Germany doesn’t exactly have a good record when it comes to new governments. Nor does France. Very odd to use them as positive examples.
As flawed as the American government may be, the Constitution is still a more solid foundation than pretty much anything that has come out of Europe since.
Well, the 5th French Republic is going well since the 50s, isn't it? As is the post-war BRD in Germany. Both used to have an Emperor at some point, Italy went from Kingdom to Facist regime to democracy. So yes, if the situation changes you can change your government form. Basing 21st Century politics on something written in the 18th century is... weird. Especially as it is more the interpretation of what the authors thought, and might think today, based on these writings. Just my outside opinion.
No, it isn’t weird, it’s simply rejecting the frankly naive notion that you should change everything all the time according to the whims of the populace. History and human nature didn’t begin in 1950.
Again, the US has never had anything remotely as horrible as the French Revolution or Nazi Germany. That’s likely a consequence of a constitutional government with limited powers.
The United Kingdom is in a very similar situation, although their specific version is different.
—-
Editing because apparently I am “posting too fast” and can’t reply. What a passive aggressive move.
Responding to your comment:
The American Revolution preceded the French one by a decade plus. Your chronology is backwards.
The French Revolution also didn’t pave the way for much at all. It failed, led to Napoleon, that failed, led to other monarchic systems until WWW1, another disaster, which led to fascism and WW2, an even bigger disaster.
And the US isn’t a democracy and never has been. The founders set it up as a representative republic for a specific reason.
My thesis still stands that the US is infinitely more stable and has been in comparison to Europe, largely due to its adherence to the original constitution and legal setup.
Funny. It was the French Revolution that paved the way for modern democracies in the West. If I remember correctly, the American Revolutionary Army received quite some assistance from them. It is ironic so, the the French ended up with an Emperor so, I have to agree. Not comparing anything to Nazi Germany, but didn't the US have a pretty nasty Civil War?
Also, changing things based on the whim of the population is pretty much the core believe of democracy. As long as that change is following some process and is happening peacefully. Just a disclaimer, demonstrations that end in some violence are still what I would consider "peaceful", as opposed to outright anarchy or civil wars.
The UK is different from the USA because it doesn't have a written constitution. Then UK has a parliamentary system but the USA has a presidential system. I'd say that from a constitutional perspective the US system is most similar to the French system.
Ah, the "a republic isn't a democracy" trope. That debunked so often, I won't even go there here. You're right with the french revolution so. Doesn't change the fact the French supported the US a lot.
And yes, the French Revolution is seen, rightly so if you ask me despite the Terror and so on, as the first real modern democracy in Europe. At a time when Europe was reigned by Kings and Emperors.
A side note, I really don't get why Napoleon is seen in such bad light. His Code Civil is to this day the basis of some legal concepts, and was very progressive.
Which makes you wonder how history would have turned out if Napoleon would have been as stupid to go to Russia. Imagine he would have taken the most powerful army of the time, including staunch (more or less) allies (incl. the Prussians, minor German powers, Austrians) to Spain against Wellington. Interesting what-if. Just proofs that you don't go to war with Russia or try to conquer Afghanistan.
> A side note, I really don't get why Napoleon is seen in such bad light.
I’m really surprised that he isn’t more often seen in a bad light. He started a gigantic war, mobilized millions to expand an empire, crowned himself emperor, etc…
When do we draw the line? I think as a society we are very hypocritical and nonsensical in who we venerate. People were having serious discussions about how “offensive” the Lincoln Memorial was… yet nobody is clamoring for removing statues of Napoleon? I’m just not following the logic in any of this.
> Ah, the "a republic isn't a democracy" trope. That debunked so often, I won't even go there here.
Debunked in what way? The founding fathers (to their shame in my view) were explicit in creating a republic system and gave only certain people such as landowners and men the right to vote. Republicanism is a form of democracy, but it stands in stark contrast to what the person you are replying to is talking about which is a “might makes right” 51-49 wins kind of democracy, which if you look at Congress the founders set up explicitly to counteract. Now, the OP may be making a mistake in terminology, but it’s very clear that the founders were against simple majority. Frankly, I have to say I am too, because a 51-49 kind of country quickly falls apart. You can see elements of that at play today.
51-49 falls apart because the 51 can dictate the 49, I assume? Great, then what about having the 49 (as of total vote) having found ways to dictate the 51? That would be even more instable, wouldn't it?
And as far as Napoleon is concerned, he lived in a period were conquering swaths of land was more or less seen as normal. The Napoleonic Wars grew out of the Revolutionary Wars, and those were started, partially, by European Monarchies to contain democratic France. Sure, Napoleon pushed that to the extreme. Equally true is that it was the British Empire that pushed all of the Alliances against Napoleon. That is not nearly as clean cut as WW2 concerning the bad guys.
