USA's government, not people, make it great

[gumboot]

I don't think the American system is any better or any worse than any other system that has ever been implemented. All political systems function "well enough". Until one day they don't.

The USA is no different.

 

[gumboot]

Exactly. Which is what continually draws me back to the proposition in the OP.

I find it extremely difficult to argue that something special in the character of Americans is what has allowed our society to repeatedly meet challenges to our freedoms, and in fact to expand those freedoms.

That's a real tough argument to make. What would such a thing be? And why would it be absent elsewhere? How could it persist across 200 years of deaths, births, and demographic and cultural changes?

Yet when we examine the fundamentals of our system, which have endured intact all this time, we can see how the provisions it makes for a broad framework of freedoms within self-correcting limits provides a practical mechanism for restraining the tendencies toward populism and autocracy.

I hate to burst your bubble, but 200 years is nothing. Heck, the inhabitants of Easter Island (who managed to wipe themselves out through a stupid religious practise that required bucket loads of trees) managed to maintain civilisation for between 600 and 1400 years.

If the USA manages to survive 500 years it might be worth taking note of, and if it can last 1,000 it might even be considered impressive.

 

[Piggy]

I hate to burst your bubble, but 200 years is nothing. Heck, the inhabitants of Easter Island (who managed to wipe themselves out through a stupid religious practise that required bucket loads of trees) managed to maintain civilisation for between 600 and 1400 years.

If the USA manages to survive 500 years it might be worth taking note of, and if it can last 1,000 it might even be considered impressive.

Well said. (No bubbles to burst here, btw.)

As I said in the OP, I'm not one of the "we're the greatest there ever was" crowd.

But it's hard to argue that the USA is not a "great nation" in many senses of the term. Even if we collapse after only another century, we will remain much more than a footnote in history.

 

[Piggy]

I don't think the American system is any better or any worse than any other system that has ever been implemented. All political systems function "well enough". Until one day they don't.

The USA is no different.

I find that claim totally unsupportable. As if the democratic US and, say, communist Cambodia were six of one, half dozen of another.

 

[sackett]

The topic of constitutional government comes up from time to time, and I’m glad. It’s a subject we can all learn more about.

For more than forty years, I’ve been yelling at any American who’ll listen, “Maintain the Constitution! Defend the Constitution! Die for the Constitution if you must! It’s all we’ve $%^&*+in’ GOT!” After all, a country is just some dirt surrounded by an imaginary line, but a soundly-written fundamental law is one of the most precious things Man can create.

The U.S. was and is damned lucky that its constitution was written by savvy politicians – genuine statesmen, by God! – who had earlier models to study, and previous experience in running governments. Yes, as someone has pointed out, the political climate and level of sophistication of the citizenry mattered a great deal, but without a sound document to follow it all might have turned out much, much worse.

I’m glad that Gumboot isn’t impressed with 200-odd years of the U.S. constitution. That comes very well from a citizen of a country that dates from – when? The Treaty of Waitangi? That would be 1840. 168 years! I’m not impressed!

Actually, I am. Few countries anywhere have operated under the same constitution as long as the U.S., and En Zed is doing just fine. Keep it up!

 

[Elind]

Wow. The planet's a lot whiter than I thought, then.

A joke I presume - but it won't be for much longer.

 

[Elind]

I don't think the American system is any better or any worse than any other system that has ever been implemented. All political systems function "well enough". Until one day they don't.

The USA is no different.

I never studied politics, but it seems to me that most other systems have developed with fairly homogeneous populations. The American one (including culture) seems, so far, to be much better capable of working with a tradition of immigrants. Europe on the other hand is having great problems with that aspect. The truth is that the US system is still fundamentally as it was created. Most others, kingdoms aside, are not the same today as they were when the US constitution was adopted.

 

[gumboot]

But it's hard to argue that the USA is not a "great nation" in many senses of the term. Even if we collapse after only another century, we will remain much more than a footnote in history.

I consider the USA to be a fantastic nation. I can say with certainty, as a citizen of a rather small defenseless nation, that I am eternally grateful for the protection that has been provided by the USA. And the more I interact with Americans, the more I respect their nation.

I find that claim totally unsupportable. As if the democratic US and, say, communist Cambodia were six of one, half dozen of another.

