This Christmas marks the 350th anniversary of the least-honoured genesis of
American freedom, to be celebrated in the New York suburb of Queens. For
only the fourth time in its history a fragile piece of paper called the
Flushing Remonstrance will go on display.
Written in 1657 by the English citizens of the Long Island village of
Flushing, it asserted their right to freedom of conscience against the
autocracy of Peter Stuyvesant, the Dutch governor of their colony of New
Netherland. It thus long predated the “self-evident truths” of Jefferson’s
1776 Declaration of Independence.
The Flushing Remonstrance protested against Stuyvesant’s arrest, torture and
expulsion of a Quaker preacher for defying his ban on all religions but
Dutch Reformed protestantism. The 30 signatories were not themselves Quakers
but demanded that in the new colony: “If any persons . . . Presbyterian,
Independent, Baptist or Quaker . . . come in love to us, we cannot in
conscience lay violent hands upon them.” Indeed they demanded that “the law
of love, peace and liberty . . . [extend] to Jews, Turks and Egyptians . . .
which is the glory of the outward state of Holland and condemns hatred, war
and bondage”. The citizens of Flushing ringingly declared: “Let every man
stand or fall to his own Master.”
The remonstrance, expressed in beautiful 17th-century English prose, enraged
Stuyvesant. He feared too many disagreeable immigrants might be lured to
America by what he called “an imaginary liberty in a new and, as some
pretend, a free country”. He opposed any houseroom being offered to Quakers
and ordered all ships carrying such alien religions be sent back to sea. He
arrested and expelled a Flushing citizen, John Bowne, who had allowed his
house to be used by Quakers.
Stuyvesant met his match in Bowne, who took his case to the board of the Dutch
West India Company in Holland and returned triumphant. The company finally
slapped down Stuyvesant and asserted that there would be full liberty of
conscience in its American territories. While New Englanders were burning
witches, New Yorkers established a domain of liberty to the south.
Not until the 1791 Bill of Rights was the freedom of conscience set out and
won in the Flushing Remonstrance included as an amendment to the American
constitution.
Like the rest of America, Flushing is now steeling itself to honour its
remonstrance in another respect, through the ritual of a presidential
election. That ritual begins in January in the caucus rooms of Iowa and the
snowstorms of New Hampshire. It then embarks on what has become the most
extraordinary year-long festival of democracy anywhere in the world.
The preliminaries to an American election are rooted in history and appear
immutable. Americans are people of the book, treating their constitutions,
precedents and treatises as of quasi-sacred import. The linguistic beauty
and clarity of meaning of their early documents is unsurpassed.
An American election is more than a periodic shifting of oligarchic chairs. It
is a mass assertion of the people’s right to choose and dismiss their head
of state. It is the closest any big country gets to James Madison’s “pure
democracy”, regularly purging the accumulated toxins of the political blood.
Europe has nothing to match it.
Such an election is not always nice, for much is at stake. A presidential
election is a drawn-out extravaganza of trumpets, flags, hucksters,
publicists, journalists, lawyers, businessmen, dancing girls, saints and
bigots. It often terrifies the outside world, which is why American
elections produce a storm of transatlantic abuse about the degeneration of
democracy into a dumbed-down rich man’s, white man’s club.
So-called cyber-democracy has added the charge of plebiscitary mob rule, as if
the majesty of presidency has been reduced to the level of an electronic
town hall meeting.
In 2008 at least one aspect of such abuse will be simply untrue. The
democratic lottery has already put into the spotlight not a gaggle of
millionaires but a black, a Mormon, a woman, an Italian and a southern
Baptist. The governors of the Dutch West India Company would have swelled
with pride. The Flushing Remonstrance is alive and kicking.
The late Arthur Schlesinger, the historian, would lecture Americans on the
power of their democracy “to take the world to the brink of disaster” and at
the last minute haul it back. The subject might be the Depression, wartime
isolationism, McCarthyism, nuclear confrontation and now a concocted “war on
terror”. Whatever it was, said Schlesinger, “the great strength of democracy
is its capacity for self-correction”. America reaches the right answer only
after trying all the wrong ones.
