Jason A. Gilmore

American Exceptionalism in the American Mind: Presidential Discourse, National Identity, and U.S. Public Opinion

The idea of American exceptionalism has lived a vibrant life in American political discourse, yet little research has focused on the effects that these messages have on U.S. public opinion. To bridge this gap, the present study examines the psychological dynamics that shape how Americans respond to messages that champion the idea of American exceptionalism. Specifically, I draw on scholarship on American exceptionalism in political discourse and on social identity to conduct a message experiment on a nationally sampled population of U.S. adults. The experiment examined the differential impacts of American exceptionalism messages on (a) peoples own sense of American exceptionalism, (b) their sense that other countries are inferior by comparison, (c) their attitudes about whether the United States should be exempt from international laws and institutions, and (d) their attitudes about whether the United States should seek to spread its influence and values in the world.

Make no exception, save one: American exceptionalism, the American presidency, and the age of Obama

ABSTRACT This paper explores the circumstances under which U.S. presidents have invoked American exceptionalism in major speeches and how this concept has culminated in the Obama presidency. We find that U.S. presidents have increased their invocations of American exceptionalism since the Second World War and that they have relied heavily on this concept in times of national crises. Moreover, we demonstrate the overwhelming propensity of President Obama, relative to his predecessors, to emphasize American exceptionalism. We argue that this is due to the double-crisis nature of his presidency – two major wars and a recession – in addition to the racial bind that he has endured throughout his presidency. We reflect on the implications for other minority politicians and the broader American public.

When threats come from within: national identity, cascading frames, and the U.S. war in Afghanistan

Scholars have widely demonstrated that the process by which officials frame their communications significantly impacts how citizens understand, evaluate, and respond to policy issues or events. This study attempts to build on existing framing research in two important ways. First, we seek to illuminate the importance of “cultural resonance” in determining whether an individual frame is likely to gain acceptance among its intended audience. Second, we assess the impact of “frame contestation” on the adoption of such frames. We explore these dynamics in the context of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Specifically, we conducted an experiment in which U.S. adults were exposed to a news story about U.S. military transgressions in Afghanistan. Our results indicate that frames, designed to appeal to and protect the national identity, broadly resonated among respondents, impacting their perceptions of the character, causes and consequences of the transgressions, as well as their broader attitudes about the nation, the U.S. military, and the war in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, when these frames were presented, and then explicitly contested within the same news story, it diminished—but not entirely—these framing effects. We reflect on the theoretical and practical implications of these findings for journalists, officials, and the broader public.

A Post-American World? Assessing the Cognitive and Attitudinal Impacts of Challenges to American Exceptionalism

ABSTRACT A number of voices have emerged in U.S. political discourse questioning the legitimacy of American exceptionalism, suggesting we are in a “post-American world.” Our research examines the effects that political messages that explicitly challenge American exceptionalism can have on U.S. public opinion. Drawing upon social identity theory, we find that explicit challenges to American exceptionalism significantly impact Americans’ views toward their own nation, their willingness to denigrate foreign publics, and their broader foreign policy preferences.

Consensus at Home, Opposition Abroad: Officials, Foreign Sources, and U.S. News Coverage of Drone Warfare:

This study examines the process and conditions under which U.S. news coverage aligns with—or challenges—the communications of government officials, focusing on the issue of U.S. drone warfare. White House, military, congressional, and press communications during President Obama’s first 5 years in office are analyzed to assess how the policy has been framed among officials and covered within the press. Evidence indicates that news coverage was significantly more critical of the policy than what was expressed among officials. In particular, despite near consensus at home, journalists exercised considerable discretion, consistently locating and amplifying oppositional voices from abroad in news coverage.