Peter Beinart discusses the “end of American exceptionalism.” Here he identifies the gap between the peculiar hegemonist version of American exceptionalism espoused by many Republican politicians and the preferences of Millennials:

If the champions of American exceptionalism see religion as one key dividing line between the new and old worlds, they see America’s special mission overseas as another. “I believe,” declared Romney in 2011, that “we are an exceptional country with a unique destiny and role in the world … that of a great champion of human dignity and human freedom.” For many Washington conservatives, that unique world role gives America unique obligations: We cannot stand aside while evil triumphs. But it also gives America unique privileges: We need not be bound by the opinions of others. As George W. Bush declared in his 2004 State of the Union address, America does not need a “permission slip” from other nations to protect itself and fulfill its mission in the world.

But young Americans are far less likely than their elders to endorse this exceptional global role. They want the U.S. to do less overseas; and what America must do, they want done more consensually.

These are things that I have mentioned previously, and I’ve written several times about how hard-liners have adopted and distorted the concept of American exceptionalism to suit their policy arguments. Beinart is actually giving the advocates of this warped version of American exceptionalism a bit too much credit, because he too readily accepts their conflation of this idea with patriotism. Their definition relies on a basic misunderstanding of what makes America distinct, and it is actually at odds with a more modest patriotism. According to this warped version, American exceptionalism is little more than a mixture of self-congratulation, triumphalism, and hubris chiefly expressed through support for military hegemony and constant interference in the affairs of other peoples, and it wasn’t very long ago that Beinart was indulging in this very thing.

It is encouraging that younger Americans are significantly less likely to agree with this idea than their elders, but that probably means that the debate over this warped version of American exceptionalism will become even more contentious and divisive over time. Meanwhile, it will continue to have harmful effects on our policy debates, and it will continue to influence the arguments of members of both parties. We only have to think back a few months to the Syria debate to remember that Obama was making some of the same preposterous claims about military intervention as an expression of what makes us who we are as Americans. This distorted understanding of American exceptionalism isn’t going to end until political leaders in both parties are embarrassed to use such misguided claims in their public arguments.