Hm.
Of course, none of them were of the “bottom” caste. All were WASP after a fashion. ‘Sam’ Grant got into West Point. They might not have been hot stuff in Britain, but they were actually moderately privileged by American standards. So the USA was a land of opportunity for some, sure.
Oh, man, Hyde, i think you just called Saudi Arabia irrelevant! Now you annoyed them, they’re going to keep glutting the petroleum market and do even more damage to the rest of OPEC!
They were all WASPs, yes. But that was an ethnic/cultural division, not a strict class one.
No one is saying blacks had that level of social mobility in 19th century America–but they didn’t in 19th century Britain either. The writers and thinkers of the 19th century in the West were all white men (largely because they were the ruling ethnic/gender group and wouldn’t even let anyone else have a seat at the table, with female or minority writers usually been treated as “quaint.”)
One would have to be a fool to not realize that the entire world was a pretty bad place to be a woman or person of color in the 19th century.
They’re actually not higher than us in GDP/capita.
The countries that are:
Qatar, Luxembourg, Singapore, Kuwait, Brunei, United Arab Emirates, Norway, Switzerland (by the World Bank’s reckoning)
or
Qatar, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Singapore, Bermuda, Brunei, Monaco, Kuwait, Norway, United Arab Emirates, Australia, San Marino, Switzerland by the CIA World Fact Book numbers.
I’m not too interested in exploring the reasons for the different estimates, but none that I found list SA as higher than the United States. If it did, it’d by far be the largest such country, and SA is listed pretty close to us. But the reason it isn’t higher is precisely because petro-states can either by small and super rich or big and less rich, it’s hard to be both big and rich when your only economy is oil.
And don’t forget the role that barbed wire played. That’s what really won the West in the late 19th century, not gunfighters.
240 years. Nada.
Dozens.
say it a few more times. :rolleyes:
Barbecue. Jazz. Rock n’ roll. Modern plumbing.
Exceptional.
'Cause I gonna make you see
There’s nobody else here
No one like me
I’m special so special
or in Europe at all; or the continent the Europeans exploited and plundered. Ditto the Caliphate in parts of Africa and Asia, and so on.
Well said!
The first three, yeah. Ancient Rome had the latter.
The separation of power into 3 separate but (theoretically) equal branches was a radical experiment that is today the fundamental philosophy of every democratic nation on this planet.
In other words, the exceptional stupidity lies in your bombastically ignorant comment.
Nicked off Athens, actually. Boule, Ekklesia, and the three archons.
Also Montesquieu.
Speaking of Rome, how’d they go into decline?
Visigothic exceptionalism.
Not all actually. Parliamentary systems don’t truly have three separate and equal branches, they usually have one or two. The classical Westminster system it was one, with the executive being the leader of the legislature, and the judiciary being also controlled by the legislature (that’s a little different in Britain now with their newish Supreme Court, but previously their highest court was actually functionally a part of the House of Lords, so was part of Parliament.)
The reality is no two countries have identical political systems. But if we’re to generalize the American system maps pretty closely to what’s called the “Presidential system.” Presidential systems generally have a separate executive and legislature, with the executive elected separately from the legislature (often by direct vote, or in cases like the United States by a special electoral body.) These countries often also have an independent judicial branch.
Presidential systems are seen in almost the entirety of North America and South America (Canada being the largest exception.) They’re seen in large swathes of Africa and parts of Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia being large examples.) Many Presidential system countries, like for example Brazil’s and South Korea’s, are very, very similar to the United States (and in fact were openly influenced by it and studied our constitution when creating theirs.) South Korea if you note has a separately elected President, who is commander in chief of their armed forces, and can veto legislation, which can be overridden by a 2/3rds vote of the legislature. South Korea also has a separate judicial branch with a constitutional court. Brazil has most of these features as well.
In the 100-125 years or so after the American constitution was written, it was almost always at least consulted when any country around the world was considering a new constitution. Its influence is seen all over the world. The most significant influence is that it exists at all. The idea that a singular document would serve as the framework for the entire government, and that all laws and government actions would have to follow rules set in that framework, is essentially an American invention.
We didn’t invent Republicanism or Democracy, but we more or less did invent that sort of constitutional theory. Historically countries, whether democratic or not, just had a body of laws that sort of served as a general framework of behavior, but there was no clear cut constitution. In the years since our constitution was written, every democratic country on the planet has adopted the same concept (of the government being based on a singular, written constitution which defines the framework in which government must operate)–with the exception of Britain and New Zealand (and I think a third country I can’t remember at the moment.) Even most Westminster systems (like Canada or Australia) have a written constitution.
So the claim that in 240 years no one has copied our constitution, is frankly insane. It’s been incredibly influential and many large countries (like Brazil and South Korea) today have governments very, very similar to ours.
