America's monarchy complex?

[A Spoonful Supreme]

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9149798

Walter Bagehot, a 19th-century editor of The Economist, argued that people like to see a “family on the throne” because it “brings down the pride of sovereignty to the level of petty life”.

The dynastification of its political life also points to a deeper problem: the fact that America is producing a quasi-hereditary political elite, cocooned in a world of wealth and privilege and utterly divorced from most people's lives. The rest of the world is gradually moving beyond “idolatry to monarchs” and “servility to aristocratic pride”.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the children or wives of politicians seeking high office, but there is definitely something wrong when people start treating them as heirs to the throne rather than candidates. And there is something very wrong indeed when people begin to see politics as a game that is played by “them” rather than “us”.

lol What do you thinK? A testament to the philosophy of futility and lost faith?

[Apollyon]

opinions do not make fact

america is hardly a monarchy

[Cain]

I was fine until the article claimed that people were treating GWB or Hillary Clinton as "heirs to the throne." I can't imagine a supposition about the general opinions of the American public that could be more off the mark.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

Yeah im sure they just come from families with fantastic minds for ruling lolopinions do not make fact

america is hardly a monarchy
obviously, but what does electing another clinton or bush say about people's attitudes towards the power they have in voting

[Apollyon]

Yeah im sure they just come from families with fantastic minds for ruling lol
obviously, but what does electing another clinton or bush say about people's attitudes towards the power they have in voting

it says that those candidates have had political exposure and that people like their policies enough to consider electing them into office over electing someone with little to no exposure that doesn't clearly outline his/her policies

it isn't some kind of right by blood it's something they have to earn

if there were an election between bill clinton george w. bush and bozo the clown would you elect bozo the clown just because someone in his family hasn't been in office before

[italic zero]

There's some truth in what he says, but I think he's stretching it.

[John Paul Harrison]

There's some truth in what he says, but I think he's stretching it.

ding ding ding!

[A Spoonful Supreme]

it says that those candidates have had political exposure and that people like their policies enough to consider electing them into office over electing someone with little to no exposure that doesn't clearly outline his/her policies

it isn't some kind of right by blood it's something they have to earn

if there were an election between bill clinton george w. bush and bozo the clown would you elect bozo the clown just because someone in his family hasn't been in office before

lmao people don't know **** about people's policies as evident by rudy juliani getting the majority over repub candidates. its obviously not a monarchy and nobody is saying it is. the point you missed is that the election of blood lines and family members doesn't suggest american voters are treating them like heirs to the throne but that voters may just feel their say in the matter is quite limited, which is reinforced if you hold our choice as voters to be of any illusion--which i do

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Because Americans just hate the poor guy who works hard all the way to the top :rolleyes:

[Danger Bird]

Hey you have to remember how young of a country America is. You can't be surprised by how politically retarded it is (pardon the word choice)

[A Spoonful Supreme]

huh? modern japan began after WWII and if you look at their current political status you'd retract that statementBecause Americans just hate the poor guy who works hard all the way to the top :rolleyes:
not sure watcha mean

[Smokey D]

Hey you have to remember how young of a country America is. You can't be surprised by how politically retarded it is (pardon the word choice)

America is older than nearly every other country in the world.

How many other countries, let alone constitutions, outside of Europe can you name that are older than 231 years?

[Danger Bird]

Why is Europe off limits?

[Smokey D]

Well, there's only like 30 countries there anyway, and America's older than most of them too.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

yeah all it takes, if you think about it, is a generation or two for things to drastically change. look at india's generation divide and westernization.

[Smokey D]

At what point does a country become a new country anyway?

[Loser]

Because most of Europe is older?

[A Spoonful Supreme]

At what point does a country become a new country anyway?

When national identity and political system is superseded?

[Smokey D]

As an independent nation, America is older than Germany, Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Poland, Ukraine, Latvia, Italy, Serbia, Montenegro, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Greece, Belarus, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Lithuania, Finland, the Republic of Ireland, Belgium, Albania and Macedonia.

It also has an older constitution than pretty much every other European country except Britain, and that's a bit iffy because the British constitution naturally evolves.

When national identity and political system is superseded?

Does that mean post-war Germany is a different country to pre war Germany?

[A Spoonful Supreme]

Does that mean post-war Germany is a different country to pre war Germany?

I don't know, I haven't examined Germany. But inevitably there's a lot of gray area wouldn't you say. Russia, for example, is in the gray. It isn't new, it isn't old.

[SoulSeekerz]

I think America has become the Worlds Policeman. Good intentions pave the road to hell.

