Under the Growing Influence of the 1%, American Exceptionalism has Become American Deceptionalism

[PETRUS]

<snip>

As the US itself became more like Europe - more industrialized, more urbanized, less composed of small farmers and more composed of urban workers - the resistance to learning from European advances became increasingly irrational, and at odds with American pragmatism. Our political system lagged behind as well, lacking the fluidity and inventiveness that made parliamentary systems the dominant form of democracy elsewhere around the world.

This perverse refusal to learn from others who have been inspired by us in the political realm is strikingly at odds with Americans' grassroots improvisatory traditions. From food to music to everything in between, Americans have always adopted diverse influences, mixed them together and made them their own, based on the sole criteria of what works.

Yet, with far too few exceptions, we Americans have spectacularly failed to do this in the realms of economics and politics, where powerful elites have emerged to repeatedly stifle the US' spirit of ingenuity. Not only that, they have successfully blinded us as well. Under the growing influence of the 1 per cent, American exceptionalism has become American deceptionalism: a perverse refusal to see what others have done - often inspired by our own earlier examples - and use that knowledge to continue advancing ourselves.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/29-4

More at the link.

[snagglepuss]

1. Interesting piece however parlimentary democracy is seen thru rose colored glasses.

A number of years ago I saw a documentary about nuclear waste. What stood out was the powers that Americans had at their disposal to stonewall and eventually block projects such as Yucca Mountain. Had such a project been slated for Canada, Canadians would not have the power to block it. The efficiency of parlimentary democracy has a downside.

[PETRUS]

2. That's true, I've thought about that trade off myself.

The separation of powers isn't necessarily a bad idea. But nor is proportional representation. But the author spends more time talking about health care than the specific form(s) of government. I think the point is to learn, adapt, synthesize, etc.

[MedicalAdmin]

3. IF Canada elected senators....

... do you think that would make a difference?

[snagglepuss]

4. I don't really know how much of a difference it would make. The Senate has

limited powers. Power is really concentrated in the hands of a Canadian Prime Minister.

[MedicalAdmin]

5. An elected senate presupposes a fundamental change in function.

Thus, perhaps lessening the influence of your PM.

I am remembering what churchill said of america "they can be counted on to find the best, most effective solution to a problem, after trying every other stupid solution first."