Hacker News Reader

Comment by cjs_ac | Hacker News Reader

Why is it that every high-brow discussion of US politics soon ends up quoting one of the founding fathers? As an outsider, I think the fundamental issue in the US political system is that there doesn't seem to have been any new ideas since the eighteenth century. It's just a bunch of rhetoricians quoting the same ancient texts, as though the US faces exactly the same problems it was facing two and a half centuries ago.

View on HN

> Why is it that every high-brow discussion of US politics soon ends up quoting one of the founding fathers? As an outsider […]

I, the GP, am Canadian, so have my own system to worry about.[0]

But if you're going to talk about the pros and cons of a country's system, it is useful to a certain extent to look at what the architects were thinking. And in this particular case they did have some insight into the weaknesses of what they thought up.

Another that I heard in a recent podcast[1] was the fact that the existence / creation of political parties was not put in anywhere in the US system (even though they had existed in the UK already), and so you can get into tribalism/clans, which we are now seeing the effects of.

[0] https://sutherlandhousebooks.com/product/the-crisis-of-canad...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhZBLpzcYx4&t=50m50s

There have been new ideas, and even a "second founding"[1]. But unfortunately, some of the ideas from the second founding era and beyond are still controversial.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Founding

First mover disadvantage. The US was among the pioneers of modern democratic system, and arguably the most successful one, which paradoxically trapped its descendants into thinking there must have been something magical about how it was initially set up and it should never get updated.

Many other latecomer nations didn't enjoy that kind of success - in fact many of them started with their first few presidents being brutal dictators, so they're under no illusion that their own "founding fathers" were infallible angels.

All of the ideas the founding fathers discussed arose in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms in the 1600s. If you're familiar with that conflict, particularly that between the Parliament of England and Charles I, a lot of the US founding fathers' particular obsessions (the word tyranny, for instance) make more sense. The real magic in the American Revolution was how spectacularly unambitious it was; all of the most important parts were already in place in Britain, and only denied to the colonies through sheer bloody-mindedness.

The US is not the first modern democracy; it's just the best at self-aggrandisement.

> The real magic in the American Revolution was how spectacularly unambitious it was; all of the most important parts were already in place in Britain, and only denied to the colonies through sheer bloody-mindedness.

I think the main 'innovation' was the splitting up of the Crown / Executive.

One failing was not taking political parties into account. It's not like they were unknown at the time:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party#18th_century

maybe for some of the same reasons that discussion of computer science likes to quote Knuth? or big-O notation?

The political theories/philosophies developed by the founding fathers remain foundational for reasons.

> high-brow discussion of US politics

lol, implying you'll find that on HN

Reply on news.ycombinator.com