stance vis-à-vis Arab nations. Quite, it strategically altered its strategies of engagement in an effort to reduce scrutiny and veil its army interventions. The Obama administration certainly sought to diverge from the Bush administration’s insurance policies of engagement. Nonetheless, this shift was not primarily based on a change of stance or a misidentification of the various political and financial aims throughout the area. As a substitute, it was pushed by growing worldwide stress and declining home help for direct army occupation as a method to fight terrorism. Thus, the Obama administration’s strategy of ‘main from behind’ represents a legacy of continued exceptionalist overseas coverage. Whereas it diverges from earlier methods in its execution, it retains the identical targets and ends in related penalties, as illustrated by the scenario in Libya

Chapter 5: The Personalisation of Exceptionalism in Trump’s America

From the “Distinctive We” to the “Distinctive Me”

Trump’s electoral strategy was strategically directed at white demographics experiencing financial misery, notably these in industrial cities throughout the Midwest. He attributed the deterioration of their financial situations primarily to immigration and the impacts of globalization. His marketing campaign technique leveraged a way of nostalgia for a greater previous amongst these populations. This sense of nostalgia is illustrated by his marketing campaign slogan “Make America Nice Once more,” which insinuates a decline from America’s as soon as distinctive standing—a standing purportedly recoverable and, crucially, restorable by him alone. This slogan embodies a traditional populist narrative, a perspective broadly acknowledged inside educational circles (Prooijen et al., 2022; Rowland, 2019).

Nonetheless, his portrayal as an unprecedented anti-establishment determine, intent on restoring a misplaced American lifestyle, diverges from conventional expressions of American exceptionalism noticed within the post-Chilly Conflict context. It represents a big shift in presidential rhetoric from the distinctive “we” to the distinctive “me” (Gilmour et al., 2020). This shift from an distinctive collective id to a self-proclaimed distinctive particular person stems from his distrust of the American liberal world order and its establishments.

Trump personally has expressed reservations concerning the idea of conventional American exceptionalism, but he maintains a perception within the superiority of the US. Li (2022) contends that Trump adopts a industrial interpretation of exceptionalism, suggesting that for him, success in enterprise is the pathway to being distinctive. This comes from the point of view that Trump sees US-led establishments, particularly NATO, as burdens which have persistently imposed monetary prices on the US. Trump made a number of threats of pulling the U.S. from the alliance throughout a summit assembly in 2018 if different members didn’t enhance their spending within the group (Landler and Cooper, 2018). For his ongoing (editor: now completed) re-election marketing campaign, Trump (2024) is sustaining this narrative, as evidenced by his remarks at a rally in South Carolina the place he said:

I’ve been saying, ‘Look, in the event that they’re not going to pay, we’re not going to guard, OK?’ One of many heads of the international locations stated, ‘Does that imply that if we don’t pay the payments, that you just’re not going to guard us?’ That’s precisely what it means. I’m not going to guard you.

Trump believes that in an effort to be distinctive, the US should cease functioning as a supplier for its allies, arguing this habits questions the muse of American superiority. For him, exceptionalism entails not merely attaining success however reaching it whereas participating on equitable phrases with different sovereign nations, supposedly in monetary dealings—although this notion conveniently overlooks disparities in army and strategic commitments and privileges.

Chaos within the Liberal Order

Maybe a extra related slogan used throughout his marketing campaign to articulate the ideas of his proposed overseas coverage was “America First”. The significance of this expression in his electoral technique hinges on the best way he structured his narrative, using the 2 principal slogans of his marketing campaign to bolster one another. His overarching goal was to “Make America Nice Once more,” with “America First” serving because the proposed means to this finish. These slogans didn’t present particular options, but they didn’t must; his populist narrative was strategically designed to garner votes somewhat than provide detailed options to the problems going through the U.S. Basically, Trump’s narrative regularly however firmly established an thought of societal chaos within the American thoughts in an effort to permit him to vow order and prosperity as options (De Vreese et al., 2018). Thus, it’s important to tell apart between Trump’s rhetoric and his actions whereas in workplace, as this chaos he intentionally designed typically created a discrepancy between what he proclaimed and what he enacted.

