An exceptional civilization, sure. But “American exceptionalism” would hold that US political power arose because of its uniqueness, not the other way around.
Can we say that America was, due to its establishment and political system and values, destined to become politically powerful?
.
Power is a zero-sum game, but the reach of and use of power isn’t. What technology allows for is the greater reach of that power - what differs America from Rome is the ability to go places and communicate (or kill people!). History shows an increase in the leveraging of technology to reach others; it’s not unreasonable to assume that will continue, and on those grounds, increase effective or actual power. If the US couldn’t cross the Atlantic, or speak to China, would its political power be what it is even if all else stayed the same?
If your point is simply that exceptionalism isn’t actually that exceptional in the history of the world, that’s fair enough. 
Well, Rome, the HRE and China were exceptional…probably why people throughout the world know about them, rather than less exceptional nations that were around at the same time.
I’m pretty confident in saying that 100 or 1000 years from now, assuming there isn’t a complete collapse of civilization and we go back to the joys of hunting and gathering, that the US will be known and remembered to most people of the time, regardless of whether the US is still a nation at that point. Whereas, most likely many other contemporary nations today won’t be as well known.
Its a bare assertion based on nothing because it makes the argument that Americans are intrinsically better than people living in other countries. As far as I know, you can’t tell who’s an American genetically. Nothing we do as Americans is impossible for those of other countries. Just because we happened on them first doesn’t make any any better, it makes us lucky
I think illiteracy and/or a relative paucity of records from alternative sources play a big part there, too. That said, I’m wary of playing Ozymandias.
Aside from the size of the military budget, and the associated weaponry that provides, can you give a few examples of the things where America ranks #!?
Sure, technology may exacerbate power differences and increase our ability to project power worldwide. But technology can’t account for initial differences, because there must be some reason why power increases due to technology accrue to the US and not to our enemies. In other words, technology can explain some of our power, but not all of it.
Also, I don’t see why there can only be one exceptional country. There are hundreds or thousands of societies confined mostly to history books and others still lost to the sands of time, for which nothing more remains. So yeah, the majority of nations in the past we remember were exceptional. That’s why they get remembered.
I don’t know if this question can be answered with any certainty, but it seems pretty plausible. Most other western democracies have succeeded, and by virtue of being the first the US was able to attract some of the best and the brightest from around the world.
Why are we limiting it to America’s enemies?
I’m talking about technology differences from a historical (and future) point, not a current comparison. As far as current comparisons go, eh, it works partially and doesn’t in others, but it’s a reasonable point. Though I think I’d then go for “ok, what then are those reasons?”
Perhaps it’s merely a matter of differences in definition, but I would tend to put “exceptional” on an extremely high pedestal. Babe Ruth was an exceptional baseball player. Random Hall of Famers, great as they were, not really. But YMMV, of course.
We invented the peaceful passing of power with Washington, and when all the world’s powers lay devastated by war, ripe for domination, we packed our bags and left. Twice.
Not without its historical grave sins, American exceptionalism is realized most in the fact that no nation has ever dominated the world landscape as The Unites States has since World War 2. And it was done not through empirical warfare but through economic innovation and global integration. We helped rebuild the broken nations. Rome, and the handful of likewise exceptional states, would not have had the moral restraint to seek insular domination.
Calling all that “luck of circumstance” is like saying Neil Armstrong’s footprint happened by circumstance. Technically it’s true, but you’re a dumbass to suggest it with callous simplicity.
Because as America’s allies grow more powerful, so too does America (to a point). The reasons that America became first became politically powerful, and then used technology to further extend that power, would be what is called American exceptionalism: the first nation to adopt democracy, laissez-faire economics, immigration and assimilation of immigrants, tolerance tempered with righteous indignation and an indefatigable work ethic and will to succeed.
It could be a matter of definitions, but out of maybe several hundred civilizations over thousands of years, I wouldn’t really feel out of place calling maybe five or ten exceptional. And I feel that the US’s political power is such an outlier as compared to every other nation, even when adjusted for technology, that it alone is sufficient to the make the States exceptional.
ETA: Stringbean makes some good points on the moral aspect of American exceptionalism as well.
The same is true for America’s enemies, really. Beyond that, the reverse is true; as America grows more powerful, so too do its allies.
… what?
Don’t know enough history to be able to judge these.
Not uniquely or first.
This is pablum, unless you have some kind of statistics to back it up?
If you’re that general on the point, I don’t disagree.
What nations could, given technology levels? If we reduce it to “How much of the world could they effect, given the the times” there are plenty of claimants to that throne.
Well, I guess that didn’t make sense. Let me put it this way: why did technology help us so much more than it helped other nations? Technology (and a large population) may be partially the cause of our military and economic power. Obviously, technology is a big reason that we’re wealthier than past societies. But why are we wealthier than Japan, or Germany, or most of Europe, when they have the same technology as us? There has to be some other factor, or factors, that are responsible for our success. In the post you quoted, I laid out what I thought those factors are.
