The Founding Fathers: Do we need an upgrade?
Read Time:3 Minute, 16 Second
I’ve been thinking about the practicality of a new American revolution, and wondering if there’s any way to do it without shooting people or seriously messing them up.
The American government has proven itself completely unable to govern, as evidenced by the fact that there’s no plan for closing the budget deficit. If we had two rational and competing plans from the major parties, or even one imperfect plan, I would consider that some form of government. But no plan means we’re effectively ungoverned.
You might argue that the government is mostly working, and the budget deficit is just one wrinkle that will get ironed out in time. But given that we’re in a budget death spiral that will eventually derail every other function of society, I would say that all we’re talking about is a timing issue. By analogy, maybe your brain can remain conscious for a second after your head gets chopped off, but as a practical matter, you’re not less dead.
It’s no surprise that our system doesn’t work. It was designed hundreds of years ago, and it gradually worsened over time, just like everything else that was designed hundreds of years ago. It’s the ultimate legacy system, bloated and hopelessly in need of replacement. And now, thanks to the brainwashing that all American kids get about the magic and wonder of our political system, and the near Godliness of our Founding Fathers, we’re unable to see the system itself as entirely broken. Instead, we assume the problem is that the people within the system are corrupt or incompetent. Or maybe the problem is the Tea Party, or the crazy Liberals, or anything but the system itself. There’s plenty of blame to spread around, but a good system should be excreting the crazies instead of embracing them. Why can’t we have that system?
If you want to bring a social gathering to a full stop, suggest that the Chinese system of government is the best model for our modern age. Contrary to popular belief, their system is not a dictatorship, because the top guy only keeps his job if the guys below him think he’s doing it well. It’s more like a corporate structure in which smart and knowledgeable people choose the best within their ranks based on ability. You can fault the Chinese leadership for a lot of things, but you can’t fault them for being impractical. They have a political system that, as far as I can tell, puts science over superstition. And over time, I would expect their human rights issues to improve simply because doing so is smart government.
[Disclaimer: What I know about China would fit in a very small Tupperware container while leaving plenty of room for a sandwich. So if you disagree with my characterization of China’s government, please correct me in the comments below.]
Obviously a bloodless revolution in America wouldn’t get far with a slogan such as “Be More Chinese!” And our government is too constipated to make incremental improvements in itself. I’ve already ruled out killing people. So how can you get there from here?
Suppose, just as a mental exercise, a new set of geniuses, call them the Founding Fathers Version 2.0, hold a convention and come up with a new form of government that fits the challenges of the modern age. Then, after a lengthy public debate, a constitutional vote is held in which every citizen can decide on keeping the old system or moving to the new one. If the new one wins, a transition plan is drawn up, and the move is made over maybe five years, so there is limited shock to the system.
Let’s agree that this scenario is hugely unlikely. But can we afford to not try it when the alternative is no government at all? What would Thomas Jefferson and my cousin John Adams say if they were here today?
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
Brilliant discussions. Thanks guys for engaging with such passion.
Oh alright…the tongue went firmly into the cheek….
I couldn’t give a monkeys what colour our PM is as long as he puts Britain first.
Britain shouldn’t have to change to accomodate anyone who moves here – they should change, if necessary, to accomodate us.
If I moved to the USA I would envelop myself in the ‘culture’ of where ever I lived there and adapt to it – if I didn’t like it I would move elsewhere or back home.
I wouldn’t expect my adopted country to change for me but many immigrants to Britain clearly expect, or even demand just that.
I was just being sarcy about an American Indian being Prez chaps….on the other hand…..
@4D, just jokes is all…
btw off topic, -are you still doing your radio show?
Good food for thought. You know more than one American has looked across the Pacific Ocean at China and wondered, what are they doing right that we aren’t? Aside from environmental issues and a lack of a free speech principle in their jurisprudence, they are on track to out pace the good ol’ USA in the coming times.
Mycue : No he isn’t. Not by any sane person. He’s called a clever man (or woman).
I have no issue with race, creed or colour (color)….or even with religious belief.
My ‘issue’ is with ‘RESPECT’
Respect MY country and values if you want to live here.