This concept of making chaos is current in Trump’s overseas coverage. His presidency marked a notable departure from many earlier commitments to liberal internationalism and the insurance policies of the Obama doctrine. He withdrew from lively participation in multilateral organizations, uncared for the upkeep of longstanding commerce and army alliances, and curtailed the promotion of liberal democracy (Lacatus and Meibauer, 2021). Even when in comparison with the administration of George W. Bush, there have been clear variations. Not like the earlier republican president, Trump’s rhetoric didn’t subscribe to the assumption that the US holds a sacred responsibility to eradicate tyranny worldwide (Schaefer, 2016).

Moreover, the Trump administration’s Nationwide Safety Technique (NSS) didn’t emphasize the importance of strategic alliances and worldwide constructions in combating numerous threats (Stranne, 2020, p. 113). Trump’s distrust of the normal worldwide liberal order is rooted in his want to reshape it in such a approach that the US can lead it predominantly by itself. A recurring theme in his administration’s NSS (White Home, 2017, p. 3) is the portrayal of the U.S. as having naively pursued cooperative methods with nations that the doc now designates as “strategic opponents”:

These competitions require the US to rethink the insurance policies of the previous twenty years—insurance policies primarily based on the idea that engagement with rivals and their inclusion in worldwide establishments and world commerce would flip them into benign actors and reliable companions. For essentially the most half, this premise turned out to be false.

The quote displays a essential reassessment of prior U.S. overseas coverage methods, particularly the post-Chilly Conflict period’s reliance on diplomatic engagement and financial integration as instruments for reaching world stability and remodeling rivals into cooperative companions that helped the U.S. to steer the liberal order. This pivot is a manifestation of American Exceptionalism in a single important approach. It underscores the assumption within the distinctiveness of American values and pursuits, suggesting that the U.S. should defend its sovereignty towards what it perceives because the antagonistic results of worldwide interdependence, even when this interdependence has been historically led by U.S. pursuits. As allies develop politically and economically and grow to be much less depending on U.S. help to pursue their worldwide pursuits, they’re more and more considered as strategic opponents and, in the end, as rivals.

The Fantasy of Isolationism

Trump believed it was essential to unchain the U.S. from quite a few agreements and establishments that not solely restricted its potential to train political and financial energy but in addition hindered its potential to achieve additional dominance. One instance of that is the withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Settlement designed to mitigate local weather change. Trump (2017) justified this choice primarily based on the premise that the accord would undermine the U.S. relative energy compared to different nations:

The Paris Accord would undermine our financial system, hamstring our staff, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable authorized dangers, and put us at a everlasting drawback to the opposite international locations of the world. It’s time to exit the Paris Accord and time to pursue a brand new deal that protects the atmosphere, our firms, our residents, and our nation.

This choice illustrates American exceptionalism underneath Trump’s presidency, because it disregards the commitments of 195 different sovereign states to a essential world trigger. Trump in the end sees this settlement as a menace to the US’ long-term capability to steer the worldwide order.

The Trump administration additionally distanced itself from different multilateral agreements and establishments, notably the Transatlantic Commerce and Funding Partnership (TTIP) and the North American Free Commerce Settlement (NAFTA). This sample mixed with the “America First” coverage has been interpreted by some students as indicative of an isolationist overseas coverage (Dimitrova, 2017; Abdulkareem, 2018). Nonetheless, this isn’t the case. The “America First” coverage marked a return to the form of absolute unilateralism attribute of the Bush administration, although in a context not outlined by the warfare on terror, however by escalating financial challenges throughout the US (Stranne, 2020, p. 103). Trump aimed to shift from the Obama administration’s technique of using perceived multilateralism to a stance of embracing unilateralism, adhering to an exceptionalist overseas coverage that merely altered the way it was performed