Well okay let me rephrase, because you're right that's not a sensible comparison. How about if I argued that all forms of government with a more-or-less stable track record are much of the sameness, as they all work, until one day they don't?

I’m glad that Gumboot isn’t impressed with 200-odd years of the U.S. constitution. That comes very well from a citizen of a country that dates from – when? The Treaty of Waitangi? That would be 1840. 168 years! I’m not impressed!

Actually New Zealand has only existed as a sovereign nation since 1948. We're still a teeny tiny little baby. I'm certainly not impressed. On the other hand, our system of government (which is what we're actually talking about here) is much, much older than that.

Actually, I am. Few countries anywhere have operated under the same constitution as long as the U.S., and En Zed is doing just fine. Keep it up!

I don't consider maintenance of a constitution to be the be-all and end-all of good government. New Zealand doesn't even have a constitution, but we seem to be doing fine. Likewise for the United Kingdom, and many other countries.

The US obsession with the constitution prevents your society from evolving over time. The English people were experts at evolving and assimilating new ideas, and that's precisely why they are by far the most successful peoples in human history.

I never studied politics, but it seems to me that most other systems have developed with fairly homogeneous populations. The American one (including culture) seems, so far, to be much better capable of working with a tradition of immigrants. Europe on the other hand is having great problems with that aspect. The truth is that the US system is still fundamentally as it was created. Most others, kingdoms aside, are not the same today as they were when the US constitution was adopted.

I disagree. I think the British system, for example, is fundamentally the same as it was when the Constitution was adopted. Certainly there have been changes, just as the US system has changed. But the basic structure of both systems remains the same.

The question, I suppose, becomes "What constitutes a fundamental change to a political system?"

 

[Piggy]

I never studied politics, but it seems to me that most other systems have developed with fairly homogeneous populations. The American one (including culture) seems, so far, to be much better capable of working with a tradition of immigrants. Europe on the other hand is having great problems with that aspect. The truth is that the US system is still fundamentally as it was created. Most others, kingdoms aside, are not the same today as they were when the US constitution was adopted.

Also keep in mind that the US was formed from and by colonies who had widely disparate interests. Looking back, we tend to lump them all together as a bunch of ex-Brits, but the citizens and representatives of Maryland, New York, and Georgia certainly didn't see it that way.

To form a workable government required crafting a system that allowed these various states (and each did consider itself to be its own political state, not a province of some larger state) to get along.

And getting it right on the second shot is damn impressive.

 

[Piggy]

Well okay let me rephrase, because you're right that's not a sensible comparison. How about if I argued that all forms of government with a more-or-less stable track record are much of the sameness, as they all work, until one day they don't?

I still can't go w/ you b/c you've got to include stable autocracies in there. China = US? How about Pharaoic Egypt? That hung around a while.

For some reason, though, your post reminds me of the immortal words of Devo:

The ape regards his tail.
He's stuck on it.
Repeats until he fails.
Half a goon and half a god,
A man's not made of steel.

 

[gumboot]

I still can't go w/ you b/c you've got to include stable autocracies in there. China = US? How about Pharaoic Egypt? That hung around a while.

I guess it depends how your assessing it's "greatness". If you're assessing it based on current moral and ethical values, then sure, it's great, but you have to consider your own bias. If you're considering simply its effectiveness in maintaining a stable and continuous society, then there's lots of other equally effective examples, including Ancient Egypt and China.

I'd certainly choose to live in modern America over China or Ancient Egypt, but you can't deny that those particular states worked for a very long time (and China is still working).

 

[proxywar]

I think you misunderstood what I said. I said it is irrational to lump together the individuals who are Americans except for immigrants, because they have the common quality that they all chose to be here and thus must have something in common. Otherwise, the only thing that for instance you and I have in common by virtue of both being American is that we happen to live in the same tract of land and are both subject to the laws of the Federal government.

I thought you were refering to the spainish and europeans of the archaic. May bad, I didn't realize you were saying immigrants were different than americans. nor do I even understand that if they're assimilated legally. The laws of the land are our alienable rights.

