Quote:
Originally Posted by taxwonk
The term, as it is used by many, myself included, is a reference to the fact that we alone live in a democratically-run nation, with a government that is answerable to the people. We are the only nation that has had the same government for over 200 years, a feat made even more impressive by the fact that we are one of the youngest nations.
The biggest problem with the phrase is that people too often use it to mean that we as people are better. That's not true, The phrase is meaningful, and largely correct, when it is used to mean that our system, designed by us, based upon a common set of values and principles is better than any other.
I most definitely do not think it makes us better, though, if we are willing to throw those liberties away in order to provide the illusion of security. I also don't believe that we are better than any place else if we don't extend those same protections universally. Who fucking cares if nobody else does? That would be truly exceptional.
|
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.