Conclusion

On this dissertation, I’ve extensively analyzed the enduring idea of American exceptionalism and its profound affect on U.S. overseas coverage throughout numerous administrations within the post-Chilly Conflict order. This examine reveals a transparent sample of what Stranne (2020) calls “progressive continuity”, whereby every administration, regardless of obvious ideological shifts, has perpetuated a overseas coverage framework rooted in a perception in America’s distinctive future and mission in shaping the world based on their pursuits. The analysis establishes that American exceptionalism will not be merely a static perception however a driving drive within the evolution of U.S. overseas coverage. It has tailored over time, influencing coverage choices from army interventions to diplomatic engagements. It has justified in depth U.S. involvement abroad, typically utterly disregarding worldwide norms and legal guidelines that govern different nations. The administrations from Clinton to Trump have every utilized the rhetoric of exceptionalism, albeit in varieties tailor-made to their political agendas and the worldwide context of their instances.

The implications of those findings are important for each overseas affairs places of work and the broader educational understanding of worldwide relations. Firstly, the persistence of exceptionalism in U.S. overseas coverage highlights a predictable sample of unilateral engagement that has endured all through completely different administrations and their completely different doctrines. Secondly, it challenges the worldwide group to reassess the efficacy and fairness of a world order disproportionately influenced by a single nation’s ideological framework. American exceptionalism engenders a coverage atmosphere the place exemptionalism will not be solely anticipated however deemed needed. This stance is obvious in numerous strategic choices, from the withdrawal from worldwide accords to the justification of army interventions.

Trying ahead, a number of avenues for future analysis current themselves. One essential space is inspecting how American exceptionalism may evolve in response to rising world challenges akin to China’s rise and local weather change. One other fruitful space might be exploring the inner critiques throughout the U.S. concerning the tenets of exceptionalism, particularly as American society turns into extra various and its civil society extra interconnected with the worldwide group. Additionally it is essential to acknowledge the restrictions of this framework. Whereas the ideological underpinnings of exceptionalism profoundly form U.S. actions overseas, attributing American overseas coverage solely to this perception system oversimplifies the complicated interaction of financial, political, and strategic pursuits that additionally drive U.S. worldwide habits. Recognizing these completely different drivers gives a extra nuanced understanding of U.S. overseas coverage and its world implications.

In conclusion, the core message of this analysis is the popularity of American exceptionalism not as an erratic affect however as a constant and central doctrine shaping U.S. overseas coverage. Understanding this will clarify why America typically pursues insurance policies that seem contradictory to its professed constitutional values and worldwide norms. The popularity of this sample is essential for forecasting and deciphering future U.S. overseas engagements, though one shouldn’t assume it will stay unchanged. As we proceed to witness its manifestations in world affairs, it stays crucial to have interaction with and critically assess this ideology. Solely by means of such rigorous scrutiny can we hope to totally perceive its implications and maybe information it towards fostering a extra cooperative and equitable worldwide order.

Abrams, E. (2017) ‘Trump the traditionalist: surprisingly customary overseas coverage’, International Affairs, 96(4), pp. 10-[ii].

Arı, T. (2020) ‘Evaluating the Bush, Obama and Trump International Insurance policies: Continuity and Change in American Center East Coverage’, Extremely-Nationalist Insurance policies of Trump and Reflections within the World. Berlin: Peter Lang GmbH, pp. 45-66. doi: 10.3726/b16947

Bellamy, A. J. and Williams, P. D. (2011) ‘The brand new politics of safety? Côte d’Ivoire, Libya and the accountability to guard’, Worldwide Affairs (London), 87(4), pp. 825–850. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2011.01006.x.

Bowden, B. (2009) The empire of civilization: the evolution of an imperial thought. Chicago, In poor health. ; London: College of Chicago Press.

Britton, G. (2006) ‘SEPTEMBER 11, AMERICAN ‘EXCEPTIONALISM’ AND THE WAR IN IRAQ’, Australasian Journal of American Research, 25(1), pp. 125–141.

