Pages

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

The Rise and Fall of the American Experiment


At the end of this piece you will find a list and pictures of a small number of the hundreds of empires that have existed in history. I was amazed at the relatively short length of most of these empires. The obvious exception is the Roman Empire that we westerns are likely most familiar, which brought me back to Alex de Tocqueville’s analysis of the American Experiment in Democracy. Of course we don’t call ourselves an empire today but a superpower. We also have a relative short history as typical of many empires. And, you have heard me comment upon Fareed Zacharia’s book “Post American World.”

Now I do not believe the American experiment will disappear in the Post American World, but it will no longer be an empire/superpower that it once was. But I think there are incredible dangers facing the American experiment that could cause us to self destruct. The big issues I see are: 1)radicalization of parties, in our case the Republican Party who has become incapable of find a middle way or even consider compromise on any issue it holds dear. 2)An economy where the wealth is so inequitable in may bring down the entire economy. 3)The lost of a strong middle class as a result of 2. 4)The need of radical election reform where the rich cannot buy the government or put them in debt to them. 5) Similar to 4 ending the lobby influence where the rich and major corporate America the ultra rich can dictate laws to their benefit. Unless, we can get the election process under control again and more equitable elections, I fear for our country’s future.

Even then I wonder about the American experiment in the current world of speed. Everything moves so fast today, and democracy by nature is slow. It is rather like what is said about education, “it takes 50 years to get a new idea working in education.” With the speed of information today, our government just may not be able to keep up with the dodges of special interests groups even if they try.

Now for an abrupt return to my college days when I fell in love with philosophy and in particular The Dialogues of Plato. I don’t think I’ve ever recovered. Here’s a simplistic description of the society Socrates pictures in Plato’s Republic – citizen states. There were three classes: soldiers/police who would protect the society, the work force makes the things we need and providing the services we need in our society and the government to lead the country. What Plato called the leaders of government were Philosopher Kings. Doesn’t that have a nice ring to it? In back of this whole idea was the concept of a just society, and the roles people needed to have such a just society. But the idea of having the brightest of the bright, the best educated as the leaders of the government appeals to me. This is different the electing old military heroes (at least they have leadership experience), a time honored process in our country or the one who can get the most money together to bamboozle the electorate to make us think they are best for us.

In our country if you want to be a teacher you have to have a degree and a license to allow you to teach. If you want to be a military person or a police person, you need training and a license to do so. If you want to be a plumber or an electrician you need to be trained and licensed to do these things. You could even say if you want to be a criminal, get caught go to prison and let your fellow prisoners teach you to be a professional criminal. This list could go on and on. My particular peeve is ministry, in which those of my era had to have college degrees and then advanced degrees and practical training as lawyers and doctors do in order to be a pastor. Now we’ve got a bunch of folk with much less education or those who just buy a degree off the internet and can call themselves a pastor. Hmrph!

But what does it take to become a legislator and leader in government? Nothing, just the ability to get people to elect you no matter what you qualifications. The one I hear the most is candidates saying they have run a business therefore they know how to run a country. Bull. A trained economist will tell you there is a lot of difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. Let me put it this way. There is a big difference between household economics and business economics and government economics. They work differently and the rules that apply to one does not necessarily work the best for another. Debt management is a big illustration I won’t get into.

If you want to become a governmental leader does it not make sense that you have a degree in political science? Should not a degree in government be a requirement to work in the government? Plus you should have advanced degrees and know how to access the people of excellence in those fields related to government such as economics.

The founding fathers were mostly men of strong liberal arts education and were familiar with the governmental options of the day. They were long and hard to develop a system to work for our new country knowing that they could not anticipate everything and that the government would grow and change and the country did. But the great assumption they made was to have a sound government they needed and well educated electorate. And that has become less and less true.

Oh we have an educational system that has its ups and downs. Currently it seems primarily focused on getting folk jobs. That’s good, but not enough to make them educated voters. The liberal arts education, strong knowledge in history, economics, government, etc. are being lost on primary, secondary and advanced educational levels.

As a result we have politicians who expertise is in getting elected and reelected but not necessary much about the job they have when elected. Plus we have an electorate that knows a lot about vested short term interests for themselves and theirs, but a lack of background on the issues of the day. Plus we have a media who is motivated to sell news rather than report news accurately and evenly. And we have a lack of laws requiring honestly in political claims and false claims about their opponents.

Now I am not really suggesting we have philosopher kings to run our country, but there is a lot of merit in that system which trained its leaders to lead based upon the principles of justice. Today we have no principles.

Just some interesting stuff as though this article is long enough already.

GDP size
1.     British Empire - $918.7 billion (in 1938)[3]
2.     Nazi German Empire - $375.6 billion (in 1938)[3]
3.     Japanese Empire - $260.7 billion (in 1938)[3]
4.     Russian Empire - $257.7 billion (in 1913)[9]
5.     Qing Empire, China - $241.3 billion (GDP decline to 1912, immediately before its downfall)[9]
6.     French Empire - $234.1 billion (in 1938)[3]
7.     Italian Empire - $143.4 billion (in 1938)[3]
8.     Indian Empire (British Raj) - $134.9 billion (in 1870)[9]
9.     Afsharid Empire, Persia - $119.85 billion (in 1740)[9]
10.   Austro-Hungarian Empire - $100.5 billion (in 1913)[55]
11.   Mughal Empire, India - $90.8 billion (GDP decline in 1700)[9]
12.   Dutch Empire - $60 billion (in 1900)
13.   Ottoman Empire - $26.4 billion (in 1913)[56]
14.   Portuguese Empire - $12.6 billion (in 1913)[55]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lTduTwqtjY    utube video of empires, it is absolutely great.

The pictures of the following didn't come through just watch the above video, is is more fun anyway.

1. Ottoman Empire (1299–1923)


2. British Empire


3. Mughal Empire (1526–1858)


4. Mongol Empire (1206–1368)


5. Russian Empire (1721–1917)


6. Qing Dynasty (1890–1912)


7. Umayyad Caliphate (661–750)


8. Roman Empire (27 BC–AD 476/1453)



9. Achaemenid Empire (550 BC–330 BC)


10. Akkadian Empire (2300 BC–2200 BC)

No comments:

Post a Comment