USA's government, not people, make it great

[Piggy]

The other night, I heard Mitt Romney reiterate that old saw:

It's not the government that makes our country great, it's the people who make it great. The American people are our strength.

I say, hogwash.

Now, I'm not one of those "America is the greatest nation ever" kind of people. There's a lot to criticize, don't get me wrong.

But that said, there's a lot to love about it, too. And one cannot deny that it's a great nation in many senses of the word.

But it's not the people that make it so.

I don't see that we are any more kind, hard-working, intelligent, or creative than people elsewhere.

The strength of this nation comes from the form of government we enjoy -- despite its flaws and frequent excesses.

Sure, we're only a couple hundred years old, but we have the longest-lived extant constitution on the planet, if I'm not mistaken. And we've proven remarkably resilient and self-correcting through turmoil, and have even managed to correct some of our most eggregious errors, such as slavery, without destroying ourselves.

Hokey as it sounds, it's those fundamentals we studied in civics class that are our strength -- Constitutional government, elections, checks and balances, due process, etc.

Lately, you hear a lot of talk about government per se being the problem. Today's deluded anarchists are not leftist laborers, but capitalist free-marketeers, who've bought into the myth that government is inherently bad.

I say they're wrong, and Mitt's wrong.

The American people... pretty much like folks everywhere else.

The American government... with all its problems, a damn good arrangement.

 

[JoeEllison]

Well, it used to be, before the Bush administration took a crap on the Constitution. Now, it is in pretty serious jeopardy.

 

[Piggy]

Well, it used to be, before the Bush administration took a crap on the Constitution. Now, it is in pretty serious jeopardy.

Agreed. I keep hoping to hear more about that as the election cycle grinds on.

If I could ask the candidates one question, it would be, "Do you pledge to roll back the excessive and unconstitutional powers which Bush has usurped from the other branches?"

 

[skeptical]

The American people... pretty much like folks everywhere else.

The American government... with all its problems, a damn good arrangement.

I tend to agree with this, the one exception being that many Americans have a deep seated desire for personal liberty, despite their willingness to let it slip away for short periods of time.

But other than that, yes, I think your right. We stand on the shoulders of political giants, and reap the rewards of a system that was designed to the greatest extent possible to function well even when run by idiots.

A good question is how long a representative system can function when those that it represents are uneducated, apathetic, hyper commercialized, religiously overzealous morons. (man, I am in such a mood today)

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

The strength of this nation comes from the form of government we enjoy -- despite its flaws and frequent excesses.

Sure, we're only a couple hundred years old, but we have the longest-lived extant constitution on the planet, if I'm not mistaken. And we've proven remarkably resilient and self-correcting through turmoil, and have even managed to correct some of our most eggregious errors, such as slavery, without destroying ourselves.

Hokey as it sounds, it's those fundamentals we studied in civics class that are our strength -- Constitutional government, elections, checks and balances, due process, etc.

Lately, you hear a lot of talk about government per se being the problem. Today's deluded anarchists are not leftist laborers, but capitalist free-marketeers, who've bought into the myth that government is inherently bad.

I say they're wrong, and Mitt's wrong.

The American people... pretty much like folks everywhere else.

The American government... with all its problems, a damn good arrangement.

This is an interesting point. I'd have to ponder it for quite a while to figure out if I agree with everything you said, but it is certainly true in many respects. I would caution, however, between talking about "the government" and "the system of government," just for clarity purposes. The system of government is what is the major strength. And you're right on that point. In fact, the system was set up with a mind specifically towards mitigating the flaws inherent in... people.

 

[JoeEllison]

Agreed. I keep hoping to hear more about that as the election cycle grinds on.

If I could ask the candidates one question, it would be, "Do you pledge to roll back the excessive and unconstitutional powers which Bush has usurped from the other branches?"

I don't understand why we don't hear ANYTHING about it from 95% of the politicians and media. The Bush administration has claimed that the presidency is completely above the law, and no one seems all that concerned... probably BECAUSE OF the media, and their idiot profit-driven non-journalism. They would rather talk about anything besides a real issue, for fear of losing a single viewer. I mean, really, they treat the American people like a bunch of easily distracted non-thinkers... non-think... Britney did what?!?!

I...ummm... I gotta go!

 

[WildCat]

If I could ask the candidates one question, it would be, "Do you pledge to roll back the excessive and unconstitutional powers which Bush has usurped from the other branches?"

What powers did Bush usurp from other branches?

 

[Piggy]

I would caution, however, between talking about "the government" and "the system of government," just for clarity purposes.

Good point.

And indeed, the philosophy I'm criticizing in a subpoint of the OP is the notion that the system, not the persons in office, is "the problem".

For the free-market anarchists, that system is "in the way" of a better arbiter of human affairs, the free market.

For the Chrisian theocrats, it's in the way of the only correct arbiter of human affairs, the Will of God.

That's why those philosophies are, to my mind, dangerous, because they seek not just to place their representatives into office, but -- once they're there -- to replace the current system with something very different.

That's a sidetrack to the main idea of the OP. But the notion that the system itself is wrong and the people are the true strength of the nation is one of the ideas that helps fuel those movements, as well as other movements that are not so indisious.

 

[Piggy]

What powers did Bush usurp from other branches?

I'm not going to get into that b/c it would derail the thread.

If anyone wants to assert that Bush has not, in fact, done anything of the sort, I won't argue. Because that particular point is not strictly relevant to the OP.

For the purposes of this thread, consider it merely my opinion.

 

[Kerberos]

This is an interesting point. I'd have to ponder it for quite a while to figure out if I agree with everything you said, but it is certainly true in many respects. I would caution, however, between talking about "the government" and "the system of government," just for clarity purposes. The system of government is what is the major strength. And you're right on that point. In fact, the system was set up with a mind specifically towards mitigating the flaws inherent in... people.

That is a valid point, but I think that another important consideration is political culture. Something that is at least as important as political structures, and political culture cannot be seperated from the population. IMO the question of whether is is the people or the governement that makes the US, or any nation, great cannot be answered meaningfully, because you can't really seperate the two.

 

[Piggy]

That is a valid point, but I think that another important consideration is political culture. Something that is at least as important as political structures, and political culture cannot be seperated from the population. IMO the question of whether is is the people or the governement that makes the US, or any nation, great cannot be asnwered meaningfully, because you can't really seperate the two.

I disagree, because I think one of the brilliant aspects of the founders' vision was indeed to separate "the man from the office" and to put some brakes on populism.

That doesn't always happen (just look at my state's current Speaker, for instance) but the system tends to keep the counter-tendency in check.

And it's that system which, in my opinion, is responsible for the endurance of this nation and its ability, over 2 centuries, to purge itself of some of its worst institutions while not destroying itself in the process, although it has come close.

If the political culture turns, and this separation of office and office-holder is chucked out the window, or populism is allowed to hold sway, then we're really in trouble.

 

[technoextreme]

Well, it used to be, before the Bush administration took a crap on the Constitution. Now, it is in pretty serious jeopardy.

Ehhhh.... It's cyclic though Bush by far hasn't done enough to make him the worst president ever. I would say that honor goes to Hoover.

 

[Ladewig]

What powers did Bush usurp from other branches?

The executive branch used get the approval of someone in the judicial branch before executing a wire-tap warrant. The people asking for a warrant would have to show probable cause, as per the Constitution. Because the information used in applying for these warrants sometimes came from highly classified operations, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978 to allow people in the executive branch to apply for warrants in cases where the information, while still reliable, came from sensitive sources, such as undercover CIA agents.

The Bush administration has sometimes executed wiretaps without warrants approved by the judiciary.

 

[Kerberos]

I disagree, because I think one of the brilliant aspects of the founders' vision was indeed to separate "the man from the office" and to put some brakes on populism.

That doesn't always happen (just look at my state's current Speaker, for instance) but the system tends to keep the counter-tendency in check.

And it's that system which, in my opinion, is responsible for the endurance of this nation and its ability, over 2 centuries, to purge itself of some of its worst institutions while not destroying itself in the process, although it has come close.

If the political culture turns, and this separation of office and office-holder is chucked out the window, or populism is allowed to hold sway, then we're really in trouble.

The seperation between office holder and office never did exist. If you could actually do that they'd just have instituted the American Constitution in Iraq an declared mission accomplished, and it would have been true. Unfortunatly the real world is a great deal more complicated than that.

As for the political culture turning, political cultures can be extremely robust. If you really though that the institutions alone was what mattered, then how do you account for succesfull democracies sich as Denmark or the UK that don't have similar institutional safeguards as the US? I'm not denying that institutions matter, just that they're all that matters.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Actually, one of the great properties of America is that it takes people from other countries and governmental systems and allows them their measure of influence.

It's easy to forget how crucial immigration has always been to America's success. So in a sense I guess I'm agreeing with Romney -- the people are a large part of our greatness... especially those who came from beyond our shores.

Er... so maybe I'm not agreeing with Romney.

 

[Thorn]

Ayn Rand is turning in her grave.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Ayn Rand is turning in her grave.

That is kind of her, it gives the worms a shot at an undevoured clump of rotting, moldy flesh.

Piggy, the anarchists you posit are plutocrats, or oligarchs, depending upon how you want to apply those two terms. They need structure, but their aim is to dictate the structure on their terms, which an anarchist will not, by principle.

FWIW, enjoyed your OP.

Mitt, Mitt
Went and quit

My guess: His wife looked him in the eye and pointed out to him that he wasn't spending other peoples' money, but family money, on a failing campaign. I am guessing she wants to still be a woman in a wealthy family when the election cycle is over, rather than having slid down the rung of relative wealth along the way. Guessing that when she pointed that out, he woke up and realized she was right, and then acted accordingly.

Just a guess.

DR

 

[rissablue]

The American people... pretty much like folks everywhere else.

The American government... with all its problems, a damn good arrangement.

I agree with you on this. It's nice to say the American people are what make the nation great. It boosts morale and makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside. However, I think now it's actually being raised with the ideals of The Great Nation that allows for the people to be so great. I'm pretty sure that immigrants risk life and limb to be here because of our system more than the people.

 

[rjwould]

You have to consider the source too, Piggy..
This is the same Mitt Romney who said he wanted to unite the republican party but has still not endorsed McCain..

This guy was the most dangerous person in the race on either side...We all should be grateful he is out of it....I only hope we never hear from him again.

And, I agree with the premise of your op too..

 

[Beerina]

The People, in crafting a constition that creates this wonderful government, gave it limited powers, and none others, reserving all freedoms to themselves.

This allows the country to be great because the people, living their lives and pursuing their goals freely, make it great. So the premise of this thread is right and wrong at the same time.