At a time when America is the acknowledged world superpower, such a
rollercoaster beneath its leadership can easily be misunderstood. In its
paranoid reaction to the events of 2001, America under George W Bush
appeared reckless and imperialist, a bully and a “preemptive aggressor”.
It has fought indecisive and incompetent wars against weak countries that
America cannot help and can only plunge into poverty and misery. To the
wider world, it seems to crave enemies not friends, losing sight of
Kennedy’s inaugural admonition that “civility is not a sign of weakness”.
The neoconservative denizens of Washington have been reduced to polluting
their intelligence, suspending habeas corpus and debating the uses of
torture. They seem unable to engage with other world powers on such matters
as trade reform, international law and the future of the United Nations.
This is why America’s friends abroad have felt more despair this past five
years than in the previous 50. To turn a phrase once applied to Britain by
the American diplomatist Dean Acheson, America has acquired an empire but
not found a role.
Yet there is to be an election. As those friends also know, there are as many
Americas as there are Americans. Any visitor to that country can sense a
yearning for a change, as can any reader of its polls or consumer of its
media. This is represented by a sign over Phoenix, Arizona, counting down
the days to the end of the Bush presidency. It is represented by the
continued buoyancy of the Barack Obama campaign. America seems desperate to
give itself at least the option of a black president, of the idealism of a
born-again Kennedy.
That Obama’s candidature can be contemplated in a land that has twice voted
for Bush and Dick Cheney is the measure of how drastically America’s
constitution allows it to cleanse its politics and grasp at something new.
It does so by inculcating respect for its documents. The Flushing
Remonstrance, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the
Emancipation Proclamation do more than set out the basis on which a
commonwealth conducts its business. They offer a blueprint for the purgative
tradition, summed up in H L Mencken’s famous definition of elections as
“chucking the rapscallions out”.
When America appears to teeter on the brink of disaster, “the book” drags it
back. In an age of overweening government, only the book has the power to
call it to account. That is why Americans revere their historic documents.
It is why Europeans, who lack such documents or at best abuse them, wander
so casually from the path of liberty. As they wrestle in interminable
constitutional disarray, Europeans should note the classic simplicity of the
American texts. Their conservatism, their attention to checks, balances and
liberties, is not archaic cliché but democratic realpolitik. Those texts
would certainly pass the test of referendum.
Last week the British prime minister, Gordon Brown, could not bring himself to
attend the ceremony in Lisbon to sign the new European constitution. But
sign he eventually did. He thus joined Stuyvesant against Flushing. He
backed authority against liberty, as his wish to extend detention without
trial backs state power against the practice of freedom.
As long as Europe’s citizens allow their leaders to do such things, they
cannot criticise the American way of democracy.
Queens is not a suburb of New York. Queens is one of the 5 boroughs that make up New York City.
mike, new york, new york
The Constitution did not aim to create a "pure democracy" in the United States. The U.S. was wisely formed as a democratic Republic. Pure democracy would result in mobocracy... government by the numbers rather than one by reason and fairness with respect for the individual rights of every citizen. It is unfortunate that, like the author, most Americans are unaware of this fact . Because they seek to elect proxies in government posts rather than men and women possessing sound reasoning skills, integrity, and a clear understanding of the Constitution, they undermine the beauty of our form of government under the Constitution. This creates an oligarchy no different than a mob except the requirements to be in this "gang" are much higher than the "average" citizen can claim. Until the American people truly understand the Constitution they will merely elect another "leader" who is helpless against a huge entrenched bureaucracy with tentacles that invade every aspect of our lives.
Merry Colin, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Yes! It was rather nice while it lasted, but alas and alack, its but a fond memory these days.
Joe Little, Pittsburgh, US
Simon Jenkins wrote a very complimentary opinion on the US Constitution, views I share. He does not deserve Todd Huston' s appeasement slurs.
Britain and France declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939, France was invaded on May 12, 1940, and capitulated on June 22, 1940, partly in the belief that the country just could not support losses on the scale of its WWI losses which wiped out a generation of men, and led to negative population growth well into the second half of the 20thC.