As for what I was saying about us being individual organism who work together to support our superorganism. That superorganism is US. we
can dissagree on the formalities which support us but that doesn't mean
we're working against each other infact quite the opposite we are working
together for the greater good of our superorganism. i.e.(our people)


e.g. No ant is an island. the tiny beasts maintain constant contact, greeting each other as they pass on their walkways, swapping bits of regurgitated food, adopting social roles that ranged from warrior or royal handmaiden to garbage handler and file clerk. Yes, at the heart of many ant colonies is a room to which all incoming workers bring their discoveries. Seated at the chamber's center is a staff of insect bureaucrats who examine the new find, determine where it is needed in the colony, and send it off to the queen's chamber if it is a prized morsel, to the nursery if it is ordinary nourishment, to the construction crews if it would make good mortar, or to the garbage heap kept just outside the nest. Viewed from the human perspective, the activities of the individual ants seemed to matter far less than the behavior of the colony as a whole. In fact, the colony acted as if it were an independent creature, feeding itself, expelling its wastes, defending itself, and looking out for its future.


e.g. sponge observed comparsion to how human soceity is a superorganism as well. To you and me, a sponge is quite clearly a single clump of squeezable stuff. But that singularity is an illusion. Take a living sponge, run it through a sieve into a bucket, and the sponge breaks up into a muddy liquid that clouds the water into which it falls. That cloud is a mob of self-sufficient cells, wrenched from their comfortably settled life between familiar neighbors and set adrift in a chaotic world. Each of those cells has theoretically got everything it takes to handle life on its own. But something inside the newly liberated sponge cell tells it, You either live in a group or you cannot live at all. The micro-beasts search frantically for their old companions, then labor to reconstruct the social system that bound them together. Within a few hours, the water of your bucket grows clear. And sitting at the bottom is a complete, reconstituted sponge. Like the sponge cells and the slime mold amoeba, you and I are parts of a vast population whose pooled efforts move some larger creature on its path through life. Like the sponge cells, we cannot live in total separation from the human clump. We are components of a superorganism.



Where we disagree is the method.

I don't think we should have "complete controlled government collectivism." The government should exist merely to facilitate individuals being able to do whatever it is that they, as individuals, want to do and prevent things from happening to them (like being murdered or whatever) that they, as individuals, do not want done to them.

Government runned Collectivism would be the problem instead of reling on individuals whom make up the superorganism. Government runned Collectivism, That is where we're heading with this socialist health-care, socialist colleges, socialist welfare-state economy, embryonic stem cell research, leaders who replace not "bible" with "ford" but the "constitution" with the "patriot act". Not in humans we trust, but in government we trust, scarey.Government should be limited as the constitution and hamilton championed. Innovation is important without capitalism no innovation prospers. Government could one day be the ones killing us if not physcially then mentally. Utopia can never exist our genenome is uncapable and such a world would be boring and mundane liberal fascism.

I'm a person and I'm American, but I don't think this. (Well, I think that the Federal Government has abused its power in some areas, but not the same areas that you're thinking of I don't think.) Does this mean I'm not part of THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? The American people are not a superorganism. We are a collection of three hundred million people each with our own beliefs, thoughts, and ideas. To treat this collection as a single entity is the fricking definition of collectivism, and it is that which is at the heart of fascism.

No **** you don't think like this, because you're indocrinated by the government school systems and probally on serveral pharmaceuticals.
You're allowing government to play the drums on your heart completely, while neglecting to use your neural functions.

I'm not talking about abusing power that is expected because nothing is perfect. I'm talking about the government using someone like obama to
create a complete gental coup over the mob mentality inorder to create
this brave new world The Federalist Society wants.

Rather then cheaing off the kids test next to us, we are all cheating off the test of the kid who took the test last year. The only difference is that we are sitting in the same chair as that kid (metaphorically speaking). It is the person that matters, not where they happen to sit.

You misunderstood me, by coping off our neighbors we forget what makes america so great our innovation. I understand you're a humanitarian do-gooder but I'm warning you to look before you leap. Innovantion is the key to our survival, it will help people, while also Limiting the governments control over us, and keep the economy a free-market with little government intervention. One always has more choices than the government persents, we just have to be innovative and aware enough to out smart'em. Other-wise welcome to a brave new world.

 

[proxywar]

No, I think you're calling a fork a spade.

As for the "name calling", I did not intend the references to paranoia and knee-jerk reactions as epithets. I meant them literally.