Put MY country and values first – at least publically – and we’ll get along fine.
Move into MY country and form ‘Islam4UK’ and we’ll have a problem.
Islam4UK is, incidentally, a real organisation who keep moving their website as they know damn well that we…the indigenous population won’t stand for it…and we’ll fight the bastards all the way….
Mycue…don’t misunderstand me. Please.
I have muslim friends who (privately) agree with me.
Is it not a worry that they admit they will never ‘publically’ agree with me?
Look. ‘Hate groups’ are a bad thing. I think we can agree on that eh?
Look beyond and see what causes ‘hate groups’.
Invariably it is the lack of ‘fitting in’ in the country that you choose to adopt as your own.
‘Adopt’ a country by all means but, ‘fit in’ to your adopted country….don’t ask or expect ‘them’ to ‘fit in’ with you.
Islam IS ‘our’ beast my friend.
I so wish that wasn’t the case but it is.
Not ‘my call’…theirs….
…and we will believe it when it hits us on the head.
Besides…how many ‘indigenous American Indian Tribes’ are extinct?
I will never lie down and become extinct.
Britain is BRITISH and will remain so…or die forever trying to be so.
I suspect you think I’m racist old bean.
In this issue I quite probably am.
Hate groups for the most part are the result of ignorance. At least that is the case here. The Africans who were brought here certainly did not try to make anyone “fit in” with them. They were brought here in chains, made to build the wealth of this nation with their blood sweat tears and lives, granted their “freedom” after the bloodiest war in the nation’s history and discriminated against and not allowed to share in this nation’s bounty for 100 years simply because of the color of their skin. Would you blame those slaves and their offspring for the formation of the Ku Klux Klan? I’m not saying that the situation in England is the same (it clearly is not), but to say that the KKK and groups like it came about because of a lack of “fitting in” of those who chose or were forced to come to this country, is simply not true.
4D, I don’t know you well enough to even guess at what your racial attitudes might be. My point was simply that the American experience is not as simple as you have suggested.
And of course, I wanted clarification on your answer to my question about exactly what your qualifications were for leadership of the country? I’m not sure I understand if you are absolutely against someone of color being Prime Minister, regardless of their qualifications, on that basis alone, or if you were specifically against people of any color (including I would assume those of the Anglo-Saxon variety) who advocated for some kind of violent or religious takeover.
Thanks Mycue, well said throughout, sorry I’m late to the party as usual.
@4D, maybe you’re trying to have some fun, but on a serious note a Black president is a big deal, they were slaves in this country, they built a lot of it, and got decades of segregation for their trouble, but you know that already.
If an American Indian is the single thing that allows you to take our “political system seriously” then sorry 4D, I’ll have to stifle a laugh. An American Indian could not change the country or its legacy anymore than our current President has or will be able to.
But since you’re smug enough to try and tell me what my “problem” is, let me return the favor: Your problem is that you didn’t realize I was joking. Hence my following that statement about the “revolution” with the words “But seriously” in that very same reply.
Mycue : What I am saying is that some American’s seem keen to point out that they have elected a black President.
And?
America is multi-culteral / multi-racial etc. That IS America. Why emphasise you have elected a ‘black’ President?
Obama isn’t a ‘black President’ he is an American.
Britain is the same, but far more reluctantly.
Britain has had multi-cultural / multi-racial thrust upon it, America has become so without anyone objecting apart from native Americans who don’t seem to count for much over there?
Only ‘native Americans’ are indigenous over there…
Only ‘white Anglo-Saxons’ are indigenous over here.
Over there your ‘indigenous’ might as well pack up and leave given their ‘status’.
Over here we are not ‘packing up and leaving’…we are saying “We are the one’s who count and this is OUR country”
The foreigners over here haven’t got a General Custer as yet.
Just remember to compare the reality rather than the liberal mind mate eh?
4D,
I was born in a hospital in downtown London. And even though I have lived in the US for many years, I am still a citizen of good standing in the UK. But am I to understand that the fact that because my ancestors hail from parts other than the British Isles (or more correctly, the European mainland, (because clearly that is where the Anglo Saxons originated)), that I would be eliminated from consideration on your ballot?