Brooks, R. (2014) ‘Drones and the Worldwide Rule of Regulation’, Ethics & Worldwide Affairs, 28(1), pp. 83–103. doi: 10.1017/S0892679414000070.

Bush, G. W. (2000) ‘October 11, 2000 Debate Transcript’, Fee on Presidential Debates. Out there at: https://www.debates.org/voter-education/debate-transcripts/october-11-2000-debate-transcript/ (Accessed: 21/03/2024).

Bush, G. W. (2002a) ‘President Bush Delivers Commencement Speech at West Level’, George W. Bush White Home Archives, 1 June. Out there at: https://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/information/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html (Accessed: 24/03/2024).

Bush, G. W. (2002b) ‘Memorandum: Humane Remedy of Al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees’. Out there at: https://www.aclu.org/recordsdata/belongings/02072002_bushmemo_1.pdf (Accessed: 24/03/2024).

Bush, G. W. (2004) ‘State of the Union Tackle’, George W. Bush White Home Archives, 20 January. Out there at: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/information/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html (Accessed: 26/03/2024).

Cachelin, S. (2022) ‘The U.S. drone programme, imperial air energy and Pakistan’s federally administered tribal areas’, Essential Research on Terrorism, 15(2), pp. 441–462. doi: 10.1080/17539153.2021.2013025.

Ceaser, J. W. (2012) ‘The Origins and Character of American Exceptionalism’, American Political Thought (Chicago, In poor health.), 1(1), pp. 3–28. doi: 10.1086/664595.

Clarke, J. (1995) Rhetoric earlier than Actuality: Unfastened Lips Sink Ships, International Affairs. NEW YORK: Council on International Relations, pp. 2–7. doi: 10.2307/20047295.

Clinton, B. (1992) ‘The 1992 Marketing campaign: Excerpts from Clinton’s Speech on International Coverage Management’, The New York Occasions, 14 August. Out there at: https://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/14/us/the-1992-campaign-excerpts-from-clinton-s-speech-on-foreign-policy-leadership.html (Accessed: 29/02/2024).

Clinton, B. (1993) ‘Tackle by President Invoice Clinton to the UN Common Meeting’, U.S. Division of State, out there at: https://2009-2017.state.gov/p/io/potusunga/207375.htm (Accessed: [29/02/2024]).

Cunliffe, P. (2017) ‘The doctrine of the ‘accountability to guard’ as a observe of political exceptionalism’, European Journal of Worldwide Relations, 23(2), pp. 466–486. doi: 10.1177/1354066116654956.

Daalder, I. H. and Lindsay, J. M. (2003) The Bush Revolution: The Remaking of America’s International Coverage. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Establishment. Out there at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20030425.pdf (Accessed:26/03/2024).

Danner, M. (1997) ‘The US and the Yugoslav disaster’, The New York Overview of Books. New York: N Y REV, Integrated, p. 56.

De Vreese, C. H. et al. (2018) ‘Populism as an Expression of Political Communication Content material and Type: A New Perspective’, The Worldwide Journal of Press/Politics, 23(4), pp. 423–438. doi: 10.1177/1940161218790035.

Protection Safety Cooperation Company (2016) ‘Fiscal 12 months 2016 Gross sales Complete $33.6B’, out there at: https://www.dsca.mil/news-media/news-archive/fiscal-year-2016-sales-total-336b (Accessed: 28/03/2024).

Division of Protection (2012) Sustaining U.S. World Management: Priorities for twenty first Century Protection. Washington, DC: Division of Protection. Out there at: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA554328

Einolf, C. J. (2020) ‘Torture and American Exceptionalism: W. Fitzhugh Brundage. Civilizing Torture: An American Custom. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2018, Legal Justice Ethics. Routledge, pp. 152–162. doi: 10.1080/0731129X.2020.1795552.

Elharathi, M. M. (2014) ‘Humanitarian Intervention: Morals versus Realism: The Use of Pressure within the Defence of Human Rights in Libya’, World Affairs (New Delhi, India : 1997), 18(1), pp. 72–84.