Germany and Russia signed a non agression pact on August 23, 1939, which bought Russia much needed time to rearm until Hitler invaded anyway on June 22, 1941.
The US entered the war when Germany declared war on it on December 12, 1941.
The British Commonwealth stood alone against Germany for two long years, the Russian attitude was understandable, the US's rather less so. Russian losses in both wars were 27 m, France 2.2, GB 1.3, USA 0.6. Stalingrad was the defining event of WW2.
dan rees, Monnetier-Mornex,
I think we can put your estimate of American democracy down to the season of good will. America describes itself as a democracy but how else would it be governed? In all the circumstances of it s history it has ended up with the government that it has and it calls this a democracy. I don t doubt that you are right about the disciplining effect of the written document but I am sure other factors are at least as important, such as the sheer size and diversity together with idiosyncrasies such as the gun culture.
On the other hand you haven t observed the point that the US conduct of foreign policy is not in the least democratic, and that is most people s experience of America in action. Moreover these non democratic overseas actions can feed back to and affect America in ways which may show up the limitations of it s so called democracy at home. That is surely the big threat from the US, as expressed by the Bush administration. A right wing US executive can use the undemocratic and comparatively unrestricted field of foreign policy to circumvent domestic restrictions in advancing its interests. The signing of the European constitution moves the countries of Europe towards the more cohesive aspects to be found in the American way of government and away from the divisive field of foreign policy.
Henry Percy, London, UK
Mr. Kalb the second amendment was not written to protect American citizens from a strong national army but as a protection against foreign invaders. The amendment was specifically referring to the British who the Americans were fearful would come back and attack. Durng the writing of the constitution the states were still very much independent and the militias were the only real source of power. Currently nobody has the right to own a gun the supreme court is ruling on that later this year. The district of Colombia you are not allowed to own a gun. So unless you are on the National Guard you technically have no right to a gun.
Christopher Whyte, Fredonia, NY
Mr. Kalb I may not have been clear in my last post. The well regulated militia was set up to counter balance to the federal government but there was a need for state militias at the time for protection. The problem is now we could all train to fight with weapons to change the federal government but if this was a true democracy, could we not just change policy with our votes? I do apologize I am in the middle of studying for finals.
Christopher Whyte, Fredonia, NY
I hate to burst the bubble of "democracy", but America does not have a real democracy. That requires a government "of the people, by the people and for the people." We have a Republic, which by definition is representation in government by elected officials.
I've been thinking, & I don't believe we could function with a true democracy. Everyone would have to participate. We're too lazy for that. We have become too used to letting other people make our decisions for us.
J. Rhinehart, SC, USA
No witches were burned at the stake in New England. They were hanged, and there were only a dozen or so. The witch-burnings took place in Europe, and that went on for centuries. Get your historical facts straight.
We are a republic, a representative democracy. And we believe in individual rights and liberty. And we're firm believers in freedom of speech which is why we don't enact hate speech laws in this country, unlike Canada and some European countries.
Girlchild, Erie, Pa.,
We live in a Republic not a Democracy. Also a Democracy will eventually fail b/c it goes by mob rule.
Joseph Schell, St. Louis, Missouri
From these comments, I think it is important to note that the author is talking about the ability of the United States to CORRECT itself of mistakes it made in the past. Yes, there have been many cases of abuse of our system in the past and present, but it is America's ability to correct those wrongs that set us apart.
Brad, Boulder, Colorado, USA
America was formed as a Representative Republic. "Democracy" is simply another term meaning "socialism". The founding fathers are turning over in their graves.
Lee Green, Fayetteville, NC
Mr. Whyte, when the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, they were concerned about big government using the army to oppress the people. The "well regulated militia" was meant to protect the people from the national army. On that note we citizens shouldn't just own guns, we should train ourselves to fight with them. Gun control is essential for the survival of any oppressive government.
