Zach Ingber '15 writes that the U.S. Constitution proves American exceptionalism. It ensures American-ness is not defined by religious or ethnic identity, unlike "ethnically charged" European nationalisms. Of course, at the time of its creation, the Constitution only guaranteed the freedom and equality of white, Protestant men, so American nationalism was defined by race and faith from the beginning. Ingber points out that it later expanded to include members of different faiths, women and people of color. He argues that the Constitution includes a "framework for change," and that this adaptability is another reason for American superiority. But America did not invent the democratic process, nor the creation and repeal of laws as a means of improving the nation, and it cannot claim uniqueness on those grounds.
What's more, European nationalism followed a similar developmental trajectory. For example, Britishness was once defined in terms of ethnicity and religion, though Catholics were tolerated during the reign of Elizabeth I when America was still the new world. Later, Britain successfully adapted to include other faiths and races into a multicultural society. Unlike America, the United Kingdom does not have a written document smugly guaranteeing all British citizen's equal rights regardless of ethnicity and religion. But it also never had separate drinking fountains or the Ku Klux Klan, and it never needed Freedom Buses. No mosques were burned down during Ramadan - though one was in Joplin, Miss.
Ingber dismisses consideration of "specific policy criticism" of obesity, education, the environment, immigration and taxation as a way of determining whether or not the United States is great. But I think it is illogical to say America is the greatest country in the world just because it has a lovely Constitution that says all sorts of inspiring things about freedom and equality and checks and balances. Phrasing is nothing without practice.
