Unfortunately, there is a difference between having exceptions to a "standard" and having the "standard" BE the exception.
I have found several little things I find interesting, and wish to share.
The first would be that when Congress authorized the first six frigates of the US Navy, they directed that they be named after ideas found in the new US Constitution. So, we got: Constitution, President, Congress, United States, Constellation, and "Frigate D."
Frigate D's construction was halted upon a peace treaty with Algiers, and the partially completed hull was laid up for 2 years before construction was resumed. At that point, the first Secretary of the US Navy, a gent named Benjamin Stoddert, directed that a sloop named Chesapeake, which was in active service, be given another name so he could name "Frigate D" Chesapeake. Thus, the very first Secretary of the US Navy violated the naming convention of the very first six US frigates. Secretaries of the Navy who followed have done so ever since, as it has suited them.
Another thing I discovered is this:
The report states that
the decision of the [Navy's 1969] Riera Panel [on Navy ship names] to remove members of Congress from the destroyer naming convention resulted in a now four-decade old, bipartisanpractice of honoring members of Congress with long records of support to the US military with ships names selected and spread across a variety of ship types and classes. Orthodox Traditionalists decry this development as an unwarranted intrusion of "politics" in Navy ship naming practice. But this is a selective interpretation of the historical record. Secretaries of the Navy have been naming ships for members of Congress for nearly a century in order to honor those extraordinary elected leaders who have helped to make the Navy-Marine Corps Team the most powerful naval force in history."
The above is a footnote from a rather lengthy report to Congress on ship naming issues from the Congressional Research Service, which has submitted these reports almost annually since 2006. (In glancing them over, they seem to pretty much be simple repeats of each other, except in years--like 2012--when something unusual happens.) Here is the 2019 report: https://news.usni.org/2019/07/24/report-to-congress-on-u-s-navy-ship-names-2
Here is all of them: https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS22478.html
Finally, in 2011, Congress grew upset at names then-Secretary of the Navy Mabus was selecting, and directed that the Navy submit a report to Congress on Navy ship naming policies. Four naval historians wrote the report, and submitted it in 2012. They found Mabus was not violating tradition with his naming policies. (Indeed, since practically every SecNav from the very first one on has given out names in exception to the established conventions of the times, the report pointed out Mabus was actually "following tradition"...a tradition of SecNavs creating exceptions.)
All of this now "said," I also read in my travels that the only time politics did not get into ship naming was during WWII, because the nation needed lots of ships quickly. There was no time to bicker, and there were so many names needed that nearly everyone got pleased by some name or another which they wanted some ship to have. A desire has been repeatedly expressed here that the Navy return to the naming convention in effect in WWII. Since that seems to have been the only time in our history when naming was not overly caught up in politics, I find myself agreeing with this sentiment. "It is normal" (even traditional) for politics to be part of ship naming, but by the same token, it has been demonstrated at lead once historically that it does not have to be.
According to USNI News, Ford Class Carrier to be named USS DORIS MILLER, Pearl Harbor Hero.