Our constitution has its problems, and is rightly the target of criticism. But criticism and 100% inaccurate claims are not the same thing (which was my problem with up_the_junction). In terms of criticism, one of the biggest is that the unique specifics of the constitution in America has made it very, very difficult to amend. For that reason there are many aspects of our system that probably made perfect sense in 1789 that truly make little sense today. Most other countries in the world have actually revised their constitutions multiple times in the 240 years since ours was written–and I do not mean minor amendments here or there, but fundamental rewrites. This has produced a body of “more modern” constitutions, that took lessons of history and time and made tweaks and improvements. This has served to make our constitution less directly influential versus its status in say the first half of the 19th century, when many democratizing countries in Europe or newly independent colonies in South America used our constitution as a very influential source document.
Additionally, and probably the biggest criticism of our constitution, is the Presidential system is difficult to make work in countries that have no democratic traditions. It does work okay in Brazil and South Korea, but South Korea was a dictatorship functionally for decades. Worse, many many smaller African countries or smaller South American countries have used close analogues to our constitution and have seen unfortunate situations in which someone becomes President and never leaves office, becoming a despot. Many political scientists believe (and I do, too) that for democratizing countries, a Parliamentary system is more appropriate because it keeps the legislature very powerful and the national executive can be removed swiftly by the legislature. When the national executive is a very powerful, separately elected official, with a fixed term in office and no easy removal mechanism, and he also is a “unitary executive” with full control of the state, he can use his powers to harass/subdue the legislature and thus seize total power. Many believe the reason this never happened in America is because we were in a unique place when we became independent–unlike many countries in similar situations we were a fundamentally “middle class” country, of merchants, yeoman farmers etc. We had a large, stable middle class. This meant the cultural conditions that make despotism, populism and other dangerous threats much less amenable here. Our first President was a very popular, but mild-mannered man, and he treated the office with immense democratic respect. While much of Washington’s Presidency isn’t the stuff of immensely important laws, political stances or etc, the example of his entire Presidency was immeasurably important.
If one grants your premise, what follows? Does it mean the US should be the model for the world? Should ignore international law and norms? Should forcibly Americanize the planet?
Or does it just mean “America is awesome!”, and nothing more?
I think American exceptionalism is largely a bunk term, I do think it referred to somewhat of a genuine phenomena/situation in the 19th century, but I don’t think in the way it’s generally understood by most.
Instead, obviously recognize America is an “incredibly important country” both now and in human history. It may be mean, but some countries are more important and more impactful than others. We still talk about the Roman Empire, but not many talk about the Etruscans. Britain, Russia, France, Germany, China, these are all also very important/impactful countries. Andorra and Monaco, not so much.
America right now is the most powerful country on Earth, and additionally is the most powerful free and open country that is part of the “West.” For this reason we are seen (quite literally) as the ultimate “protector” of safety and security. When Paris was attacked by ISIS, their President the next day said we needed to step up our game in Syria. With this power comes responsibility–America should strive to be an example on things like liberty for all, basic human rights, the rule of law. I think we try sometimes, sometimes we openly don’t try, and sometimes we try and come up far short of where we should–we should recognize we always have room to improve.
It has everything to do with it. It turns out, unsurprisingly, that the very wealthy are very much in favor of the economic systems that propelled them to wealth, and sociopolitical systems where money is absolutely supreme, capable of buying anything from political power to judicial favoritism – or at least, heavily tilting the scales in favor of the moneyed interests. That doesn’t mean that their perceived systems of choice are necessarily fair, optimal, or beneficial to any but a very few.
And as septimus already pointed out, the U.N. along with the Gallup World Poll and various experts publishes a World Happiness Report. The U.S. ranks 13th, slightly ahead of Costa Rica. On the same index, the US ranks 26th in social support, 33rd in healthy life expectancy, 41st in freedom to make life choices, 20th in generosity, and 51st in trust (publicly perceived absence of corruption). So a lot countries that haven’t written happiness right into their constitution actually do a lot better at it.
But I think a larger point here is that modern thinking has evolved this idea from that initial nebulous concept about the pursuit of happiness. The approach that tends to be reflected in more modern constitutional principles is similar to that set out in the UN Millenium Development Goals, which is that the best interests of both individuals and society as a whole are achieved by providing for life, liberty, and a peaceful and just society.
No doubt America has been spectacularly successful, and I pretty much said what I had to say in #75 and I’m not going to repeat the kudos about the great and positive things about the USA. I just get frustrated by uncritical jingoism like in the OP, and although you’re not in that category at all, even you are overly optimistic with statements like the one about personal freedoms. Let’s look at some of the major indices.
The US ranks 20th on the Economist Democracy Index, below Mauritius and Uruguay, and in fact the US is in the very last place just above “flawed democracy”, which it misses by a hair. Meanwhile the now-famous Gilens-Page study at Princeton concludes that the US is no longer a functional democracy at all.