Your posts do appear to be driven by both tendencies, given that you're condemning ideas that have not actually been expressed and utterly failing to provide any support for your views, instead merely asserting that you're somehow "telling it like it is".

think what you want about my mental state you've been conditioned to anway and psychology is BS. the end of history is coming, enjoy your soma

My paranoia is healthy.

 

[Piggy]

I guess it depends how your assessing it's "greatness". If you're assessing it based on current moral and ethical values, then sure, it's great, but you have to consider your own bias. If you're considering simply its effectiveness in maintaining a stable and continuous society, then there's lots of other equally effective examples, including Ancient Egypt and China.

I'd certainly choose to live in modern America over China or Ancient Egypt, but you can't deny that those particular states worked for a very long time (and China is still working).

The OP is not concerned with the question of whether USA is the only great nation, or the greatest nation, or even with the question of what makes nations great.

The OP is concerned with the question of the validity of a currently popular meme: That the US's government isn't responsible for those attributes which are commonly held to make USA a "great nation", but that rather the character of its people is responsible.

It is that political platitude, that contemporary meme, which I find unsupportable.

 

[Piggy]

think what you want about my mental state you've been conditioned to anway and psychology is BS. the end of history is coming, enjoy your soma

My paranoia is healthy.

Hey, man, when the rapture comes, can I have your car?

 

[gumboot]

The OP is not concerned with the question of whether USA is the only great nation, or the greatest nation, or even with the question of what makes nations great.

The OP is concerned with the question of the validity of a currently popular meme: That the US's government isn't responsible for those attributes which are commonly held to make USA a "great nation", but that rather the character of its people is responsible.

Except your argument was that the character of its people was really no different to any other nation so therefore it was the government (which is different) that makes it a great nation. Inherent in your argument is the claim that the USA is greater than other nations. Otherwise whether its people and government are different to any other nation or not is irrelevant.

I suppose my argument is that the human race are what are great, and that due to our greatness we have repeatedly, in a variety of forms, been able to maintain "great" societies. The USA is just one more example in a long and unfinished list.

Like any other great society, the USA has its flaws and its stunning achievements. And like any other great society, the USA is a product of great people.

 

[Piggy]

Except your argument was that the character of its people was really no different to any other nation so therefore it was the government (which is different) that makes it a great nation. Inherent in your argument is the claim that the USA is greater than other nations.

This is an error in reasoning, if you conclude -- as you do -- that this implies a claim that USA is the greatest nation.

Suppose my original idea in the OP were correct. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it were true that the folks in USA were pretty much the same as folks all over the world, but that governments around the world differed significantly.

It could still be true that America's government makes it a great nation, but that other forms of government elsewhere made even greater nations.

 

[Piggy]

I suppose my argument is that the human race are what are great, and that due to our greatness we have repeatedly, in a variety of forms, been able to maintain "great" societies.

If it were true that the human race is great -- an argument which my experience cannot support -- then you are left with nothing to explain why some nations achieve greatness and others remain squalid or oppressive.

 

[gumboot]

This is an error in reasoning, if you conclude -- as you do -- that this implies a claim that USA is the greatest nation.

Suppose my original idea in the OP were correct. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it were true that the folks in USA were pretty much the same as folks all over the world, but that governments around the world differed significantly.

It could still be true that America's government makes it a great nation, but that other forms of government elsewhere made even greater nations.

That's very true. Good point.

 

[gumboot]

If it were true that the human race is great -- an argument which my experience cannot support -- then you are left with nothing to explain why some nations achieve greatness and others remain squalid or oppressive.

I would argue that the greatness of the human race is the reason for its achievements (such as the creation of great political systems that produce great nations) but that the greatness of the human race is not evenly distributed. Some people are greater than others. The USA had the fortune of having a good collection of great people come together in one place with a common purpose. In my experience that is the most typical reason for the creation of anything great.

Of course great things can easily be destroyed by people who do not appreciate or value their greatness. Some recognition must be given for the fact that the American people value and realise the greatness of their political system, and thus seek to maintain it.

So in conclusion...

The United States is a great nation because great people created a great system, and because regular Americans (some of whom are great) recognise its greatness and work to maintain it.

Does that mean we all win?