[Number Hello]

Hey you have to remember how young of a country America is. You can't be surprised by how politically retarded it is (pardon the word choice)
Uh how can this excuse anything? There's no context to a country's age, I mean the world is completely different than it ever was. There's nothing to compare the politics to as there's been nothing like this situation before, politically, technologically, and in that we're more globally connected than ever before, there's nothing to compare it and no excuse.

[Chrysostom]

America strikes me as less like a monarchy and more like the ancient Roman Republic. The identification of a wealthy political elite is a development that mirrors almost perfectly the development of the same elite during the Roman Republic. America is growing its own Optimates.

[Der Übermensch]

America is older than nearly every other country in the world.
Longest period of time since last major upheaval in how its governed? Yes.
Oldest in terms of the concept of that nation, not really.

[Smokey D]

The concept of nation isn't particularly relevant outside of Western Europe until the mid-19th century.

And in terms of culture, America initially just inherited a whole lot of European stuff, which isn't new at all.

[Der Übermensch]

I would say earler than that. The Treaty of Westphalia pretty much set the guidelines on what consituted nationhood and sovereignty.

[Smokey D]

In a quite nebulous way, maybe. The Treaty established that there such things as nation states that existed independently of dynastic rule. It wasn't until much later that there was a general movement recognising that different sets of people were in fact nations (people with a shared sense of history, religion, language etc).

But the Westphalia settlement was only really relevant in Western Europe, anyway, so I think my point still stands.

[Reaganista]

statehood and nationhood are different things though

the habsburg empire was a state and not a nation for example

[Smokey D]

Is that to me? Coz I don't see where I said differently.

[pedro durruti]

In a quite nebulous way, maybe. The Treaty established that there such things as nation states that existed independently of dynastic rule. It wasn't until much later that there was a general movement recognising that different sets of people were in fact nations (people with a shared sense of history, religion, language etc).

But the Westphalia settlement was only really relevant in Western Europe, anyway, so I think my point still stands.
If that's what constitutes a nation then I'd say nations have existed outside of the West for quite awhile.

[Smokey D]

Yeah, but you have to think of yourself as a nation to be a nation.

[pedro durruti]

No, you have tot hink of yourself as a nation to be a nation-state. Nations exist without being self conscious of that nationhood.

[Smokey D]

Yeah, but that's like the least politically relevant thing in the world ever.

Basically you're saying there were groups of people who shared certain characteristics but didn't do anything about it.

[Der Übermensch]

statehood and nationhood are different things though

the habsburg empire was a state and not a nation for example

Well, they were neither really... The Habsburgs were a dynastic family who, at different points in time, ruled the Holy Roman Empire (which I assume is what you probably meant?), Spain, and Austria, amoung other minor states.

[Smokey D]

The Hapsburg empire incorporated the Spanish and Holy Roman empires at various times and was transformed into a Austrian dominated multiethnic empire in Southern Europe following the abolishment of the latter.

[pedro durruti]

Yeah, but that's like the least politically relevant thing in the world ever.

Basically you're saying there were groups of people who shared certain characteristics but didn't do anything about it.
If we're using that concept of nation as a society sharing a common history and culture, then it has political relevance. Political configuration is as deeply rooted in culture as trading is. Many nations have existed throughout the world long before the 19th or even 17th centuries. Many did not recognize themselves because they were subjugated by a sovereign. While I think others, like the Cherokee nation, recognized themselves as a body of peoples.

[Smokey D]

Nationhood and nationalism are only politically relevant when a nation recognises itself as such and explicitly states that the justice of the sovereignty of and governance over that nation emerges from the nation. The French and the English and the Germans all recognised themselves as distinct from other Europeans, but frequently acquiesced to rule by a foreigner. I'm not particularly familiar with Cherokee history, but that model was pretty much universal until the rise of nationalism from the late 18th century onwards.

[Reaganista]

Is that to me? Coz I don't see where I said differently.

no you're just a faster poster apparently

[pedro durruti]

Nationhood and nationalism are only politically relevant when a nation recognises itself as such and explicitly states that the justice of the sovereignty of and governance over that nation emerges from the nation. The French and the English and the Germans all recognised themselves as distinct from other Europeans, but frequently acquiesced to rule by a foreigner. I'm not particularly familiar with Cherokee history, but that model was pretty much universal until the rise of nationalism from the late 18th century onwards.
They are, but the nation itself is not politically relevant only when it vies for power (and its own sovereignty) and recognizes its own actions in doing so. It is politically relevant at all times, because it is always engaged in politics as a culturally unified group. It does not have to be contesting for power to be a part in its control. Rule that is foreign to a collective people with a particular cultural/historical identity is derived through control of that group by anyone other than the people collectively forming that identity.