Feingold, R. (2002) ‘Assertion of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on Opposing the Decision Authorizing the Use of Pressure In opposition to Iraq’, U.S. Senate, 10 October. Out there at: https://webharvest.gov/congress110th/20081013224131/http://www.feingold.senate.gov/speeches/02/10/2002002A10531.html (Accessed: 26/03/2024).

Gerges, F. A. (2013) ‘The Obama strategy to the Center East: the top of America’s second?’, Worldwide Affairs (London), 89(2), pp. 299–323. doi: 10.1111/1468-2346.12019.

Gershkoff, A. and Kushner, S. (2005) ‘Shaping Public Opinion: The 9/11-Iraq Connection within the Bush Administration’s Rhetoric’, Views on Politics, 3(3), pp. 525–537. doi: 10.1017/S1537592705050334.

Gilmore, J. et al. (2020) ‘Distinctive “We” or Distinctive “Me”? Donald Trump, American Exceptionalism, and the Remaking of the Fashionable Jeremiad’, Presidential Research Quarterly, 50(3), pp. 539–567. doi: 10.1111/psq.12657.

Glaser, J. and Thrall, T. (2017) ‘Obama’s International Coverage Legacy and the Fantasy of Retrenchment’, Cato Institute. Out there at: http://www.jstor.org/steady/resrep04989

Gordon, A. F. (2006) ‘Abu Ghraib: imprisonment and the warfare on terror’, Race & Class, 48(1), pp. 42–59. doi: 10.1177/0306396806066646.

Greene, J. P. (1993) The mental development of America : Exceptionalism and id from 1492 to 1800. Chapel Hill ; London: College of North Carolina Press.

Gregory, D. (2006) ‘The black flag: guantánamo bay and the house of exception’, Geografiska annaler. Sequence B, Human Geography, 88(4), pp. 405–427. doi: 10.1111/j.0435-3684.2006.00230.x.

Holsti, Okay. J. (2011) ‘Exceptionalism in American overseas coverage: Is it distinctive?’, European Journal of Worldwide Relations, 17(3), pp. 381–404. doi: 10.1177/1354066110377674.

Houck, C. and Weisgerber, M. (2016) ‘Obama’s Remaining Arms-Export Tally Greater than Doubles Bush’s’, Protection One, 8 November. Out there at: https://www.defenseone.com/enterprise/2016/11/obamas-final-arms-export-tally-more-doubles-bushs/133014/

Johnson, D. A., Mora, A. and Schmidt, A. (2016) The Strategic Prices of Torture: How “Enhanced Interrogation” Damage America, International Affairs. NEW YORK: Council on International Relations, pp. 121–132.

Khong, Y. F. and Malone, D. M. (2003) ‘Unilateralism and U.S. International Coverage: Worldwide Views. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Out there at: https://ssrn.com/summary=1309071

Kuperman, A. J. (2015) Obama’s Libya Debacle: How a Nicely-Which means Intervention Led to Failure, International Affairs. NEW YORK: Council on International Relations, pp. 66–77.

Lacatus, C. and Meibauer, G. (2021) ‘Introduction to the particular difficulty: Elections, rhetoric and American overseas coverage within the age of Donald Trump’, Politics (Manchester, England), 41(1), pp. 3–14. doi: 10.1177/0263395720935376.

Laclau, E. (1992) Universalism, Particularism, and the Query of Identification, October. CAMBRIDGE: MIT Press, pp. 83–90. doi: 10.2307/778788.

Landler, M. and Cooper, H. (2019) ‘NATO and President Trump’, The New York Occasions, 14 January. Out there at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/politics/nato-president-trump.html (Accessed: 08/04/2024).

Larres, Okay. (2004) ‘”Bloody as Hell”. Bush, Clinton and the Abdication of American Management within the former Yugoslavia, 1990-1995’, Journal of European Integration Historical past, 10(1), pp. 179-202.