Michael Kalb, Austin, Texas
to say the US follows the documents it holds sacred is a misunderstanding. The documents especially the constitution were first undermined with John Adams who made a tough choice as to whether the federal government could use its funds to build a road. John Adams decided to use federal funds to build this road and since then the documents have been pushed and interpreted to the meaning of the courts. Our founding fathers would be ashamed of what we have today. Courts are using an instrumentalist view of our constitution. In the 1920 President Roosevelt used his power as the president to force the courts to approve his new deal programs. This is also not the first time a branch of the government has used its influence to have its mandates. During Civil War reconstruction it was congress who had the power vetoing most legislation of president Andrew Johnson.
To say that the election of 2008 will give the US a fresh outcome is not true; the polciew and new agencies will remain after bus
christopher whyte, Fredonia, NY
The American democracy is not what our founding fathers left us. The documents started to lose the value of each word starting with John Adams when he used federal funding to build the first road. Since that time we have had President Roosevelt force the courts to go against itself on his New Deal legislation. The court is taking an instrumentalist approach to its decisions, where as a party you stack the courts in your favor. This ensures when a decision is passed through Congress against your party the court can always challenge it and gut the power of it or remove it all together.
The US has never had a true democracy the documents you speak of above and the people who wrote them never believed the average person could make a sound decision and instituted the electoral college to make the decision for US.
In response to Mr. Wyatt from Phoenix, if you read the 2nd amendment it states you have the right to bear arms for the militia not to fight your government.
Christopher Whyte, Fredonia, New York
Robert Harneis, Strasbourg, France...
You are wrong, wrong, wrong.
It is all well and good recalling that Gore lost relevant votes in Florida, at least, but by the same token Bush lost votes to Gore in Texas, at least. This was stated at the time, and has conveniently been forgotten by those who voted for the unelected party.
And when it comes to democracy, voting, and therefore, right and wrong, please do not use France as a measure. Or indeed any EU country.
Remember, EU citizens have the right to free movement, but they better not stop, and they won't be given the right to vote.
H H , Evian, France
Our Electoral College ensures that the US is a democratic republic, not a democracy. Beyond this small notion, I am impressed with this piece. Well-written and thoughtful.
brizzle, San Diego, CA,
"...a land that has twice voted for Bush and Dick Cheney"
In fact it voted for them once at the most and probably not even once. In the first Bush election Gore got 500,000 votes more than Bush. In France if you get more votes than your opponent you win. How is that less democratic than the US?
Robert Harneis, Strasbourg, France
You may be interested in the Providence Agreement, written in 1637 (20 years before the Flushing Remonstrance) by my ancestor Richard Scott. The Providence Agreement has also been termed "Rhode Island's Magna Carta." Scott left Bristol, England, in 1634 aboard the ship "Griffin." He arrived in Boston with his wife, Katherine Marbury Scott, who was the sister of the "notorious" Puritan dissenter Anne Hutchinson. Richard and Katherine Scott were real headaches for the Puritan authorities in Massachusetts; she was publicly flogged for heresy. The Scotts eventually sought religious sanctuary in Rhode Island.
The Providence Agreement declared that the undersigned agreed to majority rule "only in civil things." This document officially established separation of Church and State in Rhode Island colony.
Richard Scott later became the first Quaker in Rhode Island. (Katherine reportedly convinced Rhode Island founder Roger Williams to become a Baptist.)
Mark Scott, Ojai, California, USA
Those of us whose parents came to the US from other countries learned of the importance of the English experience in the building of the values of the U.S. But with world war two when this country for the second time in a century helped to save Europe, something changed in Britain. Their devotion to freedom gave way to their desire for security. The English tolerance made room for immigrants who want nothing less than the establishment of their own law, a religious one. What motivated the US to fight the islamic terrorists who have killed civilians with their bombs from Indonesia to Algeria and many places in between is the same US that sent its military to save Europe. Churchill told his countrymen, "Never surrender." But that was a long time ago,
mhr, Burbank, US
What is a real democracy? What are its characteristics? I think these are proportional representation, the right to a "neither candidate vote" forcing a new election with new candidates from all the parties, if the no vote touches 50% of the electorate, a law forcing all people to register and vote. (This could be a carrot, 100 dollars to each citizen who shows up and votes, or a stick in the form of the police dropping by to take you to their county jail for a week of all expenses paid FUN! And equal representation by wealth. Just say 50% of all Senators and Congressmen must make less than $60, 000 a year. Television time would have to be free to all parties who win 5% of the vote, and no politician could use anything other than this free TV time to explain his ideals. And all campaigning or any kind or political reporting in which a politician appeared would be banned 24 hours before the election. + NO vulnerable to fraud, electronic voting. Democracy has ever existed.