The US ranks 38th on the respected CIRI Human Rights Index, a project funded by the National Science Foundation and hosted at the University of Connecticut with collaboration from many other institutions. The conservative Cato Institute ranks the US 20th on a broad scale of human freedoms.
What else? Well, as noted previously, the US non-response to the Syrian refugee crisis is shameful. The bigoted demagogue who is the presumptive Republican nominee for president is beyond shameful and is both a source of global condemnation and an international joke.
There is little or no justice for the poor and many minorities, either in the courts or even on the streets.
And the US is still the only developed nation on earth without universal health care. But by golly, you do have guns. A LOT of guns. More guns than any other developed nation on earth. Some consider this a feature, not a bug, but it depends a good deal on which end of the gun you’re facing, and when there are an awful lot of them around, about 33,000 Americans a year end up facing the wrong end of one.
That’s pretty damned exceptional.
I love the US, and always have, but it’s hard not get more and more critical as more of these things unfold. Get a grip, folks, there are a lot of things to be fixed, and a lot of things that other countries do better, and the mantra of “exceptionalism” shouldn’t be used as a smokescreen to dismiss and ignore the learnings to be gleaned from them.
Well, okay. I mean firstly one must take these indices with a grain of salt. I have no conception of how you could craft such an index in a way that is unbiased, meaningful, and accurate. I don’t believe America is the freest country on Earth–although I think it could be. Freedom is pretty serious in America, there are very, very few things you cannot do in America that you can do somewhere else, legally, at least when it comes to behavior that is not harmful to another person. About the only major exceptions are a few countries allow prostitution and a few countries have legalized certain recreational drugs. But America’s free press is by far second to none.
But I wouldn’t make a statement about “freedom” rankings–and did not. I made the statement that America is the freest of the large countries and that is hard to deny. The only other country by population, in the top 10, that is really a functioning Western style democracy is Japan (at number 10.)
I do know a little bit about Mauritius and Uruguay and I find it odd that you mention them in an almost negative way (both are well known as being very well ran–Mauritius is a tiny island nation but is considered the best governed and freest state in Africa, and Uruguay leads South America in political liberalization, same sex rights, abortion rights, and has low corruption etc.) but it’s is irrelevant to what I said–that of large countries we’re essentially the only truly free country until you get to Japan (which is the 10th largest country.) That isn’t just a random statistic, it was to highlight that whatever it is that makes freedom possible, no other countries as large and complex and diverse as the United States has been able to make it work.
And again–I made no statements about “how we rank” among free states–only that over the 10 largest countries on Earth we’re the largest that is a genuinely free country. The only other one on that list is Japan at number 10.
I agree Trump is a disgrace but am skeptical that we had a major role to play in the Syrian refugee crisis. The major lesson of the 21st century as it relates to the United States and Europe must be us reminding Europe they have international commitments, too. The EU is a proto-state of 500m souls and vast wealth, and yet they fund their military to almost no degree at all (and often times direct response to refugee crises do involve the military, to secure food aid, housing, safe transport etc.) America in the 21st century cannot be Europe’s foreign policy arm. We have to keep that in mind and crises in the Mediterranean should be seen as a European problem first, and at best an American problem second–with us taking on a supporting role to Europe, not a leading one.
That isn’t really true, and is basically just populist bitching you’re presenting as fact. It’s better to be rich and white in American than it is to be poor. But the claim that there is “no justice” to poor and minorities is absurd, and frankly–untrue. I also think there are very few countries on the grab-bag of indexes you just linked to where being a member of the majority ethnic group and being born wealthy wouldn’t afford you a much better quality of life, and even better outcomes in the legal system, than being born a poor minority.
Americans have chosen to have guns. That’s actually called a feature of democracy. We don’t have a system like Britain or Australia where a brief surge in panic means the government can ban shit and confiscate guns from hundreds of thousands of people. It is unfortunate 33,000 people die a year from guns, but we’ve made a democratic choice to continue having private firearms ownership. I see no way in which that makes us less free–you obviously disagree with the decision, but part of a true democracy is the people get to make decisions, even ones that may be bad (and I personally don’t think gun ownership in general is a bad decision, but it could do with some more regulation.)
Sure, every country can improve. But I find that on the Internet and in the court of world opinion America is held to a standard no other country on Earth is subject to. I also find that people have been saying all my life “America is doomed” and “things are getting worse and worse.” But in my 50+ years of life things have only gotten better in general, with ups and downs. People lack perspective, and tend to magnify the crises of their time with no regard to what came before. In almost every measure that is meaningful America is a much better place than it was in 1990. More access to healthcare, lower crime, continuing improvement in treatment of minorities and women. We’ve even got a smaller military and spend less on it, percentage wise.