Hacker News Reader

  as far as global hegemons go, the U.S. is the most
  benevolent such entity in the history of the world.

Well, that's some real comfort. You heard it here, better than the Roman and British empires!

The reference point should be absolute moral good, not third-world dictatorships. The whole "city on a hill" idea and what have you. That is what the top-level comment is getting at: Blatant hypocrisy from a state whose denizens have proudly proclaimed it to be "the greatest country on Earth" or "the greatest nation in history", some beacon of freedom and humanism, throughout its existence: The farce that is American Exceptionalism.

Have a good time chasing platonic ideals. You can sometimes achieve them in programming; People, however, are too broken to ever achieve them in politics.

You don't always have to reach your goals to gain benefit from pursuing them.

never a good idea to make the perfect the enemy of the good

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King.

Sure, but you'd hope he wouldn't deny that the other eye is out.

It's easy to forget that the American Revolution is what ignited the fire of liberty and republican ethos, and catalyzed all of today's democracies to end or augment monarchial rule.

The world in the 18th century was not -- and today still is not -- able to grow and nurture a powerful country towards "absolute moral good." The world is still a primitive and dangerous place full of despots at worst in inequality at best.

It's good to hold the US to a higher standard, but unfair IMO to critique with such loathing the way the OP did.

Finally: It's certainly true that many of the ideals of the American Revolution were inspired by European writing on the subject. Not surprising considering most colonists in North America then were Europeans themselves. We can never know exactly how the 19th century would've unfolded had the British Empire not been so immature and insecure with themselves. They were a relatively young world power and they seem to have believed in the same age old "Domino Theory" that still trips up the US today. Had they been more wise in their choices, they would've granted the colonies freedom from Parliament's authority in exchange for full economic participation in the empire. Most likely you would've seen this unfold over the 19th century and quite possibly maintain itself to this day. Had America been a Sterling country, the British economic situation during WWI & WWII would be so vastly different that it's hard to even speculate. And if that were the case, how would that have changed the pace at which democracy unfolds across the European continent and around the world?

I think it's easy and fair and accurate to argue that the spread of democratic and republican ideals was influenced and catalyzed by the 8 years of hot conflict during the American Revolution. I don't think you can over-state how inspiring a Saratoga or a Yorktown was.

You're assuming the necessity of a great, essentially imperialistic power in the world. The source of the scathing criticisms you will often see coming from outside of the United States is the observation that misery was visited by some alien source.

There's no doubt that villains abound .. the question is, does the world need a "global policeman"? The historical record shows that these powers, even when acting with the best intentions, usually lengthen suffering where they intervene by distorting local and regional power dynamics. And more often than not, the motives for selecting a given site at which to intervene are less than scrupulous (Britain in India, US in Iraq) or are perpendicular to the host's interests (Vietnam), in which case there is no excuse for the resulting fallout.

And yet when approached by Ho Chi Minh in the late 40s about supporting the end of colonial rule in Vietnam and instituting a constitution similar to the US's, the US decided to reinforce French dominion instead. The American Revolution was indeed a watershed moment in history, but it can't be claimed that everything descended from it is inherently an action towards freedom and democracy.

Nobody ever claimed that it was.

Mea culpa - I have projected on you. Usually when the US and freedom or democracy are being discussed, the thrust is that those things are some gift that the rest of the world has only through US benevolence. Your overgeneralised first sentence had a bit of this, but coloured the rest of your comment for me. Sorry.

History is important.

After WW2, the US wanted a united front against the USSR. France used their membership in a Western European military alliance as a bargaining chip for the recapture of their Indochina colonies.

The US felt supporting France in Indochina was a lesser evil than letting Western Europe fall to Soviets.

It's easy to forget that the American Revolution is what ignited the fire of liberty and republican ethos, and catalyzed all of today's democracies to end or augment monarchial rule.

Switzerland has been a republic since 1523 at the latest, 1291 at the earliest. The Most Serene Republic of Venice was founded in 421 and lasted more than 1500 years. But France has a much, much better claim than either to have founded the modern republican movement. The idea that the US had more influence on early modern republicanism is risible.

Proto-republic ideas can also be seen in the formation of the Holy Roman Empire - a large collection of independent states with a loose body for oversight, in which the states have a say in how it's selected.

Quite. We also shouldn't forget the Greek city and Roman republics. They are pretty universally and manifestly the earliest.