That’s not really my point. My point is that America’s political power is merely one particularly compelling reason (IMO, evidently not in yours) to consider America exceptional. I think America’s cultural, military, and economic power are also factors that make it an exceptional nation.
I got those other factors - they didn’t seem compelling, though I’m prepared to be convinced on them (all except the whole “first nation to adopt democracy” thing).
As far as Japan, Germany, and most of Europe goes; you pointed out Stringbean’s post about the other nations being hugely depleted and bereft after WWII, and America being in a position to conquer (but not doing so). Those seem like big effects on the power such countries wield and wielded.
I just have higher standards for exceptionalism, I guess. And I’d want to be able to explain the reasons behind those things, too - though of course they don’t have an effect on the reality of such power judged in and of itself.
I LOVE playing Ozy, however. 
I also disagree that it’s due to illiteracy and a paucity of records that we (the unwashed massed yearning to debate interesting topics) know more about Rome than other nations that were contemporary to Rome. After all, scholars and historians know quite a bit about other nations that existed when Rome did. Rome, however, is instantly recognizable even over a thousand years after it went TU by most people today. To me, that says they were exceptional in their day.
I think that, love it or hate it, the US is in a similar position today and probably for some time to come, whether that be years or decades. Even after that inevitably shifts the US will be looked back on as exceptional in it’s time and place in history…probably similarly to things like the British Empire, which I expect to also be remembered a thousand years from now, assuming the usual caveats.
All of this said, there is nothing exceptional about the average American compared to the average citizen of other nations…just like the average Roman wasn’t exceptional to the average person in another country. The nation was exceptional, and the citizens were just people…and ‘exceptional’ doesn’t mean ‘without flaw’ or ‘perfect’. I think we can all agree that most other nations remembered from history had flaws, often deep ones, made mistakes and just generally fucked up (though often on a larger scale) as much or more than any contemporary nation…and that it wasn’t always the greatest thing to LIVE in one of these exceptional nations as opposed to living elsewhere. Personally, I think I’d rather be a Canadian, all things considered.
Interesting, but I don’t know if the entirety of American economic success could be attributed to a war that ended 70 years ago. Surely, if some nation had a faster growth rate, they should’ve outstripped the US by now. I don’t want to cherrypick individual countries, but the US is still ahead in GDP per capita of a lot of nations that didn’t really suffer much damage from WWII.
I agree that we can’t really debate much further if we both have different definitions of exceptional (and American exceptionalism).
Not a historian, but so far as I know, while we know about the other nations and groups that were around as contemporaries to Rome, it’s Rome we have the most documentation from. Often the knowledge we have of those other peoples is from Roman writing. It also gets molded into the Greek states for much the same reason.
For what it’s worth, I also wouldn’t consider the height of the British Empire to be an example of exceptionalism. I don’t want to play favourites. 
It seems a fair point.
Easily. The USA:[ul]
[li]has invented more new technologies than any other country.[/li][li]donates more money to charity than any other country.[/li][li]produces more food than any other country, and give more food away when famine threatens.[/li][li]provides the most international disaster relief.[/li][li]has the world’s greatest universities.[/li][li]provides stronger guarantees of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press than almost any other country.[/li][li]is home to more companies of worldwide importance than any other country.[/li][/ul]
Why would we expect that? I think you might be underestimating quite how fucked most of the countries who were involved in WWII were by the end of it. And you don’t need a faster growth rate to explain not catching up - just a similar one. There’s also the fact that post-war, the US was in the best position to take advantage of opportunities, in terms of emerging technologies, talent pools, and economic advantages. It’s not just a headstart, but a gift that kept on giving.
But you accept the idea that, at least, in theory, it could play a role?
Here’s another possible factor; natural resources, as well as landmass. The US is big and has a lot of stuff, put simply.
In the grand question, no, you’re probably right. I don’t see any reason why we can’t usefully disagree about the specifics, though.
We have somehow morphed onto the issue of economics. I would like to prove this point using before and after war GDPs by country, but reliable GDP/GNP estimates don’t really exist before 1960. I just have a general feeling that if some other country really were better, seven decades is more than enough time to catch up. Furthermore, most of the war-affected countries (excluding Germany) seem to have had very strong growth after the war ended. I just can’t really buy that a few years of economic hegemony and some of the competitors doing harmed are the cause of the US’s economic lead 70 years later. Sure, it could be a factor, but I don’t think its a cause.
The US does have lots of natural resources, but so do lots of poor countries. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, for instance, is spectacularly wealthy in all kinds of resources but extremely poor in terms of per capita GDP. There must be some intrinsic factor that enables the US to make good use of our natural resources, along with allowing us to make better use of technology than competing countries.