Victor Compton, Cherbourg, France
Some good points made, but the thing that sets America apart from Europe et al is our freedom.
The vexing problem is there has always been those out to reduce these freedoms.
Beginning with Hamilton vs Jefferson to this day, we have had this national debate in one form or another.
Recently, as with this year as well, the chioce is really between big government socialism verses capatalism. Socialism representing the inefficient all encompassing nanny state, and capatalism providing the ultimate economic "Darwinism".
It has been my experience that in America if you dream it and work hard you can achieve it.
Provisions for this kind of free will are enumerated in our founding documents and yes these are considered sacred to most of Americans.
Hopefully we can continue to hold these "truths to be self evidant", and not fall into the trap of a collectivist type EU constitution.
KE Mayfield, Colorado, USA
Mr. Jenkins article is nice, in a European sort of way. It balances the way Europeans have traditionally viewed the US with perceptive insights on American democracy. But this balancing act naturally produces the usual tensions in the middle and his reference to the war on Islamofascism as "concocted" is a case in point. Americans diagnosed the European angst some time ago. It is a softpower argument that looks good on paper until confronted with situations like the former Yugoslavia. The invasion of Iraq may have been a mistake, but let history decide its wisdom or foolishness, as it has with so many other actions that were at one time highly controversial.
Dave, Katy, Texas, USA
To my not inconsiderable knowledge, there were never any "witches" burned in New England. The Salem unfortunates were all hanged save one man who was pressed to death. Historical writings should be strong on historical fact.
Steve, Tulsa, Oklahoma USA
An article with such promise and that began with an educational slant, but lapses into Absolute Twaddle ... if pure democracy means the richest man/woman wins at any cost then we're all lost!
The UK completed the last election in just 5 weeks - while the Yanks are determined to see how much money can be spent on politicans and lawyers and television in 2 very long years rather than dealing with issues such as health care and poverty.
Admittedly far from perfect, yet Europeans don't have to resort to bearing arms and pieces of paper (which this administration has effectively torn up over and over again in it's tyrannical rule by fear format) for civility and freedom ... while respect for international law, humanity and the Geneva Conventions are, I think, a prime example of current differences in attitudes (can you spell Guantanemo?)
Freedom is for people that have money.
Richard, New York, USA
SJ- I can appreciate some of your sentiments, but I'm constantly frustrated by your daydreaming romanticism.The main gist of your argument; that the US constitutional documents have crafted a sound democracy is valid, but you are living in a pure fantasy land to suggest that Obama and Clinton represent the solutions to all of Americas ills.
WTH, Chicago Full agreement with you that Europe and specifically the UK are weak spirited, and in fact I think the UK is socio-political cesspool. Despite the political frustrations, most Europeans would rather live on this side of the pond. Ironically, the US was founded as a corporation. Other than some wealthy entrepreneurs, the only people to travel to the US were the worlds desperate and impoverished and the result is that after a couple of hundred years all you have is a vast continent of souless towns and a mean spirited, overworked, underpaid consumer society enslaved to corporations and credit rather than governments or kings.
Richard, Europa, Europa
Simon Jenkins is right about our democracy and wrong about it's inter workings, that mechanism that drives policy and decisions.
Congress voted overwhelmingly to enter Iraq on more than a dozen grievances. War is never popular when it in fact becomes WAR. It's TOUGH.
But as MR. Jenkins outlines, not only is the American Presidential campaign the most democratic, it is the toughest most arduous job interview in the world and it gets tougher, not easier. Whomever emerges, they will have survived the toughest test and will be the the President of The United States of America.
George Washington:
[Europe] "...Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships..."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
[Enemies] "the period is not far off...; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel..."
Vanyogan, Epping, ND USA
"The linguistic beauty and clarity of meaning of their early documents is unsurpassed."