[Smokey D]

That just means any group engaged in governance or some form of political/commercial exchange is relevant. As such, it would be relevant if it was a nation, a supranational entity or a tribe. That is, its relevance is not a function of nationhood but of its existence as a power aggregation of any sort. Nations being specifically relevant as nations has still not occurred. Therefore, I think my point still stands.

[BassVirtuoso]

it says that those candidates have had political exposure and that people like their policies enough to consider electing them into office over electing someone with little to no exposure that doesn't clearly outline his/her policies

it isn't some kind of right by blood it's something they have to earn

if there were an election between bill clinton george w. bush and bozo the clown would you elect bozo the clown just because someone in his family hasn't been in office before

Yeah. Same reason you see a lot of 3rd generation athletes. Same reason many people follow in the footsteps of their parents. They were influenced that way from a very young age and chances are, if their parents are successful, they will follow in their footsteps.

[pedro durruti]

That just means any group engaged in governance or some form of political/commercial exchange is relevant. As such, it would be relevant if it was a nation, a supranational entity or a tribe. That is, its relevance is not a function of nationhood but of its existence as a power aggregation of any sort. Nations being specifically relevant as nations has still not occurred. Therefore, I think my point still stands.
If a group of people must contend for power to be considered a nation, then yes, it does. All I'm saying is that, obviously, existence precedes essence.

However, isn't that concept of nation sort of Eurocentric? I don't know Cherokee history either (although I should), but I would say that they, and many other tribes, were nations. That is, they had a common cultural and historical identity and considered themselves sovereign, although in a more loose and egalitarian definition of sovereignty.

[Smokey D]

If a group of people must contend for power to be considered a nation, then yes, it does. All I'm saying is that, obviously, existence precedes essence.

Well, I don't know if I agree. Any political group would be important, regardless of its composition. So nationhood as a political concept isn't needed by the argument, so I don't see why we would include it.

However, isn't that concept of nation sort of Eurocentric?

Perhaps the reason I'm saying nationhood wasn't important outside Europe until relatively recently?

I don't know Cherokee history either (although I should), but I would say that they, and many other tribes, were nations. That is, they had a common cultural and historical identity and considered themselves sovereign, although in a more loose and egalitarian definition of sovereignty.

I wouldn't call a tribe a nation unless it comprised all members of the culture. Almost by definition, in fact, tribes are sub national.

[pedro durruti]

Well, I don't know if I agree. Any political group would be important, regardless of its composition. So nationhood as a political concept isn't needed by the argument, so I don't see why we would include it.
I don't know what you are saying.

Perhaps the reason I'm saying nationhood wasn't important outside Europe until relatively recently?

I wouldn't call a tribe a nation unless it comprised all members of the culture. Almost by definition, in fact, tribes are sub national.
Why would that exclude the Cherokee? What makes tribes subnational?

[Smokey D]

I don't know what you are saying.

I originally said something like 'nations weren't important outside of Europe until the 19th century'. This was perhaps misleading, and you may have misunderstood what I meant. Obviously, history is full of important political groups that happen to be nations. What I meant is that nations were not important as nations until the 19th century, and the characteristics which did make them important before then could apply to virtually any political group at all.

Why would that exclude the Cherokee? What makes tribes subnational?

Allow me to use the Maori of New Zealand as an example, because I know a bit more about the topic.

The Maori probably arrived in New Zealand sometime between 800 and 1200 AD, quickly spreading to inhabit most of the territory they found. Maori culture was very much tribal, separated into iwi (tribe), hapu (sub-tribe) and whanau (extended family). Each iwi was supposedly able to trace ancestry back to one of the original canoes which had brought the Maori to NZ. However, at the same time, Maori culture was relatively homogeneous -- the language remained extremely similar across the two islands, foundation myths and concepts of spirituality and law were largely shared by all the tribes etc. Therefore, we can think of the sum of the iwi as the Maori nation.

If there was merely one tribe had the characteristics of nationhood, then it would comprise the totality of the nation. It wouldn't really be appropriate to call it a tribe, in such a case, because tribes connote being a semi separate part of a larger cultural grouping, not the totality of it.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

dude smokey where the fvck are you pulling all this history knowledge out of all the time ffs, do you actually retain these facts

[Smokey D]

I'm a history student and I have a good memory.

You really think I refer to history a lot? I don't notice it. Cain makes far more insightful historical arguments than I ever do.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

maybe ive just read certain posts but it seems to me lately point after point made with historical fact, ic ur a history major that would explain things because really if someone with no affiliation with history-studies spouts that knowledge thats far our. its not a bad thing though by all means carry on