- National Standards
- Centralized Government authority


What else? ah,
- People are idiots.... they just do not understand...

Keep pushing these ideas, and we will end up with no personal freedoms!

because you said the author was mixing up exceptionalism and patriotism, but I think the author was poiting out that those who don't believe in American exceptionalism don't like patriotism as well...
I guess I don't agree with the authors on that point. Patriotism and exceptionalism are two different things, IMHO. But the authors do mix up those concepts. As I already said a couple of days ago, IMHO, exceptionalism assumes entitlement to not follow the rules and be above the law.
and what's "our kinds of patriotism"??
it's "teaching our kids patriotism" -- sorry, a misprint. And there was no "of" in that sentence.

Again, I don't believe the author mixes the two concepts up - just talks about the coincidence that the new left doesn't believe in both of them..also the author believes that it's because they don't understand and know American history very well..and it shows when they are asked on it..and btw, it's also the consequences of our education system..(ch)

What kind of law is there for judging American Exceptionalism?
Gera, there is no such law. However, there are commonly-accepted international laws and norms. For instance, that you need to carry a passport in order to travel into foreign countries and might need a visa to enter some of them.

Aleksei, if you read the article about the exceptionalism carefully, you would have noticed, that it talkes at length how England was different from the rest of European countries. There was much less feudalism there. It's all spelled out in the chapter marked with Roman numerical I.
You should be able to extend that logic to Australia and New Zealand.

I will paste some more text to answer Aleksei question about Australia and New Zealand.
To find the roots of American exceptionalism, you have to start at thebeginning — or even before the beginning. They go back to our mothercountry. Historian Alan Macfarlane argues that England never had apeasantry in the way that other European countries did, or as extensivean established church, or as powerful a monarchy. English society thushad a more individualistic cast than the rest of Europe, which wascentralized, hierarchical, and feudal by comparison.
It was, to simplify, the most individualistic elements of En*glishsociety — basically, dissenting low-church Protestants — who came tothe eastern seaboard of North America. And the most liberal fringe ofEnglish political thought, the anti-court “country” Whigs andrepublican theorists such as James Harrington, came to predominatehere.

All of this made Amer*ica an outlier compared with England, which wasan outlier compared with Europe. The U.S. was the spawn of Englishliberalism, fated to carry it out to its logical conclusion and becomethe most liberal polity ever known to man.
America was blessedly unencumbered by an ancien regime.Compared with Europe, it had no church hierarchy, no aristocracy, noentrenched economic interests, no ingrained distaste for commercialactivity. It almost entirely lacked the hallmarks of a traditionalpost-feudal agrarian society. It was as close as you could get to JohnLocke’s state of nature. It was ruled from England, but lightly; EdmundBurke famously described English rule here as “salutary neglect.” Evenbefore the Rev*olution, America was the freest country on earth.

You should be able to extend that logic to Australia and New Zealand.
That's precisely my point -- if Australia and New Zealand went the same route, why do they talk about American exceptionalism?

Tocquevillemay have been exaggerating when he said that Americans were able toenjoy the benefits of a revolution without really having one, but hewasn’t far off the mark. The remnants of old Europe that did exist here—state-supported churches, primogeniture, etc. — were quickly wipedout. Amer*icans took inherited English liberties, extended them, andmade them into a creed open to all.
Exact renderings of the creed differ, but the basic outlines are clear enough. The late Seymour Martin Lipset defined it as liberty,equality (of opportunity and respect), individualism, populism, and laissez-faire economics. The creed combines with other aspects of the American character — especially our religiousness and our willingness to defend ourselves by force — to form the core of American exceptionalism.

Maria, thanks, I opened the link and I read the paper, there is no need to copy in here.
BTW,
The creed combines with other aspects of the American character — especially our religiousness and our willingness to defend ourselves by force — to form the core of American exceptionalism.
This is one point where they mix up patriotism and exceptionalism.