Where was this article published?
I’ve no idea other than his usual Facebook account - his readership is in the thousands there, not that should matter. What’s your point?
“Writing an article” is usually something that someone gets paid to do, and it implies that the author has some professional standing. Updating a Facebook page is something my mom did last night.
I’ll take that reply as your inability to make any sensible/meaningful contribution to this thread.
OK.
The mistake he is making is that he is claiming that American Exceptionalism means something different than they way it is used by most people. He also admits what most people are referring to and claims he can go on and on for hours which is most people that use the term are doing. American Exceptionalism doesn’t mean #1 in all categories and I don’t think anyone ever claimed that it did.
Linder also used the word ‘enlightened’ which no conservative in history has ever done to the best of my knowledge so it isn’t fair to take subjective standards of ‘enlightenment’ and apply them to this term in this context. In other words, he built a straw man argument which is heavily frowned upon in this board doesn’t stand up. Whether he is right or wrong, his essay doesn’t cut it in Great Debates. We have personal anecdotes, straw man arguments, and subjective criteria all rolled into one. He may be popular on Facebook but his critical thinking and writing skills need some work for a more advanced audience.
He seems to have a hard-on for European policies. How are they doing these days I wonder? Is that what we should strive for to be truly exceptional or is this just a case of claiming that every country and every person is ‘special’ in its own right with no winners or losers?
Now (unlike Czarcasm) that is valid criticism - and well articulated. I deliberately posted the two articles (Lindner’s and the ‘The Myth’) by way of contrast - although noteworthy that no one has yet referred to, or criticised [the published] ‘The Myth’ piece…?
Speaking of stawman arguments…?
I suspect you’re punting a false dichotomy there - Bruce is certainly no fan of the US Right (and with good reason), but if you’re trying to impugn (which I suspect you are) that just because Europe shares a financial mess wit the US (but at least Europe’s combined mess nowhere near reaches $14 trillion), that, ipso facto, it follows that there is nothing of worth or exceptional about life in Europe, as compared to the US, then where do you want to start?
And no, this isn’t a pissing contest - but seeing as you raised it…
It’s just a definition thing. Some people think it means “America is unique” and others think it means “America is the best”. Depending which of the two you think it means, and what you think of the US, you’ll react differently to the prhase “American Exceptionalism”.
America is unique, as are many countries. America is the best at a number of things, as are many countries. Is it “exceptional”? That’s just a useless term which can’t be used in its literal meaning any more because it’s been co-opted by people making all sorts of different arguments.
Agreed. How dare you be so even-handed! 
France has that. Not about culture, as many foreigners seem to assume, but about being “the country of the rights of man”, something that politicians keep repeating (despite her record not being any better internally and even more obviously regarding foreign policy than most other western countries, and worst than some), which is made even weirder by the fact that in my opinion, contrarily to the USA, their electorate couldn’t care less (I’m yet to hear anybody mentioning it in ordinary conversation as something they believe in. Only to denigrate the concept).
“Pretty much like America, except we’re Canadian.”
MacLean’s magazine had a contest. The premise was that the Americans have the saying “American as Apple Pie.” The challenge was to fill in the blank: “As Canadian as _____.”
The winning entry was “As Canadian as possible, under the circumstances.”
No harm intended to our neighbors to the North – please don’t brandish your AAA credit rating at us… it burns… it burns…
One of the things that makes America so exceptional is our language. We as Americans used to have shared understanding of words and labels, but now American exceptionalism has increased so much, that we as individuals are now exceptional from one another. No one agrees with anyone about what anything means anymore, unless they are following a party line or members of a cult, and I’m not terribly sure how much difference there is between the two.
Just like everything else, ‘American Exceptionalism’ means 100,000 things to 100,000 people.
My cite: pretty much every thread on these boards. 
We’re more diverse than that! It means 120,000 things to 100,000 people!
Surely there can’t be a better answer than “As Canadian as bacon.”
But for a runner up, I’d settle for “As Canadian as geese.”
It’s useful to distinguish between descriptive de Tocqueville exceptionalism and prescriptive or normative exceptionalism.
-
The de Tocqueville variety of exceptionalism notes the unique nature of the American experiment from the origins of the country to the modern day. This variety is empirically valid and analytically useful. If it it is stated with sophistication and nuance, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. If it isn’t, it can become a kind of mindless rah rah patriotic parochialism which is stupid unhelpful.
-
Normative exceptionalism is different. It isn’t actually about the describing the unique nature of the country - it is about rejecting the universalist framework of law because American is not like any other actor. Instead of seeing America as an especially virtuous and powerful actor that is nonetheless subject to sovereign equality as any other nation who can exercise power using its geopolitical muscle and soft power to shape a global rule of law framework in a direction which it favours - binding itself and others to as actors alike, it rejects this conception entirely and wishes to set norms for others whilst not accepting that those norms bind itself.
This is a very radical notion much different to any prior conception of pugnacious nationalism. It is inherently hostile to global institutions and international law.