Ah, I see the confusion. I’m used to the modern critical definition, not the original.
Exceptionalism as “exemptionalism”
During the George W. Bush administration (2001–2009), the term was somewhat abstracted from its historical context.[104] Proponents and opponents alike began using it to describe a phenomenon wherein certain political interests view the United States as being “above” or an “exception” to the law, specifically the law of nations.[105] (That phenomenon is less concerned with justifying American uniqueness than with asserting its immunity to international law.) Critics argued that American exceptionalism was increasingly used to justify foreign policy decisions that placed the United States “above international law.” This perspective claimed that the U.S. invoked exceptionalism not as a model of global leadership but as a rationale for unilateralism and selective application of legal norms.[106]
The new use of the term has served to confuse the topic and muddy the waters since its unilateralist emphasis and the actual orientation diverge somewhat from prior uses of the phrase.
I’m well aware of the term. I’m telling you, you’re misapplying it in your argument.
Ah, I see the confusion. I’m used to the modern critical definition, not the original.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#Criticism