> It's easy to forget that the American Revolution is what ignited the fire of liberty and republican ethos, and catalyzed all of today's democracies to end or augment monarchial rule.

Chill with the historical revisionism. The American revolution was a very important historical event. But it was NOT the first example of a western Republican government. Both The Netherlands and Switzerland preceded it. The process of moving the west away from monarchic rule was a long one with many important steps along the way. One of these was the American revolution. Which IMO was less influential than the French revolution in ending monarchy.

I was under the impression and correct me if I'm wrong that the French revolution was much inspired by the American revolution.

You are not wrong. The French revolutionaries did take inspiration (and occasionally direct support) from the American revolution. So did the Italian unification which named streets in Rome for George Washington. Even in England the revolution saw the first election of a Liberal government.

England was governed exclusively by parliament (although the king remained in title only) in the 13th Century, and became a true republic after the English Civil War in 1649 (although only for a decade).

>The reference point should be absolute moral good

This is absolutely correct. However, that also applies to the rest of the world. So, what problem do we fix first? The USA's possibly illegal wiretapping, or state caused disappearances, state encouraged suicide bombings (on civilian targets), political prisoners, slavery, nuclear weapon development, attempted genocide?

So, yeah, "greatest country on Earth" or greatest nation in history" may be going a bit far. But from what I can see, we should take care of the more egregious human rights issues first. It is the Law of Diminishing Returns. Preventing illegal wiretapping provides margin return compared to stopping the bloodshed in Syria.

If we're going to have a discussion on how America is not a good nation, we do need to keep it in perspective, and build a priority list for how things in the world should change.

> ....it's still better than almost any government outside Western Europe, and is in some ways better than governments in Western Europe (e.g. with regard to free speech), though worse in others.

Only from an American view point is that true, lots of differing view points come to lots of different conclusions about which govt is "better". That is entirely the point with why the US insists on pushing it's value system on others (by force if neccersary).

Oh, right, because no other country does that.

No other country is as prolific (in modern day).

But that aside, I'm pointing out that saying "our government is better (for you!)" is complete BS. Countries in general shouldn't push their values on each other. Just because some do, doesn't make it all of a sudden a good idea.

>Very little of this is actually true, at least with regards to what the U.S. does internally.

That's true. Internally the US functions as a quite good democracy. But don't get too complacent. Off of the top of my head:

- Death penalty. In 2013. Including for 15 year olds and the mentally ill in some states. - Disproportionate number of blacks in jail. - World incarcerations record. - Segregation until some 40 years ago (and "in practice" segregation still today). - Slavery until 140 years ago. - Mass surveillance. - Awfully class based health care system. - Horrendous labour laws. - McCarthyism.

>As for externally--the Constitution puts almost no limits on the American government's ability to intervene in foreign affairs, and most Americans would agree that the U.S. has zero obligation to do anything internationally other than what advances its own interests.

It's not that the US has ever done anything else ("other than what advances its own interests"). Except for some amounts of "foreign aid" and other crap to help secure a pro-American government lackeys here and there.

Unfortunately, it has also done a lot of stuff to "advance its own interests". After the big colonial powers declined, it has royally fucked up countries the world over like there's no tomorrow. Where "advancing it's own interests" means "doing whatever, from invasion to establishing a dictatorship to get whatever resources and military support it needs, in the terms it wants it, to the detriment of the locals".

>Remember, as far as global hegemons go, the U.S. is the most benevolent such entity in the history of the world.

Compared to what? The Roman empire? I'd say it has been on par with the European colonial powers (France, UK, Belgium, etc) in taking advantage of the poorer 2/3 of the world, from the enslavement of African people to work in the South, to direct invasions, proxy wars and establishing puppet governments and dictatorships.

Please please please don't tell me people actually believe this. Some of the things you are saying here are laughable. I'm pretty sure people in Palestine, Korea, Chile, Cuba, Syria, Iran, Guatemala, and any other states where the USA has decided it should stick its gun in would have some choice words for you.

Korea? Seriously? If there is a clearer example of the benefits of the U.S. world role after 1945, I can't come up with it.

Mass starvation and huge prison camps, yeah I bet they're overjoyed with their US 'benefits'.

I don't think you have a clear understanding of just which competing hegemonies ended up influencing which parts of Korea...

Well, in 1980 Pyongyang was one of the most efficient cities in SE Asia while according to US officials Seoul was a heaving mess of "sweatshops to make Dante or Engels faint", and in 1948 ~100,000 Koreans sympathetic to the North were rounded up and put in prisons (~30,000) or concentration camps (~70,000).

