With international conspirators and domestic degenerates cooperating at multiple levels to overreach America as an idea and as a polity, and reduce people again to early-modern acceptance of Leviathan and the uniquely credentialed empowerment of benevolent autocrats and the societal soundness of privilege, class, and perquisite, why would anyone be anxious about our chances of pulling through against a host of enemies armed not just with money and thermonuclear weapons, but with the black arts of conspiracy, treason, and cabal?
Huh? That's the thing about "American exceptionalism," though. People use to mean all kinds of things, to mean everything and nothing.
American exceptionalism started with the idea that we were an exception to the way things were in the rest of the world, but lately more and more politicians use it to mean that we are exceptional, a model and an example for the rest of the world to follow.
The first concept was defensive and isolationist, the second is expansionist. The concepts can be contradictory, and it's not always easy to follow what people mean when they use the expression. If we really are a model, we aren't going to be an isolated exception. If we want to be left alone, we can't demand a right to lead people anywhere.
My point was that the world has become more "American" over recent decades. It may not go that deeply -- farmers in China or India or the Congo or Peru may remain as they always were. It may not be irreversible. It may not be an "America" you like, but American popular culture and American consumerism have had great influence on the rest of the world.
Ideas like "American exceptionalism" and the "Anglosphere" have a defensive, protectionist, or isolationist tendency. I don't quarrel with that. It may be the right way to go.
But you can't retreat into yourself and then demand the right to "lead" them somewhere. That's another reason why this debate about American exceptionalism tends to be confused and confusing.