Perhaps the language of the time was better suited to purpose and thinking enabled by the fresh start mindset of pioneers of the New World enabled precision of mission statement.
dr venables preller, Warminster, UK
As usual, a British commentator looks westwards and sees only America. while being blind to a country just a few miles to the west of Britain which has a very decent written constitution.
J. C., Brussels,
No matter the topic, the theme on this web site never changes. A bunch of males with a "mine is bigger than yours" mentality. How old are you people? This is why women should govern the world.
Female, San Francisco, CA
Fantastic article. You capture quite correctly the spirit and the brilliance of the American revolution - the shot heard round the world. I have to laugh at the teeth gnashing of Jan in Stafford and John in London who confusing direct democracy with our democracy.
You are absolutely correct to contrast this with Gordon Brown invidious signing of a "reform" agreement for the EU- itself one of the most undemocratic and non-transparent government agencies in the world. Had he tried that with Americans, they would have tarred and feathered him.
You are however wrong about Bush- that kind of summary dismissal and exaggeration about his administration weakened your point. It suggests that any war, let alone two in countries decimated by totalitarian governments, should be shining successes within a few years of launch and victory. Such as never been the case and your inference displays ignorance that negates your perceptiveness prior to that point.
Michael, London, UK
What twaddle. The rhetoric began so promising of a European who just might "get" the real genius of America only to end up mired in politically correct, self congratulatory garbage. Obama is no answer to America's perceived latent racism as this bloated Brit seems to think. He is no "answer" to the eeeevils of Bush and Cheney.
This fool seems not to have any understanding about America at all. But, it's no surprise that a Euro type Brit is so far off track. You ARE the people who sent a Prime Minister to the single most murderous, dangerous and evil man in history only to proclaim that there was "peace in our times," weren't you? We Americans left your fetid shores for a reason. And we shall never look back or else lose our soul to the siren call of appeasers and weaklings.
One last thing. It should be remembered that Stuyvesant was YOU then, Mr. Jenkins. And he still is you and your kind. Shame, really. You lot used to be so promising.
Warner Todd Huston, Chicago, Illinois, USA
'You kicked us out'....george,london? Well maybe we should kick you out of our green and pleasant land,and not have to listen to your unadulterated drivel!
Jan, Stafford,
A fantastic article and certainly brought a few pseudo intillectuals out of the woodwork showing off their lack of a good education.
D Case, Newquay,
The US Presidential election is not democratic and does not pretend to be. The President is chosen by an electoral college
whose members are provided by each of the States. No member of the electoral college has to vote for the candidate
favoured by the voters in his or her State. There have been many instances when electoral college members have gone against the democratic wishes of their State.
John, LONDON,
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
Thank you very much indeed for reminding us of the importance of the seminal document, Flushing Remonstrance of 1657.
It is easy to miss in the glare of halo surrounding the three founding documents of America, namely, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, the sublime power of the earliest formulation of Freedom of Conscinece.
I am sure that James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, and Alexander Hamilton the Father of Government were well aware of the foundations that they were building upon.
As you so insightfully point out, America will be pulled back from the brink thanks to the founding documents. Wish all other countries had similar founding scriptures that informed their conduct.
Sincerely yours,
Narasim Katary
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
Narasim M. Katary, Sudbury, Canada
There's nothing worse than reading a pompouse Brit's take on American democracy. We kicked you out almost 250 years ago so we didn't have to listen to such tripe. One might assume you'd be more concerned with the lack of democracy in a European Union which has now stripped you of your national sovereignty. But no, better to concentrate on those dreaded (and non-existent) "neo-cons." I hate to dissappoint you, but Obama will be a neo-con too - that is, he will defend the United States and not be too concerned about the views of pompous European windbags. You're out of Iraq (and good riddence) and you're now ruled by Europe. Enough of your consdescending gibberish.
george, london,
After Brown's election-that-never-was, I was surprised at the comments supporting fixed-term governments and fixed election dates in the UK. I've always found the months of razamattaz surrounding US elections to be an enormous waste of money and resources that ensures that only the very wealthy have the ability to stand for election. As nauseating as UK general elections are, at least they don't last for 2 years!
iain, london,
America is not a pure democracy. We're a democratic republic. Pure democracy is not democratic, nor does it represent equality and freedom.
