American Exceptionalism: Elitist Myth or Historical Fact?

American Exceptionalism is defined as an ideology that considers the United States of America “unique” among other nations, whether the connotation is positive or negative, with respect to its ideas of democracy and freedom (Tyrrell, n. pag.). That is to say, the United States is the exception to the rule of how nations view democracy and freedom. Furthermore, due to its status as exceptional, America should not, and is not, held to the same standards as other status-quo nations. However, in his political slogan “Make America Great Again”, our current United States President, Donald Trump, is implicitly negating the ideology of American Exceptionalism. In fact, he appears to imply that America is no longer exceptional, regardless of our potential past special status. As a result, he has rallied a group supporters who see the less-than-exceptional circumstances in the U.S. and who feel the increasing importance of personal socio-economic status over a shared American nationality (n. pag.). Ironically, President Trump and his administration use American Exceptionalism to justify several policies, including the recent “zero-tolerance” immigration policy. Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, those on the political exceptionalist bandwagon continue to use American Exceptionalism to rally supporters around their political parties and around a shared American nationality (n. pag.). Whether or not we, as a nation, agree on the depth of influence of American Exceptionalism, we cannot deny that it is an important, divisive term that has regained political popularity in recent years. With this newfound popularity, American Exceptionalism has allowed the U.S. government to separate children from their migrant parents under the “zero-tolerance” immigration policy, even though this policy violates fundamental human rights laws.

Before its newfound political popularity, American Exceptionalism has been a major part of U.S. history, which will help us understand its current use in the separation of migrant families. More than stating that the United States is “‘different’ from other countries”, American Exceptionalism promotes the belief that the U.S. “follows a path of history different from the laws or norms that govern other countries” (Tyrrell, n. pag.). Due to its exceptionalism, the U.S. became the “bearer of freedom and liberty, and morally superior to something called ‘Europe’” (n. pag.). This method of thinking about the world is evident throughout the history of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Latin America, dating back to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which called for the creation of an American, new world alliance against the old world Europeans (Monroe, n. pag.). Another historical example of the U.S. government using American Exceptionalism is the creation of former-U.S. President Teddy Roosevelt’s “big stick policy”, or the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904. It states that the U.S. not only had the right to, but would intervene as an “international police power” as a last resort to ensure that the “entire body of American nations” would be protected from “foreign [European] aggressions” (“Roosevelt Corollary . . .”, n. pag.). In both instances, American Exceptionalism was one of the base ideologies at play that solidified the belief that the U.S., in its “uniqueness”, has the right to and obligation to use its moral superiority to bring liberty and freedom to the “entire body of American nations” (n. pag.).

Another example of the use of American Exceptionalism in U.S. history is former-U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s promotion of the image of the U.S. as a “shining city upon a hill”, referencing former-U.S. President John F. Kennedy’s 1961 speech, and referencing John Winthrop’s 1630 Puritan sermon in Massachusetts (Tyrrell, n. pag.). Originally intended by Winthrop to warn the Puritan pilgrim settlers to stick to their faith, President Kennedy used the phrase during his homecoming speech in Massachusetts after the Presidential election of 1960 (n. pag.) to imply the U.S. is the global gold standard for democracy and freedom. Despite this early use of American Exceptionalism on the political stage, it was President Reagan’s reference to the “shining city on the hill” in the 1980s that gave American Exceptionalism political rhetorical significance and political-ideological importance (n. pag.). This political rhetoric changed after 9/11 in the speeches given by former-U.S. President George W. Bush; instead of the U.S. being the “shining city on a hill”, President Bush asserted the uniqueness of the U.S. via our “exceptional inheritance”, and declared this, and this alone, was the object of envy and hatred for the Islamic terrorists involved with 9/11 (n. pag.). In all of these examples, American Exceptionalism has been an ideology “linked to global U.S. military and political hegemony” (n. pag.); however, seldom is this ideology mentioned by its name. In 2016, Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton used the term “American Exceptionalism”, also calling the U.S. an “exceptional” and “indispensable nation”1, to solidify her place on the exceptionalist bandwagon. In doing so, she simultaneously took the “obscure academic term” (n. pag.) out of the classroom and onto the U.S. political stage where it has existed unnamed for decades.