Li, J. (2022) ‘On Obama and Trump’s Approaches to American International Coverage‘, Harvard College, unpublished paper. Out there at: https://scholar.harvard.edu/recordsdata/jacobli/recordsdata/american_foreign_policy_american_exceptionalism.pdf

Lindsay, J. M. (2011) ‘George W. Bush, Barack Obama and the way forward for US world management’, Worldwide Affairs (London), 87(4), pp. 765–779. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2011.01003.x.

Lipset, S. M. (1996) American exceptionalism: A double-edged sword. New York ; London: Norton.

Litke, J. B. (2010) American exceptionalism: From exemplar to empire. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Loefflmann, G. (2015) ‘Main from Behind – American Exceptionalism and President Obama’s Submit-American Imaginative and prescient of Hegemony’, Geopolitics, 20(2), pp. 308–332. doi: 10.1080/14650045.2015.1017633.

Mueller, Okay. P. and Challenge Air Pressure (2015) Precision and objective airpower within the Libyan Civil Conflict. Santa Monica, California: RAND.

Nymalm, N. and Plagemann, J. (2019) ‘Comparative exceptionalism: Universality and particularity in overseas coverage discourses’, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES REVIEW, 21(1), pp. 12–37. doi: 10.1093/isr/viy008.

Obama, B. (2009) Information convention by President Obama, 4 April. Out there at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/news-conference-president-obama-4042009 (Accessed: 01/03/2024)

Odriozola, I. (2017) ‘Sobre aislacionismo y excepcionalidad: Donald J. Trump, los Neoconservadores y el Derecho Internacional’, Revista Tribuna Internacional (En línea), 6(12). doi: 10.5354/0719-482X.2017.48062.

Parenti, C. (2001) ‘America’s Jihad: A Historical past of Origins’, Social Justice (San Francisco, Calif.), 28(3 (85)), pp. 31–38.

Patman, R. G. (2006) ‘Globalisation, the New US Exceptionalism and the Conflict on Terror’, Third World Quarterly, 27(6), pp. 963–986. doi: 10.1080/01436590600869046.

Pont, O. (2007) ‘However We’re American… The presence of American Exceptionalism within the Speeches of George W. Bush’, Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 3(-1), pp. 119-136. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-007-0008-5 (Accessed: 28/02/2024).

Prooijen, J. et al. (2022) ‘Make It Nice Once more: The Relationship Between Populist Attitudes and Nostalgia’, Political Psychology, 43(5), pp. 951–968. doi: 10.1111/pops.12825.

Robson, M. (2024) ‘From Humanitarian Intervention to Regime Change in Libya: Human Company within the Manufacturing and Transformation of World Safety Assemblages’, Millennium. doi: 10.1177/03058298231220364.

Rojecki, A. (2008) ‘Rhetorical Alchemy: American Exceptionalism and the Conflict on Terror’, Political Communication, 25(1), pp. 67–88. doi: 10.1080/10584600701807935.

Rowland, R. C. (2019) ‘The Populist and Nationalist Roots of Trump’s Rhetoric’, Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 22(3), pp. 343–388. doi: 10.14321/rhetpublaffa.22.3.0343.

Ruggie, J. G. (1992) ‘Multilateralism: the anatomy of an establishment’, Worldwide Group, 46(Summer time 92), pp. 561–598.

Ruggie, J. G. (2003) ‘American Exceptionalism, Exemptionalism, and World Governance.’ In American Exceptionalism and Human Rights, edited by Michael Ignatieff. Princeton, NJ: Princeton College Press, forthcoming. Out there at: https://scholar.harvard.edu/recordsdata/john-ruggie/recordsdata/ruggie_ignatieff_0.pdf

Sagan, S. D. and Waltz, Okay. N. (2013) The unfold of nuclear weapons : A permanent debate ; with new chapters on Iran, Iraq and North Korea and on the prospects for world nuclear disarmament. third ed. New York ; London: W.W. Norton & Co.