The only country that really has discussions about statues is the US. And those statues came up as part of a dedicated, racist-motivated propaganda program from the loosing side decades after the war. I don't see any Napoleon statues in the UK for example, or Rommel ones in Germany.
> 51-49 falls apart because the 51 can dictate the 49, I assume? Great, then what about having the 49 (as of total vote) having found ways to dictate the 51? That would be even more instable, wouldn't it?
I mean the issue is dictating isn't it? I think the congressional setup in America makes a lot of sense generally speaking, though it's not without faults.
> he lived in a period were conquering swaths of land was more or less seen as normal.
So do we do historical revisionism or not? When do we draw the line? Do we shame people for killing and enslaving Native Americans when that's what people did at the time? I honestly find this strangely confusing.
> The only country that really has discussions about statues is the US. And those statues came up as part of a dedicated, racist-motivated propaganda program from the loosing side decades after the war. I don't see any Napoleon statues in the UK for example, or Rommel ones in Germany.
Not sure I follow this comparison all that much. The South lost and erected statues in the southern states. It's not really all that comparable to Napoleon statues in the UK. At least not that I can see.
When exactly did Napoleon exterminate and enslave the people of the countries he "conquered" (he usually defeated them in a decisive battle and then had them sign treaties, he never dissolved, e.g. the Prussian Empire). He did reintroduce slavery in the French colonies, and should be called out for it. As should France and all other countries on their colonial history, and they are.
A civil war is different in the regard, that the defeated party is part of the same nation. So yes, I think the better analogy would be Napoleon statues in the UK. Or Wellington ones in France. And aren't there some of these statues on federal property as well?
Sorry I just disagree, and starting wars and killing hundreds of thousands is pretty comparable to exterminating and enslaving people as far as my moral compass is concerned.
I'm not really here to defend statues or whatever, but I just don't follow the logic in who we decide was a bad man.
> A civil war is different in the regard, that the defeated party is part of the same nation. So yes, I think the better analogy would be Napoleon statues in the UK. Or Wellington ones in France. And aren't there some of these statues on federal property as well?
IMHO, the Napoleonic Wars were the , given the people involved, inevitable conclusion of the Revolutionary Wars. And those were started by the First Coalition as a reaction to the French Revolution. So just as WW1 it is not all that easy who is responsible for those wars. Just look up the First Coalition for more details.
>Again, the US has never had anything remotely as horrible as the French Revolution or Nazi Germany.
Google the Three-Fifth compromise some day. Or whip out your copy of the US Constitution and closely read Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. It took a civil war that almost tore apart the nation to rectify.
That's what those - infallible to some - founding fathers compromised on.
If the anti-slavery states hadn’t compromised with the slave ones, the Revolution would have failed. Slavery would have likely existed longer because the British would end up being allied to the slave states (likely still colonies.)
Nothing is more nauseating that modern people looking upon the past with moral superiority.
The British could abolish slavery because they no longer had any real economic incentive to keep it, as they had lost their colonies. They also then proceeded to exploit labor in India in barely better conditions.
If Britain retained its American colonies (because the slave holding ones didn’t join the revolution) then abolition might not have happened at all.
> Again, the US has never had anything remotely as horrible as the French Revolution or Nazi Germany. That’s likely a consequence of a constitutional government with limited powers.
Uhhh... slavery? American Indian genocide? The Civil War? The US has certainly had things at least "remotely as horrible" as the French Revolution or Nazi Germany, although the holocaust is a bit of stretch.
Not only did America have the Civil War over slavery, but the losers are still trying to fight it today, they can't face the reality that they lost the last election, and they even tried to pull off a violent insurrection, breaking into and defecating and urinating and marching through the halls of Congress with a Confederate battle flag.
>The Confederate battle flag, which rioters flew inside the US Capitol, has long been a symbol of white insurrection
>Confederate soldiers never reached the Capitol during the Civil War. But the Confederate battle flag was flown by rioters in the U.S. Capitol building for the first time ever on Jan. 6.
Basing 21st Century politics on something written in the 18th century is... weird.
The Napoleonic Code is about the same vintage as the US Bill of Rights and remains a foundational influence on the legal systems of not just France but many other countries.
Sure, which I pointed out firther down the thread. I have yet to see someone bringing up Napoleon, or his Code Civil, to promote or justify any proposed legislation today.
People do all the time, since, as I mentioned, it's still the basis of the French legal system. For something straight out of the 18th century, the very first sentence of the current French constitution begins:
Le peuple français proclame solennellement son attachement aux Droits de l’Homme et aux principes de la souveraineté nationale tels qu’ils ont été définis par la Déclaration de 1789 [...]
It's just a strange argument to make about two states that were effectively founded right around the same time, espousing broadly similar principles and continue to do so, claiming them as fundamental to their systems of government. Both have had a couple of hundred years' worth of significant reinterpretations of these principles.