Links would help your case but seriously: You'd invest in 1980 Pyongyang rather than Seoul? You are a crazy person, even without the benefit of hindsight.

I'm assuming he means South Korea.

The most benevolent murderer, pillager, and global tyrant in history. What a noble distinction!

Humanity can do better than that, and your comment is frankly sickening in its moral complacency.

This must be how engineers who help build nukes and drones and surveillance systems rationalize to themselves so they can sleep at night.

Humanity sure can! Now, let's see it in action somewhere with as many people and as much economic activity...

U.S. government very rarely ignores the Constitution

You beat that drum all the time. I don't understand how anyone reasonably informed could ignore the weekly violations of the Constitution by the US Government.

The Constitution itself was intended to place very strict limits on the size and scope of the Federal Government. Its spirit as well as the letter of its rules have been almost totally breached. If the Constitution would be adhered to, we wouldn't have that monstrosity in Washington wrecking everything it touches.

I'm fairly well informed, having read and studied the Constitution in different contexts throughout law school. The difference between you and me, I imagine, is more fundamental than who is "informed" or not:

"The Constitution itself was intended to place very strict limits on the size and scope of the Federal Government."

In fact, there was no single intention in creating the Constitution. Roughly there were two factions (though both wanted a stronger federal government than what existed at the time). The conflict between the two was largely resolved during the founding generation or very soon after--the "powerful federal government" forces' interpretation of the Constitution won, in Congress and the Supreme Court. The Civil War and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment cemented that interpretation at the point of a sword.

The original opposing factions of the Founders were far closer to each other in intent than where we are today.

The fact that the interpretation of the Constitution has changed so radically where you can point out where it decisively was interpreted differently implicitly tells us that the original language and spirit are no longer obeyed. We're somewhere else as a result of the Civil War, the New Deal, the Great Society, and now the utter capitulation to the Nanny State that is Obamacare.

I mean, the language hasn't changed that much. We have written records of the Constitutional convention and the ratification debates within the States. Obamacare, for example, was a universe away conceptually from what the Constitution allowed the Federal government to do.

No amendments have been introduced since then that would allow for many of the functions of government. Yet there they are.

You can argue that judicial precedent and inherently unconstitutional laws have brought us to this point - but you can't really argue that our Federal government isn't in constant violation of the Constitution.

You've provided literally no evidence or reasoning for any of your statements.

"The US government is better than every other government!" isn't a valid argument.

What? If you didn't sound so serious I would think your comment is meant to be a parody.

> Very little of this is actually true, at least with regards to what the U.S. does internally.

The majority of the OP's comment is not about domestic US politics, it's about support of dictatorships abroad. I'm guessing you are not very familiar with the history of Latin america, you should read up on that before making comments like this again. By the way, the US backed ex-president of Guatemala was just found guilty of genocide[1], Hillary Clinton said Egypt's dictator Mubarak was a "friend of her family", and the US strongly backs the regime in Saudi Arabia which is one of the most repressive in the entire middle east. When Madeleine Albright was asked if she thought the death of half a million Iraqi children due to the sanctions was too high a price to pay, she said "I think...the price is worth it"[2].

> The U.S. government very rarely ignores the Constitution

Are you aware that it was recently revealed that Henry Kissinger was recorded saying "The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer"[3] Or are you familiar with the regime of secret law that surrounds drone assassinations, do you think that just because the president can get his lawyer to write him a permission slip that it makes assassinating US citizens abroad constitutional? What about locking people up in Guantanamo bay without a trial? What about torture? What about the 4th amendment. Do you even know which one that is, or why that is relevant to the article about spying on reporters from AP? What about freedom of the press?

> As for externally--the Constitution puts almost no limits on the American government's ability to intervene in foreign affairs

Have you even read the constitution? It doesn't sound like it. The entire point of the constitution is to constrain the ability of the government to do things. It says that the government is bound by all foreign treaties[4]. It also happens to say that congress is the only body of government that can declare war, even though after Vietnam that clause has pretty much been ignored.

> as far as global hegemons go, the U.S. is the most benevolent such entity in the history of the world

are you serious?

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/13/us-guatemala-riosm...

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

[3] http://rt.com/news/wikileaks-assange-release-files-475/

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_State...

http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-on-democracy

Typical USA can do no wrong reply (and am from UK) !