Your Convoluted, Outdated “American Exceptionalism” Kills

Authored By: Abigail Chang

Art By: Yufei Wang

America is consistently at the top: top economy, top universities, top in gun violence among developed nations, top in student-loan debt, and, following the 2020 pandemic, top in coronavirus-related deaths among high-income countries [1]. Despite this, the Cold War-era notion of ‘American Exceptionalism’ continues to thrive in the minds of many today. It’s this outdated conception that will fuel further decline in American life quality and expectancy in the future.

While some may attribute the 1,219,487 coronavirus deaths (and counting) in America solely to the virus itself, the sense of American entitlement far exceeds the numbers of virus mortality [2]. ‘Vaccine accessibility,’ multiple surveys by the Associated Press show, was not the determining factor of COVID mortality [3]. Instead, the fundamental framework that guides American beliefs of personal independence is to blame. After all, it’s difficult to face criticism or disagreement after being admired for decades. To save the lives of millions of individuals before the next health event, we must abandon our conditioned exceptionalism and focus on intrinsically reforming our healthcare system to protect society for the long term.

What’s The Issue? 

When compared to other high income countries, or “peer countries”, America ranks below most in terms of overall vaccination rate, but highest in COVID death rate (Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Percentage Population Vaccinated Vs. Coronavirus Deaths in High Income Countries

Data sourced from the John Hopkins Coronavirus Research Center

But why? America has some of the best medical programs in the world, so surely it could fund the mass production and distribution of coronavirus vaccines. And it does; surveys by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs during the height of the pandemic reveal that vaccine accessibility wasn’t deemed a great issue by the public (Figure 2). Moreover, 85% of the random survey group agreed that the federal government enacted timely vaccine distribution. 

Figure 2: Coronavirus Vaccine Availability Survey From January 2022

Data from the AP-NORC Center For Public Affairs [Roper #31119277] [4] 

Instead of physical barriers to coronavirus vaccines and medical interventions, the personal beliefs embedded in American society have caused abnormally high mortality rates in citizens. Many Americans don’t believe that the government should control any aspects of their lives. Consequently, vaccine mandates in many states are considered by some as an infringement on personal liberty [5]. 

From a social perspective, novel vaccines and viruses may seem threatening—especially because the coronavirus vaccine was considered a new intervention. New, uncharted areas always bring about uncertainty, which can lead to hesitancy due to unknown risks. Even if public trust in the government or in scientists is mostly consistent, communication in uncertain times needs to be tailored specifically to the receiving population [6]. 

But uncertainty isn’t everything. As seen in Figure 1, other countries who received the vaccine at the same time implemented vaccine mandates quickly, mitigating coronavirus deaths. Frankly, a consequence of American Exceptionalism is that even when confronted with new interventions, many believe the virus is distant, or that they will be unaffected by it [7]. This cognitive fallacy provides the mental basis to reject the vaccine, even when scientific evidence supports it. As a result, Americans in vulnerable populations are more susceptible to the virus, or may be infected by others. 

So, What Needs to Happen? 

For issues that impact national security and health, informed scientific communication, and extensive trust networks are essential. People are likely to listen to local community health officers to guide their actions; 82% of an AP-NORC survey population believed that communication from public health officers was adequate (Figure 3). 

Figure 3: Communication From Public Health Officers

Data from the AP-NORC Center For Public Affairs [Roper #31118262] [8]

The rapid rise in political polarization and the widening in the ideological gap between major political parties in the United States has led to a legislative deadlock, preventing the federal government from passing new national health mandates [9,10, 11]. The framing of health as a partisan issue has not only confined it as a topic of political discord, but has delayed the distribution of vital procedures and health services to communities that need them the most. And while the quick creation of an “all-encompassing” national policy appears to be an inviting solution, I argue that this would instead increase the gap not only between the government and the people, but amongst the people themselves. 

In contrast to an instant, national policy, I suggest the use of pilot programs to guide the development of health policy first at the local level, then the state level, and hopefully, the national level. Local governments know the needs of the communities they serve the best, and are the most important stakeholders in convincing community members to make pro-health choices. Programs that result in positive health outcomes can be used as guidelines for similar areas. Coupled with continuous networks of scientific communication, I hope to see a United States no longer divided along the lines of health.

The reality of any pandemic or widespread disease is that people will be impacted. Health is an incredible blessing instilled in most of us, and it’s our duty as community members to support each other in any way possible—even if it means embracing the unknown. After all, what endangers one of us can ultimately endanger all of us. In the future, I hope that we will cultivate greater trust in one another and finally see a downward trend in national mortality rates, in not just coronavirus but all diseases.

References: 

1.  Jia, K. M., Hanage, W. P., Lipsitch, M., Johnson, A. G., Amin, A. B., Ali, A. R., ... & Swerdlow,  D. L. (2023). Estimated preventable COVID-19-associated deaths due to non-vaccination in the United States. European Journal of Epidemiology, 38(11), 1125-1128.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID Data Tracker. Atlanta, GA: U.S.  Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2024, April 25. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker

3. AP-NORC Center. (2021). The February 2021 AP-NORC Center Poll, Question 34  [31118262.00046]. The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Roper Center for Public Opinion  Research.

4. AP-NORC Center. (2021). The February 2021 AP-NORC Center Poll, Question 34  [31118262.00046]. The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Question 71: “How confident are you that the coronavirus vaccines...are being distributed quickly and safely?...Extremely confident, very confident, somewhat confident, not very confident, not at all confident”

5. King, J., Ferraz, O. L. M., & Jones, A. (2022). Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and human rights. The Lancet, 399(10321), 220-222.

6. Krause, N. M., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Franke, K. (2019).  Trends—Americans’ trust in science and scientists. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(4), 817-836.

7. Salmon, C. T., Byrne, S., & Fernandez, L. (2013). Exploring unintended consequences of risk communication messages. In Effective risk communication (pp. 292-303). Routledge.

8. AP-NORC Center. (2021). The February 2021 AP-NORC Center Poll, Question 34  [31118262.00046]. The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Roper Center for Public Opinion Research

9. Keeter, Scott. Political Polarization and the American Public. 12 Mar. 2015.

10. Levitt, Larry. “The Politics of Health Care and the 2024 Election.” KFF, 28 May 2024,

11. Balog‐Way, D., McComas, K., & Besley, J. (2020). The evolving field of risk communication. Risk Analysis, 40(S1), 2240-2262.