And the statement that, “Britain has had multi-cultural / multi-racial thrust upon it, America has become so without anyone objecting…”, is really far from the truth. There is not an ethnic group that has entered smoothly into American society. Every group, from the Africans to the Irish to the Italians to the Asians to the Hispanics have met with outright resistance and hatred from those who were already here. Obviously you know about the two most glaring examples of that, being slavery (and the barbaric treatment of blacks for the 100 years after the end of that particular institution) and the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, so to say that ethnic groups have entered smoothly and without objection is just wrong. The racial issues are such that seeing someone of color elected to the highest office in the land is something that I never thought would happen in my lifetime. There are militant hate groups in this country that number in the thousands that have sworn that they will not rest until America is for whites only. America is multi-cultural because of the opportunity it provided many generations of foreign citizens, but do not think for a moment that we have reached some hallowed post-racial high ground. I leave with this little beauty from Malcolm X. It’s fifty years old, but trust me, among an angry and surprisingly large segement of the US population this still applies: “Well, I have this to say. Do you know what a Negro with a B.A., an M.A. and a Ph.D. is called — by the white man? I’ll tell you. He’s called a nigger.”
‘A Black man was elected President. This IS the revolution’
Maybe that’s your problem. You didn’t elect a ‘black man’ as President, you elected a President.
Let’s go on ‘thin ice’ here.
You aren’t indigenous America.
American Indians are ‘indigenous’.
Elect an American Indian as President and I’ll take your political system seriously.
(and no offence…I don’t take Britains political system seriously either)
That’s why I’ll die before I accept a Prime Minister who isn’t a white Anglo Saxon – not because I’m racist or colour prejudiced – because white Anglo Saxon’s are indigenous.
You need an American Indian President peeps. Then you can begin to preach. Until then? You haven’t a clue have you?
We still love yer though!
4D,
I’m not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that you’d prefer an incompetent, unqualified “White Anglo Saxon”, over well qualified, intelligent person of African, Indian, Asian, Arab, Native American, etc. heritage, simply because they aren’t “indigenous” to the British Isles? Because I’m pretty sure the Anglo Saxons didn’t just spring up one day on that group of islands.
A Black man was elected President. This IS the revolution.
It’s just a real damn slooooow one.
But seriously, regarding China, any system of rule that targets and murders the class of artists called writers (of which we are all members) never lasts, nor should it.
That being said Mumia Abul Jamal is still on death row. The day Noam Chomsky gets arrested, I head for Canada.
We do have “that system,” we’ve just managed to drive it into a tree. I tend to be very skeptical of simple solutions, but in this case I make an exception. The problem with American politics is American elections. Voting districts have been gerrymandered to the point that there are very few seats that aren’t “safe” for one party or the other. The only real contest is in the primaries, so candidates (and representatives once they’re elected) have to pander to the parties’ most-radical fringes in order to make it to the general election ballot. But what about senators, who represent the whole state? The problem there is that every state gets only two. South Dakota has as many senators as California. So we end up with a system that gives rural conservatives much more clout per capita than urban liberals. And so it is that time after time rural state senators pandering to their special interests are able to kill public policies that the majority of Americans know are best for the country overall. What this nation needs is an electoral system that does not promote polarization and inequitable representation. There are plenty of tried-and-true systems that would do the job, but it would require politicians to vote against self preservation, and the chances of that happening are…(choose your favorite idiomatic phrase for nonexistent).
I see you haven’t read the Peter Principle then. When the wealthy want power and influence they pick someone they can dominate. That individual need not be bright or capable just controllable. They groom said rube to be electable. Somebody you’d love to have a beer with. Sound familiar?
So what exactly would you choose for a new system? Parliamentary? Dictator? Monarchy?
Problem is that we have a system that would work if the three branches would just do their job and follow the rules but neither side will do that. One side is trying to regain power and they’ll do anything to get it even destroying the country in the process.
You think that there could be a general consensus on a new system? Turn on the TV and watch the campaign ads just make sure you’re wearing your mud waders.
. . . but a good system should be excreting the crazies instead of embracing them. Why can’t we have that system?
That couple of sentences captures the way I feel about it.