I don't know if I follow his point. If American Exceptionalism was orignally cast by Stalin as a defect for why the US embraced Capitalism and its inequities over Socialism, why would it be strange for US politicians, particularly the GOP, to use it? In that light, the current use of the term makes sense to me. They could even attribute it to Stalin, since what he disliked was what we believe made us successful (whether true or not). The GOP rails against the security of the State programs, and the Bush and Obama administrations protected private lenders at the State's expense. In the recession, nationalism of failing industries was never an option for either party (regardless of how some painted the auto bailouts, divesture was always the only endpoint). Getting the private market back on it's feet was seen as the only way for the US to save itself. -That was American Exceptionalism in action, IMHO.
I remember in 2008, talking to a visiting professor from Norway. He was convinced that the US would have no choice but to nationalize some banks. I told him it would never happen, and he thought it was absurd how confident I was about it. But that is the American Exceptionalism that Stalin disliked. I bought stocks in practically insolvent banks at that time because of that exceptionalism.Still, the term has also added more recent connotations for foreign policy, which propped up the Bush Doctrine, and even appear in Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech. IMO this article uses them interchangeably. But, Stalin wasn't talking about that kind of exceptionalism. However, I think it's a facet of American Exceptionalism that the GOP have most happily adopted.