Exceptionalism in American foreign policy: Is it exceptional?

Abstract

This article argues that exceptionalism is a type of foreign policy not exclusive to the United States. It examines other historical cases, including post-Revolutionary France and the Soviet Union. The three cases are comparable in terms of their main characteristics, which include claims of exemptions from the ordinary rules of international relations, messianic missions to ‘liberate’ others, and perceptions of universalized threats. The article also explores the historical and normative foundations of exceptionalist foreign policy claims and practices. All three cases demonstrate the assumptions of social and political superiority that underlie these normative bases. The article concludes with some observations about the incompatibility of exceptionalist foreign policies with the Westphalian foundations of the international order.

Deconstructing media narratives of the Indo-Pacific strategy: Exploring India’s ontological security and national identity in the Times of India

“…Additionally, the media's depiction of China's regional activities as aggression has reinforced the notion that China has acted poorly during the period of lapsed American exceptionalism. However, the failure of the United States to fulfill its responsibilities like "providing peace and security" (Holsti, 2010) during Trump's presidency paved the way for the rise of an exceptional India.…”

The Evolution of Roosevelt's Rhetorical Legacy: Presidential Rhetoric about Rights in Domestic and Foreign Affairs, 1933‐2011

“…Furthermore, while the modern American conception of Human Rights was initially associated with the Democratic Party and liberal internationalism (Borgwardt )—and arguably had roots in the internationalism of Woodrow Wilson—it became an important part of the Republican anti‐Communist lexicon beginning with the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower (Forsythe ; Hogan ) . During the Cold War era, every president asserted both the right and the responsibility of the United States to promote liberties presumed to be universal, by force if necessary (Holsti ; Wander ). Since the end of the Cold War, existing evidence suggests that presidents of both parties have continued to use the rhetoric of Human Rights in explaining American foreign policy, while continuing to assert the right of the United States to intervene in foreign affairs based on its own understanding of Human Rights (Ben‐Porath ; Kane ; Stuckey and Ritter ).…”

“…4‐5). Meanwhile, though Roosevelt's vision seemed to emphasize multilateral cooperation, Human Rights— under intense pressure from the Cold War—evolved into a rationale for unilateral American intervention in world affairs following World War II in order to defend democracy and check communism (Holsti ). While there is little doubt that the United States' postwar engagement in international affairs often failed to advance Human Rights , the ideas of Economic, Social , and Human Rights associated with the New Deal helped inform the construction of the major institutions of the postwar international order, such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, and influenced postwar constitutions and public policies in nations around the world (Epp ; Borgwardt ; Felice ; Sunstein ; Whelan and Donnelly ).…”

“…Admittedly, the march of rights and freedoms associated with the New Deal and Great Society has always been unsteady in domestic affairs (Klinkner and Smith ), buffeted by hostility toward federal governmental power, jealousy of “states' rights,” and the desire of some citizens to protect economic and racial advantages (e.g., Critchlow ; Hacker ; King and Smith ; Mettler and Milstein ). Meanwhile, the United States has often declined to ratify international human rights declarations, even as it has asserted its prerogative to engage in unilateral international actions to promote its own vision of Human Rights (Holsti ).…”