Is the United States Exceptional?

>"One may of course argue that this situation is changing, albeit slowly, but at the moment the contrast is startling: the sphere of Russian influence does quite reach Kyiv (about 150 miles from the Russian border) and the sphere of Chinese influence does not quite reach Taipei (about the same distance, but over water), but American influence evidently reaches both despite the former being 4,300 miles and the latter 6,500 miles away from American shores."

While that is true one can't talk about influence without talking about depth and quality. Russia and China have more limited reach, but the countries where in particular Russia has had an influence, Russian culture deeply permeates. One only needs to visit Kazakhstan to see the influence from its very system of politics at the top and well into the private homes. US influence around the world is wide but often times quite shallow. It's mirrored in military disappointments despite overwhelming power. Vietnam, Afghanistan recently, and so on. Same in the sphere of culture. Despite the overwhelming dominance of the US and the UK as well and, the Chinese haven't all become American, as people are noticing now, despite what they thought in the 90s. Even South America diverges pretty widely from the US compared to say, Russia and its direct periphery.

And I think this is to an extent true within the US as well. The author rightfully points out the dominance of US education in sheer numbers, but the US also seems to have unique troubles to translate this into social tools. For all the high quality of top tier American education and money, it hasn't necessarily created exceptional outcomes broadly, even compared to much poorer nations.

There's a thinness to American exceptionalism that is often masked by the focus on numbers and size. While the country is exceptionally rich, the life expectancy is not exceptionally high, but lower than in Cuba. And I think articles like this which pretend to be objective do intentionally wave that aside.

Of course, Jefferson's words established no basis in American law. It was signed before America existed. The Treaty of Paris ending the war established America only as a sovereign country, not a free one. (We were free of monarchy only). In fact, the intended audience for both documents was international, not national.

Never a legal document, the Declaration was mostly two things: advertising -- in the hope that enemies of England might give us money in order to annoy King George, and cheerleading -- in the hope America's troops wouldn't lose heart at the slow pace of the war and its woeful prospects, and desert, as many did.

We continue to harken to the Declaration only because the pretty words make it easier to dismiss proofs of contradiction like slavery and wars of adventure.

At the end of WWII, America was the last rich country standing and proceeded to go round the world kicking out left-wing governments (unfriendly or not) and installing right-wing ones. The result was unprecedented profits and security for American corporations, and some of that wealth undoubtedly trickled down. But I'm left thinking about the cost. Is it any wonder Russia, Iran, South America, etc. would distrust us and want us out of their business?

The comparison at the end to the Mongols feels apt, since while their empire was undeniably great, it is very difficult to argue that they were a force for good in the lives of the people on whose backs that greatness was won.

Does that make the EU exceptional too?