**MLS **
“The internet and the t.v. are similar – there is a lot of garbage on both. The improved communications are overall IMHO a plus. Sure, you can watch endless reruns of Gilligan’s Island or whatever, but you can also know a lot more about, say, a presidential candidate than you could before these media existed. The fact that too many of us don’t do so is our own fault.”
I don’t want to hijack this thread as these issues have been discussed before. Suffice it to say I both agree and disagree. Yes, there is good tv and yes people can choose it, but in the current climate they’re unlikely to even know it exists, or, even if they do, to develop a taste for it. This is --apropros of the present thread–an especially American phenomenon; that is, US tv is more commercialized and less informative than in several other countries. Hence, I would list it among our “bads” with some notable exceptions. (It remains to be seen whether the internet can be tamed in ways that make it too a de facto instrument for commercialization and intellectual conformity; right now that is not the case but I’ve read things about future developments that leave me concerned.)
“It is harder to be ignorant of other places and peoples when you can see them every day.”
Yes, but coverage of international affairs on tv and in print media has dropped dramatically since the 1960s. On the whole, Americans are woefully uninformed about what goes on outside their borders; and know little enough about what goes on inside it. 
“Very good point on Switzerland. It is helped in its stability by its strong military and its ethnic and cultural homogeneity.”
Actually Switzerland began as relatively diverse: it has three national languages and two religions (Protestantism and Catholicism). Back in the nineteenth century this religious and cultural conflict did cause civil unrest. So when you compare an older country like Switzerland that’s been establishing historical bonds and ironing out differences since pre-modern times to an African nation that got its independence in the 1950s or 1960s, you have to take that into account–not to mention that decolonization left most of these countries with deepened ethnic and religious fissures, and serious economic problems. Switzerland didn’t have to deal with that.
“Britain certainly in centuries past had its share of violent internal conflicts, but then the U.S. has not been around that long.”
Relatively few–especially when compared to France. Britain had a civil war in the seventeenth century to do with religion and attendant politics. The rest of its evolution was fairly peaceful, esp. the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 (invited transfer of the monarchy from Catholic Stuarts to Protestant Hanoverians in conjunction with shift of most sovereign power to Parliament), and the three reform bills of the nineteenth century (gradually enfranchising the entire adult male population with hardly any bloodshed at all). Mind you, I’m not counting problems related to imperialism, whether in Ireland or farther afield b/c the US had those too. Considering that England’s been around as such since 1066 (even before though in more regional form), its history is quite remarkable for comparatively peaceful evolution, which was (and probably remains) a source of English/British pride.
“Britain’s basic ideas of justice and representative government were a major inspiration in the setup of the U.S. government, with some careful tweaking to try to avoid some of the perceived problems.”
Yes, which is something I often post on myself when some American posters get it into their heads that democracy was “invented” by Americans.
“I’m not knowledgeable about Bolivia. Has it been free of the violent insurrections, revolutions and civil disorder that have plagued many other South American countries?”
I honestly don’t know. It’s independence was important historically because it occurred so early. Thing is that, as with African countries, you have to take economic conditions into account. This is esp. true of Haiti which, having gotten its independence in 1804 is a relatively old “modern” nation. Haiti was remarkable in its time–not only a post-colonial nation, but one in which the majority of citizens were former slaves. But at a time when the slave trade was still legal in Britain, and slavery was institutionalized in the US, Haiti was an anomaly that Western nations weren’t ready to accept. So it was isolated economically and it has never recovered from that damage. I’m not at all an expert on South America, but I can say that generally these nations had to struggle with economic forms of imperialism even after they got rid of direct imperial rule.
Hope this answers some of your questions 
BTW, the stuff that you queried flowbark on–I don’t have cites for you handy–but I will say that these are AFAIK well-established and non-controversial facts.
Since I’m posting in this thread, despite my disinclination towards good vs. bad I’ll add:
Bad:
high levels of socio-economic inequality
ridiculously bad levels of incarceration, esp. for non-violent drug-related offenses
low levels of democratic participation (due to correctable social and political defects)
tied to the latter, too much political and cultural power in the hands of religious radicals with a theocratic agenda that conflicts with foundational principles that have made this country great
too much unregulated corporate power
foreign policy currently moving in a dangerously unilateralist and neo-imperial direction
Good:
increasingly culturally and racially diverse, esp. in big cities
less sexism than in many other countries
amazingly good restaurants 
people who are caring and optimistic at heart, not generally cynical
higher education (esp. post-graduate) still best in world
my home, where I was born, and therefore always close to my heart