This election is a struggle between the followers of American exceptionalism and the supporters of global universalism. ~Gerard Baker

At first glance, this sounds plausible, and then you realize that it is not possible to identify which party is exceptionalist and which is universalist.  Obama endorses virtually every aspect of U.S. hegemony and has repeatedly expressed his acceptance of American exceptionalism.  It doesn’t matter if it is true whether his personal story was possible only in America–he accepts the mythology that tells him so.  Who are the supporters of global universalism if not advocates of the “freedom agenda” who say such stupid things as, “We are all Georgians now”?  There is a bipartisan consensus in favor of the marriage of American exceptionalism and global universalism, according to which American values are at stake whenever another “democracy” is threatened, which is how our nationalists can spout drivel about the universal rights of man and our universalists can wax poetic about the “idea” that is America.  Meanwhile, both of them are fundamentally at odds with the real national interest and the common good of this country.  But Baker’s interpretation here is mistaken for another reason–the electorate does not divide along these lines, but along entirely different cultural fault lines largely unrelated to foreign policy.  Foreign policy simply becomes another area where these other divisions are expressed.