And yet I have yet to hear, even a French politician, say things like "as Napoleon wanted for the French people...". That's my point. Plus, the Code Napoleon dates to 1804, not the original revolution.
And their slogan is still on coins (Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite). But how exactly does Napoleon figure into that again? In the way the Founding Fathers still influence modern US politics?
I think I explained how Napoleon fits in, as a response to your original Basing 21st Century politics on something written in the 18th century is weird bit. France has laws based on an early 19th century system, its motto is an 18th century slogan, its modern constitution straight up begins by #including an 18th century document.
I can't actually find a reference to 'founding fathers' in the linked page but maybe the confusion here is a misunderstanding of what that usually means in political speech - it's an invocation (often derived from context) of some principle they espoused or are said to have espoused. It's functionally equivalent to standing in front of that 18th century slogan.
> It's functionally equivalent to standing in front of that 18th century slogan.
I don't think it quite is. There's references to phrases from founding documents - which Americans often invoke ("we the people", "shall not be abridged", etc). But there's still an awful lot of reference to "Founding Fathers" specifically. I'm not sure you can listen to more than a few hours of right wing radio in the US without someone invoking Madison, Jefferson or whoever else fits their particular talking point for that moment. The individuals' names, and their writings, are still very much referenced outside of individual slogans.
We were talking about the phrase 'founding fathers' specifically and invocations of 100+ years old 'founding' principles of the state generally. If you want invocation of individuals and their writing, here's president Macron again, a year ago:
In the Paris Pantheon, a mausoleum to France’s heroes, Macron handed five new citizens their French papers in a solemn ceremony to mark the 150th anniversary of the Third Republic.
“At the start of the trial of the attacks of January 2015, I say that to be French is to defend the right to laugh, jest, mock and caricature, of which Voltaire maintained that it is the source of all other rights,” Macron said.
Voltaire, a man born in the 16th century and who is buried at said Pantheon - a temple to the secular saints of France, dedicated in the 18th century - "On April 4, 1791, the Assembly decreed "that this religious church become a temple of the nation, that the tomb of a great man become the altar of liberty.""
Voltaire is an author, not a politician. Hardly the same thing.
EDIT: Today Voltaire could be regarded as an anti-semite it seems. Maybe more due to his disdain for religion, and Judaism being the oldest mono-theistic religion, than a true hate for Jews but still. Always nice to read up, even just quickly, on people and things. And he corrected these statements after being called out for them, specifying he disagrees with Judaism as a religion and not the believers. More than can be said of most people being called out for BS they publicly say.
He was a lot of things, including a political philosopher and he is quoted as such by Macron. You can split these hairs indefinitely, I don't think it changes the (I think more than amply) demonstrated fact that the political system of France is, among other things, thoroughly permeated by 18th century stuff and politicians allude to it and refer to it directly all the time.
Not at all, the Founding Fathers, as implies their name, founded a nation. Voltaire did nothing like that. Philosophers are quoted all the time, and yet nobody really tries to justify his plans by interpreting what these philosophers would think about them. That's not splitting hairs, it is about not drawing falls equivalents.
> the 5th French Republic is going well since the 50s, isn't it?
Is it going well, though? There's never been so much inequality, industrial pollution is spreading everywhere (is there even a single river left you can drink in France?!), political corruption has been adopted as governing principle (see also: Jacques Foccart and the Françafrique scandals), law enforcement is plagued by nazism (French police was never denazified after WWII), and the social services De Gaulle was forced (by popular power) to implement have either been dismantled or rendered painful for both workers and users (healthcare/education/housing).
> Basing 21st Century politics on something written in the 18th century is... weird.
I agree in principle, but it's important to realize that the most important social issues we face today (including depletion of resources and pollution) have been fought against for centuries. We have a lot of lessons to learn from the past.
It is weird in the context of "modern thought," which is ironic perhaps, but it's not unusual... historically speaking.
Once you have generations of commentary, commentary on commentary, past crisis-resolution precedents, etc.... At this point you have a body of "jurisprudence." This is a lot like jewish torah, or most major schools of islamic jurisprudence. A rich one will contain enough examples, rationalisations and counter rationalisations that a very wide range of arguments can be made within the framework.
We like to think of ourselves as rational and rationalistic. rational principles with rational conclusions. The generation of America's founding fathers, and the French revolutionaries was particularly hubristic in this regard. Peak Enlightenment, rar!
But real life society doesn't work this way. We evolve. We make judgements instinctively, incorporating lots of conflicting anecdotes, principles and half principles. We create exception cases etc. A body of jurisprudence can act as a formal, social version of this. It's like a history of ideas.
As flawed as the American government may be, the Constitution is still a more solid foundation than pretty much anything that has come out of Europe since.
reply