It's interesting to see that all sides of political dispute in US, even parties (like this one) which want to cater to the seemingly more rational and less emotional part of the populace use the argument of "the founding fathers wanted it this way, so... that must be the correct way of doing things forever".
We don’t number our republics but it’s clear they have taken dramatic changes at various times from Hamilton (Federalism) to Lincoln to New Deal Roosevelt, each era transforming American politics and the role the government plays in people’s lives.
We share the founding myth of the country (this is important - you need a shared foundation) but the country has faced dramatic transformation at various times from loose confederation of independent states to global empire with concentrated federal power.
Towards that end I would recommend the recently published book _America's Revolutionary Mind_. It provides a comprehensive (and sometimes exhausting!) overview of the influence of Locke and other enlightenment thinkers on the evolving mindset of the pre-Revolutionary war era. It's not just a review of well known names - but shows just how much Locke's ideas really reached a large range of the then every day royal subjects of the crown in the colonies.
Even with that - its still amazing we got something as good as the Constitution.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/44807363-america-s-re...
That's kind of what defines politics. EU politics may be where a lot of power is, but it's not where most of the politics is. "Who we are as europeans," beyond a point, isn't a sensible way to start a sentence. No morality tale or symbol of the EU commands that kind of sentiment.
In the US, it's the opposite. State politics might house a lot of power, but the politics is a lot meeker. "Who we are as Californians" commands a lot less sentiment that "as Americans." No one cares who fathered California, or how many constitutions it has had. There isn't much existential anxiety about how California might lose influence relative to Texas.
So, whether it's the constitution of the 5th Republic, founding fathers... it's all just symbols, like a flag, but with more depth. Ancestor tales aren't new. It's rare that they don't play a major role in human culture.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/b24157621977bd4ff3fd790731e6c...
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.
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.
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.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-politics-macron/to...
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.""
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.
An idea, not founding saints :-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
These are comparable to the US civil war?
He tried to conquer a bunch of places. That's generally not seen kindly in the modern era.
Also he lost, which generally allows one's opponents to control the narrative.
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.
EDIT: Yep, the French revolution happened after the American one. The French helped the US as reaction to the Seven Year war, basically to stick it to the British. That Napoleon became Emperor was also caused by the various wars the French Republic fought against the various European monarchies. History is ironic sometimes.
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.
Nothing is more nauseating that modern people looking upon the past with moral superiority.
If Britain retained its American colonies (because the slave holding ones didn’t join the revolution) then abolition might not have happened at all.
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.
https://theconversation.com/the-confederate-battle-flag-whic...
>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.
https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/rioters-left-feces-urine-in-ha...
>“Congressional staffers saw feces in the hallways,” the source said Friday.
>The vile vandals apparently took dumps in bathrooms and then spread around their poop, a Schumer insider said.
>“It came from the bathroom and they tracked it around,” the source said. “There was an intentional effort to degrade the Capitol building.”
>Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) of Brooklyn also reported that some members of the mob urinated on the floors during the rampage.
>“There was urine. There was clear desecration,” he told WNYC on Thursday.
But I think the Founding Fathers specifically had a vision for the nation that was transformative. And it actually goes all the way back to European Philosophers like John Locke.
The U.S. Constitution has embedded within it the Enlightenment observations that created the modern world. I believe these observations were profound. I also believe that's why we aren't on the the 5th republic. Despite being a young country, we have the oldest constitution on the planet.
And much of the trouble we are in as a planet is that the enlightenment itself is under siege. It's worth it at this time of turmoil to consult history with a bit of prudence.
Part of the general trend of radical adherence to the Founding is an understanding of the equally radical philosophies they championed and that many (if not all) of these are universal and timeless. Rights like being able to say just about anything without being detained or killed by your government don’t expire — they’re central to liberty, period.
Also, the Enlightenment was a movement very much based in rational thinking. There’s lots of American political rhetoric based in emotion, but respect and adoration for the Founding is hardly the worst of it.
And they were a diverse group who only came together against the British.
The former Spanish colonies from Mexico to Argentina were part of the same empire, speak the same language, derive their legal systems from the same framework, but they shattered into 20 different states and even led wars against one another.
The only attempt to build something bigger out of them, Greater Colombia, only lasted from 1819 to 1831, and the country split precisely on the centralist vs. federalist question.
In contemporary intellectual climate, it is almost a heresy to say this aloud, but American political model proved to be messy but durable. Of course, it may yet split on the social network toxicity much like it did split in 1860, but its longevity is pretty significant.
Of course, it helped that U.S. is isolated from other powers of the world by two great oceans. Invasion by an external enemy was by far the most frequent cause of problems in my corner of the world. Being located right in the center of a historically violent continent is a recipe for trouble.
I agree completely. It’s hard for us to imagine seeing it break up but there is nothing that prevents that except our general desire to live together.
I think large democracies with functioning governments are very unstable over long time horizons. The reason I mention functioning is that if the government of a large democracy is largely non-functional than you can mostly keep doing whatever you want with whatever cultural norms you have where you live. But a functional one will actually pass laws and actually enact things that affect your life that you may disagree with - look at the current abortion stuff. There is no reconciliation to be had on many of these issues. Or look at the Republicans rhetoric around the debt limit “they’ll have to do it without us” - yikes.
The US has lasted as long as it has because for most of the time the country was somewhat homogenous and where it wasn’t you could “go fuck off into the woods” and nobody would bother you. With that being less of a possibility the country was always on a collision course for instability, but WW2 and the Cold War kept people united around a common enemy that threatened basically held beliefs. With that gone we will either have a new uniting enemy, or we’ll eventually just form some different governments.
1: https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/11/14/good-question-can-...
> It’s hard for us to imagine seeing it break up but there is nothing that prevents that except our general desire to live together.
That thing that prevents it is evidently the [EDIT: Supreme Court's interpretation of the] Constitution, so it's not just a matter of losing that general desire to live together. We'd have to at the very least go through the difficult process of amending the Constitution to allow it, in order to actually legally break the union up.
Laws don't prevent things.
Laws provide a justification for people who want to prevent things fo act to prevent them.
If there is no will, the law does nothing.
This is an important point. Due to the progress in instant communication, all politics is now national.
No, it won't.
Because the Founding Fathers aren't now the mythology glue holding the nation together. American national identity is mich more (and much fuzzier) than that.
Appeal to the Founding Fathers is just a tired political cliche.
Flags are frequent on walls of event venues, people put them on cars as stickers/flags or on their clothing (rarely, I know), and the US populace displays national symbols much more frequently than elsewhere (maybe with the exception of war/conflict zones for other reasons).
Living in Europe, the flag is used typically in the "us vs them" (sport, marking of some products maybe) and in official (army, embassies, governmental buildings and posts) contexts. Of course, there are exceptions.
The "proud to be American" saying doesn't really seem to answer the question, as it's on some level just word salad which begs for another set of explanations, so I was thinking that my original thesis might be closer to the reality.
I got one behind me. I put it up the day after Seditionists attacked The Capital. My uncle gave it to me after I returned from an actual war 20 years ago.
I think we got reasons to be proud. The Enlightenment was first conceived in goverment here. As a result of that awareness I read all the original European philosophers who made up that 17th century intellectual movement, and I have a deep appreciation for that wisdom and what it helped create. And I think the ideas within are worth defending. I can't speak to a Europeans relationship with his or her country, but there is a good reason both historically and ethically, that ours is so prominent, and I think that identity has been good for the country.
And honestly just as an observation it seems more benign to have a flag as a symbol that actually means something to people when there isn't a war or a soccer game, than only trotted out when there is one.