The idea of 'exceptionalism'

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/American_exceptionalism

I'll like to come resume my "word of the day" segment, albeit still on an occasional basis. Today's word is "exceptionalism" as used in the political context.

Some conservative American politicians (mostly Republicans) have recently picked up an old theme and made it their new war cry: that their country is exceptional, has a "manifest destiny" and that its norms as reflected in their aspirational ideals are worthy for other countries to emulate, even if in practice they are not always followed by Americans themselves.

Outsiders may see this idea as hubristic but it has deep-rooted broad appeal among Americans, including the "heartlanders", hence no American politician can scoff at it, Democrats included.

 President Obama himself was challenged on his views on it, and his response -- while highly qualified and contextualised -- was at bottom, yes, America can engage with the world on the basis of its own special values, centred on the belief that every individual everywhere has the right to freedom. The word "freedom" is of course a highly subjective one.

Because American exceptionalism is accepted as a powerful aspirational idea in the country, it can be used as a political unifier. American society may be imperfect -- be it past injustices like black slavery or present ills like the rich-poor divide and the warts of capitalism -- but Americans still claim that their country is still ultimately a land of opportunity. And, indeed, many aliens still seek US citizenship.

It is problematic to say how much of this idealism is practised in American policy abroad -- from trade and economics to security and matters of war and peace. I won't go there in this short posting, except to note that critics will argue that America behaves like any other great power, period, while supporters will claim otherwise, saying that Americans have sacrificed blood and treasure internationally when it could have just stood aside in its own self-interest -- if it had not been  driven by its cherished ideology.

What I want to ponder over, to conclude, is: does China -- as it emerges as a great power -- see itself as exceptional too, but of course not as a carbon copy of the American model? A Chinese model, so to speak. Already, it has claimed a different road to democracy -- as it defines it -- at home. Abroad, it has professed high ideals (true, like the Americans) but will it be one based on the tributary system of its premodern heyday -- where regional countries pay tribute to it but are otherwise left to their own devices so long as they do not cross the "out of bound (OB) marker" lines?

Only time will tell. Of course, to be exceptional is to be different from the norm, not unique (one of a kind). So, in theory, two exceptional countries can live with each other... and rule the world? Or they cannot... and a clash of the titans may eventually take place.

The realist school of international relations reject exceptionalism in state behaviour. All states, large and small, behave according to their self-interest, it says. The two scenarios -- either shared global leadership or clash of titans -- can still happen, but not because of exceptionalism. Just plain self-interest and opportunism.