IT IS exceptionalism week in the world of American think-tanks. No fewer than three of them—the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, and the Manhattan Institute in New York City—have arranged discussions of a fat new book on the subject, “Understanding America: The Anatomy of an Exceptional Nation”, edited by Peter Schuck and James Q. Wilson. But, as Hegel feared, do the thinkers understand a concept just as it stops being relevant? Does the owl of Minerva really fly only at dusk?

All countries are exceptional. But America likes to think of itself as exceptionally exceptional, different from other advanced industrial countries not just in its social arrangements but also in its underlying values. America has a smaller state than other comparable countries and a more unequal distribution of wealth. It is also more strongly committed to what Margaret Thatcher once called “Victorian values”—individualism, voluntarism, patriotism.

American exceptionalism has been increasing ever since the rise of the modern conservative movement from the late 1960s onwards. The current Bush administration, with its commitment to conservative values at home and assertiveness abroad, is the most exceptional administration in recent years. But the book raises a new question: is a new cycle, dominated by a rejection of conservatism and a convergence with West European norms, about to dawn?

There is plenty of compelling evidence. The Bush administration has whipped up a mighty opposition. The Democrats are poised to increase their majorities on Capitol Hill and have a better-than-even chance of taking the White House. George Bush has the highest disapproval rating of any president in the 70-year history of the Gallup poll. Nearly three-quarters of Americans think the country is heading in the wrong direction. The conservative movement is suffering a collective mental breakdown.

Americans strongly favour the introduction of universal health care. They are also desperate to improve their global image. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have promised to introduce the former. All three candidates have promised to improve the latter. The next administration will undoubtedly see significant moves, such as the closing of Guantánamo Bay or the adoption of stronger environmental regulations, that will be intended to make America less of an outlier.

But look at the 2008 election—the one that is supposed to be changing the direction of the country—and American exceptionalism seems to be as strong as ever. Where else do primary elections go on for well over a year? Where else do candidates raise tens of millions of dollars a month from their supporters? And where else do the party rank-and-file (as well as some non-party people) get a chance to choose the candidate for the top job? Gordon Brown became Britain's prime minister without a single ordinary Briton casting a vote. John McCain won his party's nomination despite the opposition of a large chunk of his party. Mr Obama is leading an uprising against his party's old establishment.

The various campaigns have often invoked American exceptionalism, especially the strength of its religious feeling. Mrs Clinton has stressed her credentials as a cradle Methodist who once thought of becoming a minister. Even before the Jeremiah Wright affair, Mr Obama spoke at length about how he found purpose in life when he discovered God. The only odd thing about this election is the fact that the Democratic candidates both seem more comfortable with God-talk than Mr McCain.

All three candidates preach a peculiarly American style of patriotism. Mr McCain invokes his military service in Vietnam, when he learnt to depend on something greater than himself. Mr Obama argues that there is not a red America or a blue America but one America united by common values. All three candidates wax lyrical about the American dream. And by European standards all three candidates are strikingly willing to sanction the use of force. Mr McCain sings “Bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of “Barbara Ann”. Mr Obama talks about sanctioning a search-and-destroy mission in Pakistan without the permission of that country's government. Mrs Clinton said this week that, as president, she would have no qualms about “totally obliterating” Iran if it used nuclear weapons against Israel.

More liberal is not less American

A Democratic hat-trick in November would certainly produce a more liberal America, with more government involvement in providing health care and protecting the environment. But it will be a liberal America of an exceptionally American kind, not a facsimile of Europe. Both candidates have rejected the “single-payer” health-care model popular in Canada and Europe. Instead they advocate a very American solution—allowing people who are happy with their private health coverage to keep what they have but then using a mixture of mandates and subsidies to extend coverage. And even modest changes will be endlessly diluted. The world may be transfixed by the presidential campaign. But the president's powers, as the book stresses, are remarkably limited, qualified not just by Congress and the courts but also by the states and the localities.

The big change coming is not the end of American exceptionalism but the end of American triumphalism. Winning the cold war left many Americans intoxicated with power. Even Bill Clinton boasted about America as the “indispensable nation”—a country that stood taller and saw farther than its rivals. The mood is very different today. The main challenge facing the next president will not be to blunt American exceptionalism, but to make sure that American triumphalism is not replaced by a grumpy and irresponsible isolationism.