Donald Trump has frequently been labelled an idiosyncratic aberration and has equally been accused of breaking with American foreign policy tradition. However, by applying the foreign policy...Show moreDonald Trump has frequently been labelled an idiosyncratic aberration and has equally been accused of breaking with American foreign policy tradition. However, by applying the foreign policy traditions uncovered by Mead (Wilsonianism, Hamiltonianism, Jeffersonianism and Jacksonianism), scholars began arguing that Trump was perfectly traditional because he adhered to one or more of these historic traditions. Simultaneously, scholars argued that Trump rejected the myth of American exceptionalism that informs said traditions. This begs the question of how one can be traditional, yet also reject their foundational myth. Scholars had failed to consider these two facets in tandem, and had only focussed on Trump’s campaign and early presidency therefore failing to provide a prudent analysis of Trump’s entire foreign policy. This thesis aimed to rectified both by asking the following question: how has Trump’s re-interpretation of American exceptionalism influenced the utilisation of the dominant traditions in American foreign policy in his foreign policy discourse? Through the use of a critical geopolitical analysis, it was uncovered that Trump redefined American exceptionalism to an conditional state of objective greatness that only he could achieve and maintain, rather than an inherent trait. This allowed him to argue that his predecessors had made America unexceptional, stirring feelings of betrayal that he could then mobilise for his own political gain. This demagogic ‘exceptional me 2.0’ strategy shaped his application of all the four traditions wherein he blames Wilsonianism for American decline and aims to rally disappointed Hamiltonians, Jeffersonians and Jacksonians against them in order to effectuate a great reset of American foreign policy and domestic politics.Show less
The international community was startled by the 2016 US presidential election as it appeared disruptive for international order. The Republican candidate, Donald Trump, who was elected as President...Show moreThe international community was startled by the 2016 US presidential election as it appeared disruptive for international order. The Republican candidate, Donald Trump, who was elected as President, surprised friend and foe with his explicit rhetoric regarding the role of the US in world politics. The foreign policy ideas of the Democratic candidate, Hilary Clinton, are generally perceive as more in line with the status quo. Consequently, this research aims to analyze how the concept of American exceptionalism was framed to legitimization these foreign policies suggestions. The American exceptionalism narrative is in academia generally understood as an ongoing narrative in US identity that frames foreign policy discourse. Therefore, analyzing how the candidates frame this concept, allows to gain understanding in the development of this discourse. The exact research question this study addresses is: How was American exceptionalism framed differently by candidates to legitimize ideas of US foreign policy in the 2016 presidential campaign discourse? This study performs a quantitative discourse analysis of campaigns speeches by Trump and Clinton from the 2016 presidential election. In total 100 official speeches are studied, 50 from Trump’s campaign and 50 from Clinton’s campaign, ranging from three different time periods in the election. The concept of American exceptionalism is operationalized on two levels. The primary level concentrates on US identity in general and eventually entailed two frames: Superior (better) and Singular (unique). The secondary level emphasizes the role of the US in world politics and ultimately encompassed also two frames: Exemplarism (exemplar) and Expansionism (leader). Based on this operationalization, the findings signify that Trump refers more to the concept of American exceptionalism, and also increasingly during the election, but at the same time undermines it many times more than Clinton. How the candidates frame the concept to discuss particular foreign policy topics is surprisingly similar, as both utilizes the Expansionism frame for the topic of terrorism while generally preferring the Exemplarism frame for other foreign policy areas. All in all, Trump appears more explicit and outspoken in how he frames the concept, yet not per se very distinct compared to the framing by Clinton. This study therefore indicates homogeneity in the belief in American exceptionalism and how it is framed to legitimize foreign policy. Based on these findings limitations and avenues for future research are discussed.Show less
This thesis argues that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as part of the War on Terror declared by President Bush in the aftermath of 9/11 can be seen in the light of American Exceptionalism. American...Show moreThis thesis argues that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as part of the War on Terror declared by President Bush in the aftermath of 9/11 can be seen in the light of American Exceptionalism. American Exceptionalism has actively been used as a discursive tool to justify US foreign intervention in the past. By looking at the historical context of American Exceptionalism one will see how American Exceptionalism originated, how it was adapted and how it was often manipulated by prominent figures in a way that served national interests throughout time. Myths and illusions surrounding American Exceptionalism were created which became part of a discourse that shaped and strengthened US national identity over the centuries. However, in the aftermath of 9/11, these pre-existing beliefs were shattered and a national identity crisis followed. Nonetheless, President Bush managed to once again accommodate and reaffirm the pre-existing national truths and to simultaneously reshape and reform them in a way that made American Exceptionalism become a state fantasy. The discourse surrounding this state fantasy became an important tool for President Bush to justify the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.Show less
