From my perspective, the United States is a European nation in essence, Benjamin, with lots of extras, and some of the extras extra negative (such as slavery).
So, when I see the creation of the United States, then I see an establishment that is rather pure for that moment in time. Yes, European in essence and with warts and all. So, we have to see what the reality is in Europe, and that is complicated because that continent has been a mess for a real long time. Yet in general we see lots of movement away from medieval times toward the Enlightenment.
We see those same ideals back in the US Constitution (warts and all), and what happens rather quickly is that the ideals of the Enlightenment are corrupted.
What happened in the Enlightenment, in light of power, is that the most powerful position was no longer with God (which is a top-down structure), but with the people (which is a bottom-up structure), simply because it had been exposed that the Earth circles the Sun (Earth's place therefore less important) than Earth being the absolute center of God's attention.
This causes lots of turmoil and lots of great innovations.
But not everyone innovate. Where the Low Countries took the innovative lead after Italy and Portugal/Spain and added on to the new accomplishments of the Enlightenment, we find the English taking a step back. They accepted the fantastic new stock-market system, but their power structure did not innovate.
Henry the Eight is a good example, of taking power from the Church and establishing his own Church of England that bowed to him instead of to Rome.
The British navigation acts made Britain a British ships only nation. No other vessels could enter. We find the first modern example of nationalism, using power (and circumstances) at a large scale. The benefit is so strong that even Low Country investments are made in the British economy. Yes, money is fluid and goes to the winners.
So, when the Framers worked on the US Constitution they did not just look at the best structure to have in place, but also looked at what power structure would prevent the UK from overwhelming the young republic.
That is not culture, Benjamin. That is culture plus (global) circumstances. We are definitively in the modern era when discussing the new start up called the USA.
--
Legally, there is another interesting angle in that the Enlightenment created Civil Law (Napoleonic Law or Enlightened law). No longer was a decision made in the 11th century important, but rather an entire new set of laws that were all in agreement with one another.
The UK did not innovate. They are still based on English Law (Case Law or Common Law) in which prior decisions by the magistrate were still in effect in some kind of manner. Laws would conflict with laws and an army of attorney would battle out who would win.
In the USA, we have an Enlightened US Constitution (Civil Law), but Case Law is still the common practice.
Here is the kicker.
When the US Constitution is mistakenly taken as Common Law, then the judges will sit above the US Constitution, judging what we should see and follow.
When the US Constitution is taken for what it is, Civil Law, then the judges cannot sit above the US Constitution and must follow it verbatim, gray areas notwithstanding.
Fast forward, including the individual US States making sure that Thomas Jefferson's clean voting system is not put in place anywhere, and we see a legal reality of Common Law practice. The US Constitution is subjected to the judges as it is in the UK.
The UK of course never had a revolution, while most European countries had plenty revolutions.
The UK does not have a constitution, but as mentioned judges that make decisions based on their own judgements, using a variety of books that can indeed conflict with one another.
--
Ultimately, the story is about the American Lie that we never talk about. We do not want to talk about the paper reality not being in line with the actual reality.
We are the strongest nation in the world, militarily and economically. Yet we are not the democracy we tell ourselves to be. We are not a We The People nation. We are lying to ourselves. The American Dream is based on hoping that the paper words can indeed be our reality.
-
When I consider libertarianism, I see: how to handle the horse of our economy. If we put a light weight jockey on the horse, we will certainly win. Yet we will then also have little control over the horse when it goes wherever it wants to go.
When I see libertarianism in most European nations, then I see the desire for a light-weighted horse jockey, yet there is not enough support to have that horse jockey be the thinnest it can be. The horse is controlled better, the profits therefore less extreme, but the bottom of economic crises also not as deep.
When there is a two-party system, then the chance to get the thinnest horse jockey is excellent. Bottom of society ends up getting a meager section of all there is. That is a result of power holding on to power as much as possible. Exclusive democracy.
When there are four or more parties, then the chance to get the thinnest horse jockey on the horse is greatly diminished. Bottom of society ends up getting a meager but better selection of all there is. That is the result of power sharing power with all in society. Inclusive democracy.
-
Thank you, Benjamin, for holding on to your idea about chicken and egg. I hope you see that the egg was indeed there but that it had to get broken before we could get a chicken. It is the breaking of the egg in the chicken&egg story that is often ignored.
