From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sun Jan 18 2004 - 22:45:50 GMT
Dear Platt,
You were of course right 16 Jan 2004 08:03:12 -0500 to draw attention to the
fact that the USA was a constitutional republic before France was (1776 vs.
1789). Even though that doesn't necessarily falsify my claim that the ideas
expressed in the American constitution were borrowed from the French
thinkers that spawned the French revolution (spawning the French revolution
might have cost more time than inspiring Americans to start theirs), I'm
quite willing to concede that these ideas were borrowed from other
Europeans. (-: (Locke being most prominent among them, according to you.)
If brotherhood/fraternity is not referenced in American revolutionary
writings, that's too bad for you Americans. I still think that it would have
balanced them.
In the Netherlands we tend to associate 'freedom' with the political parties
who call themselves 'liberal', as a reference to 'wanting society to be more
free from government interference'. The biggest of these parties, the
'Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie' (People's party for Freedom and
Democracy) is generally considered to be one of the most right-wing parties
that is big enough to be part of government coalitions.
We associate 'brotherhood' NOT with socialist/left-wing parties, but with a
'christian-democratic' party, the 'Christen-Democratisch Appél'. It is
positioned slightly right from centre and emphasizes that government should
leave as much as possible to voluntary associations of citizens (e.g.
churches, unions and employers' associations) and provide for a back-up for
those that can't defend their own interests well enough in this way.
It is 'equality' that is associated with 'social-democracy'. (The parties
that tend to refer to themselves as 'socialist' rather than
'social-democrat' are too small to be potential members of a government
coalition. Even they are thoroughly 'democratic', by the way.) No politician
ever refers of 'equality' as 'equality of outcomes', but only as 'equalizing
chances'. 'Redistribution of income' is not a direct goal of (even
social-democratic) government policy, even if partial redistribution of
income may be a result of equalizing chances. Taxes are progressive, not
primarily to redistribute income, but to 'let the biggest shoulders carry
the largest burdens'.
We are quite satisfied with our political system that prevents any of these
parties to get a majority of the votes and obliges them to cooperate in
varying coalitions, thereby garanteeing a dynamic balancing of these ideas
by which they are guided.
Why, according to you, would it be true (and thus no bragging) that the USA
is the 'greatest nation'?
Because Enlightenment ideas originated there? They didn't.
Because it was the first to enshrine some of these ideas in a constitution?
That's debatable. The English are said to have had the first constition (the
Magna Carta of 1215). I'm not very conversant with its contents and it
predated Enlightenment, but it surely did contain some basis for freedom
from and limits to royal arbitrariness. The 'Unie van Utrecht', a text from
1679, functioned as a constition for the Netherlands when it became
independent from Spain. I'm again not sure about its contents, but it must
have contained at least the idea of freedom of religion and limits to
taxation, for that were the reasons for seeking independence from Spain.
Because it was the first republic? It wasn't. So was the Netherlands. (It
only chose to become a kingdom under the dynasty of the former
'stadholders'/appointed governors in the beginning of the 19th century,
after a short period of French rule.) Sovereignty was held by the 'Staten
Generaal', a body of representatives of the (elites from the) seven
provinces.
The USA may have represented in 1776 a unique step forward, combining some
elements seperately originated elsewhere and earlier in history. It was only
one step in an evolution, however. Earlier and later steps were just as
unique and later ones (e.g. later constitutions improving on their American
predecessor) can be argued to have led to 'greater' results. Don't you think
it likely, for instance, that the German and Japanese constitutions from
after WW II were at least as good as the American one?
The USA certainly gained a lot of status from being one of the first
colonies to become independent from a European colonial empire. Being big
and already fairly developed (by European settlers) it was in a good
position to emulate European nations and inspire other colonies to become
independent. Does that make it 'the greatest'? I'm not so sure as it is
simply the reflection of a social pattern of value giving status to the
strongest.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 18 2004 - 22:45:27 GMT