The influence of American Exceptionalism, as an ideology “linked to U.S. military and political hegemony since the post-1945 age” (n. pag.), is still present in current events, regardless of President Trump’s implicit denial of its existence and importance today. In fact, his “zero-tolerance” immigration policy, which interprets and enforces the current U.S. immigration laws in a way prior administrations have not done (Valverde, n. pag.), is a prime example of how American Exceptionalism influences policy makers today. Before Trump came into office, prior administrations allowed families of illegal immigrants to be “detained together, sent back immediately or paroled into the [United States] . . .” (n. pag.). Even more, prosecutions prior to the Trump administration were rare due to the high monetary and time costs, as well as the general sentiment that the “prosecute-first” process was “needlessly harsh” (n. pag.). Now, instead of allowing families to remain together, which complies with international and national human rights laws, the Trump administration implemented the “prosecute-first”, zero-tolerance, uniform policy to prosecute all illegal entry referrals from the Department of Homeland Security to address the “crisis at the southwest border” (n. pag.). This “escalated effort” to end illegal immigration translates to the separation of families at the border, which the Trump administration has been considering since the early months of his presidency, hoping that the harsh treatment would deter illegal immigration from Latin America, especially the illegal immigration of mothers with their children (n. pag.). The idea is to place the children “into foster care or whatever”, as then-Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly put it in a May 11 NPR interview (n. pag.). Furthermore, the U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Sessions in a June 5 interview with Hugh Hewitt declared while the goal of the zero-tolerance policy was not to separate families, “it’s legitimate to warn people who come to the country unlawfully bringing children with them that they can’t expect that they’ll always be kept together” (n. pag.). Amidst the backlash from immigrant advocates and humanitarian groups, reports that nearly 1,500 immigrant children had been “lost” after the Trump administration placed them with sponsors added fuel to the fire to the national and international backlash.

Even after signing the executive order on June 20 to end the practice of separating families at the border, President Trump and his administration left in place the “requirements to prosecute or at least detain immigrants who may have entered this country unlawfully”, which includes children and asylum-seekers (Davis, n. pag.). Additionally, the Trump administration “insisted there had been no retreat from its ‘zero-tolerance’ policies”, citing that the U.S. military has agreed to provide additional space to detain 20,000 immigrants for extended time (n. pag.). However, the fact remains that the zero-tolerance policy, with its still-active requirements to prosecute and detain all immigrants who may have entered the U.S. illegally, is unlawful because it violates human rights law. However, it is justified by American Exceptionalism.

In 1968, the United States and 145 other countries ratified the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, thus agreeing to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which define a “refugee” as a person fleeing his or her country of origin due to a fear of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion (n. pag.). Under these treaties, a refugee has the fundamental human right to request asylum without risk of being expelled from the country where they request asylum (n. pag.). These treaties also forbid countries from punishing refugees for entering illegally if their life or freedom is threatened at home (n. pag.). Additionally, in 1992, the U.S. ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which mandates that when the U.S. government arrests, detains, or imprisons a person, it must treat them humanely and “with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person” (n. pag.). Even more, detaining the children indefinitely violates a 1997 U.S. court settlement, which mandates that immigrant children are released within 20 days (Davis, n. pag.). According to the Washington Post, immigrant children spend an average of 56 days in detention centers in the U.S. (Miroff, n. pag.). Lastly, President Trump’s demand for the immediate deportation of all unlawful immigrants without any court review on June 24 violates the due process clause in the U.S. Constitution, which declares the U.S. government may not deprive anyone of their “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (Davis, n. pag.). Despite the due process clause in our constitution and the fact that the U.S. Constitution makes the rules in international treaties binding U.S. law, the Trump administration decided to violate these human rights laws by prosecuting and imprisoning these asylum-seekers and by detaining immigrants indefinitely, especially children. Why?

The answer is not simple. However, part of the answer lies within the American Exceptionalism ideology. If it is accepted that the U.S. has an exceptional history that allows it to follow a different set of rules than other nations in the world, then it is not impossible to comprehend how the U.S. has been allowed to violate fundamental human rights law with little to no political or legal consequences. Furthermore, it is generally accepted knowledge that since the 1904 Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. has felt the right and moral obligation to act unilaterally as an international police force in Latin America2, later expanding to other parts of the world3. However, there is no international police force to punish the U.S. for violating its treaty obligations or other violations, both in this case of the illegal zero-tolerance policy and in other cases involving Latin America4 or other parts of the world. Specifically, in the case of the zero-tolerance immigration policy, American Exceptionalism has allowed the separation of immigrant children from their parents by promoting the idea that the U.S. follows its own set of rules, free of consequences, as the “bearer of freedom and liberty” (Tyrrell, n. pag.). This is demonstrated by the continued existence as a U.S. government-supported immigration policy that is illegal nationally and internationally.

In conclusion, the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance immigration policy is the latest in a long history of international treaty violations and U.S. law violations committed by the U.S. government concerning the freedoms of others. At the heart of the zero-tolerance policy, like other policies in the U.S.-Latin America diplomatic history, is the American Exceptionalism ideology, which tells us the U.S. and its uniqueness require a different set of rules and regulations than the other status-quo nations, specifically in regards to views and practices of democracy and freedom (n. pag.). While the depth of its influence is subjective, it cannot be denied that American Exceptionalism has a place in U.S. history and has influenced U.S. government policies in the past and present. The question that remains is what role will American Exceptionalism play in future U.S. policies and politics? Will it lead us down a path of extreme nationalism? Or, will it bring about global prosperity?