Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think you mean "the arguably same government run under the same generally democratic constitution for 200 years other than a brief period when half the country broke apart and set up a separate confederacy", right? Throw enough adjectives in there and we'll have something truly unique eventually.
We have a unique history in the rise of Democracy, it is true, but so does France, the first country to adopt universal male suffrage, several decades before we got to universal white male suffrage. Lots of other countries also have made unique contributions to the growth of democracy, from Greece to England to little old Iceland with their Althing going back over a millennium. Does a written constitution beat universal suffrage? Is it more special than abolishing slavery?
Europe, with many countries crammed into a small space, has never been a place where it was easy to have countries that didn't have major shifts in government resulting from war, but if you don't like the Brits with their monarchy sitting on top of the parliament, the Swiss arguably have a government that has had strong democratic elements from the beginning and has been continuous for about 700 years, but for a brief invasion (the French) and a brief civil war (just like us!). Our 200 years is a pittance there. Of course, we have a constitution, while they just have a bunch of charters.
Our constitution does have a unique role in the development of constitutional government, too, but, of course, constitutional government has not worked out more often than it has, and it may be that our relative isolation from hostile states has more to do with our constitution's survival than anything else. Many a Brit would argue that an unwritten constitution interpreted by a continuously functioning parliament is a preferable means to a long and stable democratic government.
I don't have anything against us considering our history exceptional - it is - but I have trouble with us thinking that our government is somehow the end-game for all, that is, that our system is prescriptive in the annals of democracy. And I have trouble with us not seeing and being open to all the contributions from other countries, the way our founders were.
|
I didn't claim we are the be-all and end-all. I said that we have a unique and exceptional history. Our democracy arose after we expelled a foreign power and was constructed from the beginning as a government of laws, not men. We aren't perfect. Who is? But we are like Australia in terms of political evolution. Our distance allowed us to build our institutions, for better or worse, without interference.
But, if you're right, and we're like everybody else....
Then we can withdraw from all those foreign pissing matches where our direct interests are not at stake. Fuck 'em. After all, we're no better than they are. Why should we make sacrifices for people thousands of miles away?
