NB fails to notice what is obvious to the serious observer:
“Being susceptible to demagogues, dependent upon the ever-changing emotions of the majority and inherently unstable”
Vox, what planet are YOU experiencing things on? In case you never happened to notice it, the US Government is, instead of being unstable, the oldest continuously functioning governmental body in charge of a major state (thus excluding, say, “Lichtenstein” or others from consideration, for an example). There are NO other major nations which have not gone through a radical restructuring during the USA’s short existence (I exclude interregnums as a result of nearby wars, too) – England? Pure monarchy to a figurehead monarchy with a parliament. Germany? Didn’t exist in its current form. Italy? Same. Spain? Revolution in 1930s. France? Innumerable revolutions in the 1800s. Brazil? Argentina? China? Russia? Nope. Australia, Canada, India? Did not exist, per se, in 1850. Eastern Europe? Duh.
I pointed this out long ago in your blog, but apparently you failed to grasp it. If it is constructed properly, and the people themselves support it actively, democracy is one of the MOST stable forms of government, since it allows for a continuous, smooth answer to THE critical question at the heart of political stability: Who shall rule: Who shall succeed the predecessor?
Hell, the strength of the system, along with our belief in it, was shown in 2000, with the signal swamped by the noise. In most other nations, the solution would have been for both sides to fight for it – instead, there was a lot of legal jockeying by both sides, until they ran out of arguments, and one side became the winners by default. The reason why no one picked up a gun to resolve it was obvious: The American People would not have accepted such a solution, and those in the race knew that was so.
This need not be uniquely American. It may well not apply in Iraq, but if you don’t try, it damned sure won’t. You can be against the US’s actions, but at least get basic points right. Democracy is not inherently unstable, and the continued existence of the USA is blatant proof of it. It’s the underlying people in question who make any governmental system work or not work.
Let’s see… if we ignore longer-lived governments which happen to be smaller, forget about a violent civil war which transformed the nation from a peaceful voluntary union to a continental quasi-empire imposed by force at the will of the central government, then pretend that the English parliament hasn’t reigned supreme since beheading Charles I in 1649, we can use the “stability” of the American form of government as a foundation of our argument.
NB presents an appallingly weak case throughout. First, the American system is overtly anti-democratic, as it is full of numerous laws and institutions designed specifically to weaken the will of the people. There is not even a possibility for a national referendum, and in states which permit them they are readily overridden by legislatures and courts. The American government is not in the least democratic, indeed, the British House of Lords has been known to have a higher turnover rate thanks to the quiet machinations of the bi-factional ruling party in creating safe Congressional districts where the only question is which party creature will be anointed to win the “election”.
The transformation of the U.S. government from a strictly limited and small central government subject to state and individual sovereignty to the all-powerful imperial state with pretensions global jurisdiction is a far greater one than the exchange of King Log for King Stork in an African nation. The fact that the nominal figurehead is still called the President – even if he upholds UN resolutions instead of the US Constitution -–and meaningless elections are still held does not mean that the political system is the same as it was before. While the symbolism is there, the substance is completely altered to an extent that very few are capable of understanding.
The Founding Fathers knew that democracy was inherently unstable, but they were insufficiently skeptical about how easily it would destroy the Republic they created. The reality is that America has known three systems of government:
1. The Free Republic 1789 to 1861 (72 years)
2. The Northeastern Empire 1862 to 1945 (83 years)
3. The Global Satrapy 1945 to present (61 years)
My observations indicate that the USA is rapidly heading towards a fourth system of government, likely one where the federal government will be made openly subordinate to a supernational entity such as the American Union. Using the timeframe of the EU’s establishment as a guide, this will be accomplished by the year 2040 at the latest.