Political Systems

A friend and I were chatting earlier over a game of chess and a few cocktails. He brought up a perception he's heard repeated, time and again, by media and political pundits. They say we're a "young nation," implying that our mistakes as a country--like the neo-colonialism in Iraq or our Judicial appointment of an unpopular President--should be typical of inexperience.

Would someone please remind me whose government is older or better? French? No, they played copycat in the late 18th Century. The Germans? Hell no, we remade them just over fifty years ago. Even Britain--whose prior colonies, like India, still produce emulations of their parlimentary system--now has a monarchy composed of figureheads. Much like Japan. That, too, shifted about half a century ago. China? Certainly not. Communism only persists there because a vast rural population could be ruled by three chimps and a spark plug.

Would anyone care to remind me which current political system (no dynasties or cults) has been in successful, contiguous operation longer than the one outlined by our own Constitution?

but I guess in another sense you're wrong, since starting with the Bush administration, we no longer have the same government we once had. We now have a young corporate-fascist government.

Started long before the Chimp was installed in power.

aren't you. Fact is, as a nation, we are young. And judging from events from the last 3 years, currently rather stupid.

political???

Wasn't the Allthing started 1000 years ago?

some countries have had a single national identity even thought they may have had many different governments. i think of the french, they have had many governments since world war 2 but they have always been french the whole time.

The system outlined in the Constitution was not able to contain the political stresses that led to the Civil War. If the Constitution was a real sucess we wouldnt have had a Civil wa.

It did survive the Civil War.

Articles of Confederation did not survive, the Constitution has. I would hardly call it a failure after 200+ years. Although recently has is being tested to it's limits.

More parties to represent more views in government, instead of the current "big tent" system in which two parties supposedly represent everyone, but actually empower only a very, very rich and select few. I think we'd be better off turning the big tent parties "inside-out" and forcing the interest groups within the Dems and the GOP to form their own parties. They'd still need to form political coalitions, but they would be outwardly visible inter-party coalitions, much like in the European parliamentary-style systems. The majority head of this new "congress" should be the chief of government, while the existing presidential role should become more diplomatic and ceremonial, or a chief of state role, if you will. Something like France's present system.

I think you're asking the wrong question. Nation refers to much more than the current political system in place. It is the collective ethnic and cultural historical memory of the people living in a place.

France, Germany, England, Spain, etc., have been involved in great power rivalries for many, many centuries. Internally, they have suffered through many dynastic challenges, coups, and counter-coups. This experience provides a context for interpreting events.

The US has been unusually stable in its existence with few serious threats to its status quo. We didn't have to suffer the horrors of all-out war first hand on our own soil like the Europeans and others did. Our experience in WWII was self-affirming, having given rise to our greatness and power. This lesson is much different from the one drawn by most nations in the world.

Now we are the global hyper-power, a status never before seen on the planet, with few parallels in history. And we refuse to consider the lessons learned by empires past. Now our improvisations and mistakes have a global consequence.