Saito, N.T. (2008) ‘Colonial presumptions: The warfare on terror and the roots of American exceptionalism’, Georgia Journal of Regulation and Fashionable Essential Race Views, 1(1), pp. 67-110.

Schaefer, C. (2016) ‘When populism overruns its borders: Making Sense of Donald Trump’s overseas coverage.’ In Eurozine (English model). Out there at: https://www.eurozine.com/when-populism-overruns-its-borders/?pdf

Schlesinger, S. (1999) ‘The tip of idealism: overseas coverage within the Clinton years’, World Coverage Journal, 15, pp. 36–40.

Smith, A. D. (2003) ‘Chosen Peoples’, New York: Oxford College Press.

Track, S. (2015) ‘American Exceptionalism at a Crossroads’, The Korean Journal of Worldwide Research, 13(1), pp. 239–262. doi: 10.14731/kjis.2015.04.13.1.239.

Stark, R. and Finke, R. (1988) ‘American Faith in 1776: A Statistical Portrait’, Sociological evaluation, 49(1), pp. 39–51. doi: 10.2307/3711102.

Stranne, F. (2020) ‘Trump’s International Coverage Agenda is Something however Isolationism’, American Research in Scandinavia, 52(1), pp. 99–120.

Tocqueville, A. de, Reeve, H. and Spencer, J. C. (1839) Democracy in America. Third American version, revised and corrected. New York: G. Adlard.

Trump, D. (2017) ‘Assertion by President Trump on the Paris Local weather Accord’, White Home Archives, 1 June. Out there at: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord/#:~:textual content=Aspercent20Presidentpercent2Cpercent20Ipercent20havepercent20one,otherpercent20countriespercent20ofpercent20thepercent20world (Accessed: 08/04/2024).

Trump, D. (2024) Former President Trump Campaigns in Conway, South Carolina [Video]. Out there at: https://www.c-span.org/video/?533460-1/president-trump-campaigns-conway-south-carolina (Accessed: 08/04/2024).

Tusan, M. (2015) ‘Humanitarianism, genocide and liberalism’, Journal of Genocide Analysis, 17(1), pp. 83–105. doi: 10.1080/14623528.2015.991209.

United Nations Safety Council. (2011) ‘Decision 1973’. [Online]. Out there at: https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/doc/libya-s-res-1973.php (Accessed:01/04/2024).

U.S. Division of State. (1998) ‘Secretary of State Madeleine Okay. Albright Interview on NBC-TV “The In the present day Present” with Matt Lauer’, [Archive], Revealed on February 19, 1998. Out there at: https://19972001.state.gov/statements/1998/980219a.html

Wallace, J. C. (2013) ‘A Non secular Conflict?: The Chilly Conflict and Faith’, Journal of Chilly Conflict Research, 15(3), pp. 162–180. doi: 10.1162/JCWS_a_00374.

Weber, S. (1992) ‘Shaping the postwar steadiness of energy: Multilateralism in NATO’, Worldwide Group, 46(3), pp. 633–680. doi: 10.1017/S0020818300027855.

Wheeler, N. J. (2003) ‘THE BUSH DOCTRINE: THE DANGERS OF AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM IN A REVOLUTIONARY AGE’, Asian Perspective, 27(4), pp. 183–216. doi: 10.1353/apr.2003.0007.

White Home. (2017) Nationwide Safety Technique of the US of America. Out there at: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Remaining-12-18-2017-0905.pdf (Accessed: 08/04/2024).

Yarhi-Milo, Okay., Lanoszka, A. and Cooper, Z. (2016) ‘To Arm or to Ally? The Patron’s Dilemma and the Strategic Logic of Arms Transfers and Alliances’, Worldwide Safety, 41(2), pp. 90–139. doi: 10.1162/ISEC_a_00250.

Zenko, M. (2017) ‘Obama’s Remaining Drone Strike Information’, Council on International Relations, 20 January. Out there at: https://www.cfr.org/weblog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data.

Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations