American Exceptionalism

[Cleon]

They still pay taxes, like sales tax.

Yes, but sales taxes are at the local and state levels. US was speaking specifically of federal taxes.

 

[Cleon]

Incidentally, if you want to look at taxation without representation in the USA, you need look no farther than Washington, DC.

For furriners: Constitutionally, the District of Columbia is not part of any State, and has no official representation in either house of Congress--even though Congress has sole jurisdiction over the District. If you live in DC, your only voting power is for a local city government whose decisions may be overturned by a legislature you have no vote in.

 

[BaaBaa]

This one is better (or more horrible, if you catch my drift).

LOlz at the book the Godless Perfesser is holding....

 

[3point14]

They didn't copy only from the European Enlightenment, but also from the Iroquois constitution. A collection of states acting as a nation isn't European, it's Native American.

Have you been reading cracked?

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Yes actually, I was getting up to go to bed a couple days ago when Boo posted an interesting looking link on facebook. I didn't realize it was cracked until after I'd clicked, I spent the next seven hours there and only got a few hours of sleep before work.

 

[Ziggurat]

Pretty bizarre considering (beyond that this system was implemented millenia ago) that less than 30% of the people had any say in voting for their leaders despite being affected by laws.

Don't confuse democracy with limited government. The two are not the same. Yes, democracy was not a new concept, but limited government was. And even without full enfranchisement (which didn't exist previously anywhere else either), it was still a major step forward. You seem to want to focus on negatives (which were universal at the time) while ignoring the remarkable positive and unique step that was taken.

 

[jj]

Americans (speaking as one who is quite disgusted) appear to be exceptionally superstitious, exceptionally easy to panic, and exceptionally willing to go to war for no good reason.

 

[AlBell]

Americans (speaking as one who is quite disgusted) appear to be exceptionally superstitious, exceptionally easy to panic, and exceptionally willing to go to war for no good reason.

Looking solely at in-the-beltway types, I agree with that. Population as a whole I think not.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

My take is from decades living abroad as an ex-pat.

Post-WWII, the US did a great deal to put into place a stable international playing field, via international law and in the form of multilateral institutions, all done with broad bi-partisan support.

In spite of the world's misgivings about Vietnam (some right, some wrong), over these intervening years I was always able to find a way to, at minimum, provide the most virulent anti-Americans with some persuasive data and counter-argument.

Positive views of the US peaked during the Clinton presidency, coinciding with and perhaps owing to the role the US then played as a reluctant yet reliable partner for peace (Bosnia, for example). In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, much of the world viewed the US with both sympathy and admiration. US moral capital reached its maximum.

But it seems that also by 2001 the end of the Cold War had finally worked its perverse magic. No longer faced with retaliatory nuclear annihilation, the dampeners of extremist positions were off, and the loonies on the right were allowed sway under a young administration. Much of the fringe thinking that, in part, was infused into the US intelligence community after absorbing Japanese and German operatives and methods decades before, came to the fore.

Knowledgeable military and civilian intelligence expertise regarding the dangers of Pakistan and its support for terrorism (very well known and documented at the time) was ignored, so instead of a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan and a tight grip around Pakistan and its nukes, we got the transparent oil grab in Iraq. This also turned around the already flagging opinion poll numbers for the new administration in a classic example of engaging in war for domestic political advantage.

The US may well have had a unique and beneficial leadership role on the world stage in the second half of the last century, but all of its political and moral capital was squandered in the space of a few years. The nail in the coffin was when the US re-elected an administration (2004) now known for providing false evidence to the UN to secure support for war, and for supporting torture. For the first time, non-American faith in the US electorate itself was shaken to the core, even among its closest friends.

The myth of exceptionalism continues to invite many to gaze into a rose colored mirror. Reminds me of Argentina, whose decline from the 4th largest GDP in the world (early 20th century) to far below that now, seems to have gone unnoticed among the population, who from time to time will throw around their imagined weight, only to be rudely awakened into a haze of cognitive dissonance.

 

[lomiller]

Yes, democracy was not a new concept, but limited government was.

What do you mean by limited government?

If you mean that government was restricted in it's authority, then no it was not a new idea in fact that was the whole point of the Magna Carta.

If you mean limited in scope than once again it was not an new idea in fact it was the norm. All European governments of the time were small in size and scope. (With the consequence that the rich could make whatever rules they wanted in many case)

 

[Ziggurat]

What do you mean by limited government?

If you mean that government was restricted in it's authority, then no it was not a new idea in fact that was the whole point of the Magna Carta.

That's not really true. The Magna Carta introduced a limited monarchy, which was a step in the right direction. But those limits only really protected lesser nobles against the monarch. It was, in effect, a division of power within government, and not really a limitation of government in toto.

 

[Dragoonster]

That's not really true. The Magna Carta introduced a limited monarchy, which was a step in the right direction. But those limits only really protected lesser nobles against the monarch. It was, in effect, a division of power within government, and not really a limitation of government in toto.

What non-within-government limitations unique to the US are you referring to? The Greeks and Franks and such had divisions of power, at least in saying.

And of course, there's a question of the current real limits on the US' Executive power too in practice, where the Judiciary rubber-stamps clearly (IMO) unconstitional laws, and the Legislature clearly makes (IMO) unconstitutional laws.

And the US jails whistleblowers of torture and financial abusers, and at the same time immunizes lawbreakers and torturers and illegal financial practicioners to the tune of not charging a single one. Doesn't seem like the exceptionalist three-branch system is actually doing its exceptoinal job.

Whatever American dream novelties of goverment 250 years ago and that may carry to today--if they no longer exist today, they're useless and America is not exceptional as a forward-thinking, or organized and powers-checking government.

 

[Ziggurat]

What non-within-government limitations unique to the US are you referring to? The Greeks and Franks and such had divisions of power, at least in saying.

Free speech, for example. In fact, that remains mostly unmatched even among liberal democracies today.

And the US jails whistleblowers of torture and financial abusers

Wrong forum.

 

[lomiller]

That's not really true. The Magna Carta introduced a limited monarchy, which was a step in the right direction. But those limits only really protected lesser nobles against the monarch. It was, in effect, a division of power within government, and not really a limitation of government in toto.

Yes the Magna Carta limited the power of the Crown that is exactly analogous to limiting the power of the President.

Once again all the US did was copy the was copy the English system
Crown - President
Upper house - Senate
House of Commons - House of Representatives

In fact the President had more power than his equivalent head of state in the English system. Likewise the limitations on what things government can do simply copied what already existed in England.

BTW in the modern the nobility are simply the equivalent of today's "rich" the "0.1%" if you will. I doubt we have to look hard to find you opposing limitations on the power of this group wields...

 

[lomiller]

Free speech, for example. In fact, that remains mostly unmatched even among liberal democracies today.

An example of a right already enjoyed by Englishmen in 1776.

 

[Ziggurat]

BTW in the modern the nobility are simply the equivalent of today's "rich" the "0.1%" if you will. I doubt we have to look hard to find you opposing limitations on the power of this group wields...

What power? They have no more legal power or privilege than I have. That isn't the case with nobility, who were privileged by law. The fact that you even think the analogy will fly demonstrates how shallow your thinking on the subject is.

An example of a right already enjoyed by Englishmen in 1776.

Not so. In fact, the closest equivalent to the 1st amendment at the time only granted freedom of speech within Parliament. Even today, an Englishman's speech is less protected than an American's.

 

[lomiller]

What power? They have no more legal power or privilege than I have. That isn't the case with nobility, who were privileged by law. .

Laws they could make themselves because of their wealth. They didn’t start off as anything more than the richest landowners in the area, the titles and laws came from that wealth, not the other way around.

Not so.

Yes so. The US constitution guarantees free speech because it’s framers considered one of their rights as Englishmen. It was not new or original it was something they already had and wanted to keep.

 

[MG1962]

Free speech, for example. In fact, that remains mostly unmatched even among liberal democracies today.

Yes because most Liberal democracies expect you take responsibility for what you say - not just shoot your mouth off and then hide behind the shadows of the founding fathers robes

 

[Damien Evans]

They didn't copy only from the European Enlightenment, but also from the Iroquois constitution. A collection of states acting as a nation isn't European, it's Native American.

You've never heard of Germany then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_Germany

Sure the current states were reconstituted in 1949 but they all existed with slightly different borders and names long, long before that.

 

[Ziggurat]

Laws they could make themselves because of their wealth. They didn’t start off as anything more than the richest landowners in the area, the titles and laws came from that wealth, not the other way around.

Irrelevant. The law privileged them. The law does not, and cannot, privilege the rich in the US.

Yes so. The US constitution guarantees free speech because it’s framers considered one of their rights as Englishmen. It was not new or original it was something they already had and wanted to keep.

I've already proven you wrong. Asserting the contrary won't change that.