I'd rather Europeans attempt to deal with their own inadequate comprehension of democracy, equality and liberty, rather than attempt to diddle with ours.. they aren't welcome to. :)
Molly, Boston, MA, US
This an insightful look at U.S. democracy which reminds one of Winston Churchills' comment about democracy being the worst system except for all the rest. Our expensive and superficial election process is frustrating and sometimes an embarassment, but it may be superior to the alternatives available elsewhere.
roy fingerson, richland, Washington, USA
Ah yes, SD Goh, the rednecks assassinated Kennedy, keep telling yourself that and you won't have to accept that an ardent anti-Communist, Cold War fighting US president was in fact assassinated by a left wing Moscow trained Soviet agent.
It's always easier to ignore reality.
Michael Hills, Singapore,
What absolute tosh. America has the most flawed democracy in the Western world. Most of the voting districts have been so gerrymandered that they are completely uncompetitive. The electoral college system is an abomination. It means that the candidate who gets fewer votes can win and that the interests of large states are almost entirely ignored (because their results are predictable) while the interests of smaller, swing states get disproportionate attention from the politicians.
As for the perfect clarity of its founding documents, that's just more twaddle. In reality, the phrases in the American constitution are extremely ambiguous and take on practical meaning only after being interpreted by unelected judges who have the power to make sweeping changes to the citizen's way of life.
It's also perfectly clear, to any close observer of the last few elections, that they have simply been stolen by the Republicans, using a variety of tricks. Read RFK's Rolling Stone article on this.
Paul, Glasgow,
"America’s constitution produces a pure democracy we will never have"
Thank God for that much at least!
Oliver, Brighton,
ASP from michigan writes that the NRA is 'doing' something to my great Nation.
To ensure that the yoke of oppressive government cannot order its people about, the founding fathers ensured that we had the right to bear arms. The british tried to take our guns, ban the making of weapons, banthe import of gunpowder, to ensure that they could oppress our people with unjest laws that did not represent the people.
They broke our guns, they destroyed our weapons and arms, they tried to tell us that we do not have the liberty that we are born with.
Their ignorance and adherence to being a subject of the crown blinded them to the freedoms that the colonists demanded, at the end of a gun.
Just as this fool from michigan is blinded by his own anti gun rhetoric that he cannot understand that we the people derive our power from the ability to defend ourselves from our government.
Rome fell, and people like you are trying to make this repuplic fall too. You sicken me.
Wyatt, Phoenix, AZ, United STates
But the presidential election is even far more than, a "mass assertion of the people’s right to choose and dismiss their head of state."
No, those quadrennial elections represent the people's ability to carry out a revolution, albeit a peaceful bloodless one! Yes, every four years the people of America, from Main Street to Broadway, have the opportunity to completely change the direction of the nation. The right to vote enables them to bring in a president from the opposition party, and with him, a new majority from his party.
Since the earliest days of the country, Americans have been keenly aware and proud of the great power given to them by the Founding Fathers. The right to vote was a cherish right, many times resulting in 95% or more exercising that right at the polls. (Forget complaining about women and slaves not being able to vote, for ALL countries have laws establishing who has the franchise.)
Bob Evans, Anaheim, California
Nice pot-shot at Brown there at the end, but all-in-all this comes up way short. I know many love to romanticise about the United States, but the reality of the situation, having lived here for three years, is very different. The American political process is certainly nothing to be enamoured of, fraught with corruption and cronyism that even a Greek or an Italian would be shocked at, let alone a Briton. Presidential elections are little more than long, drawn out mud-slinging fights based on five-second soundbites with barely any discourse on salient political issues. If that's what you really want, you're welcome to it, but spare me your American sentimentalism.
Alexa Abercrombie, New York City,
1. Mr. Jenkins, Wake up and look beyond the folks across the pond and you'll realize that the biggest and the most fascinating democracy is India! With illiteracy and lawlessness still lingering in many remote areas, the Election Commission of India has been successfully conducting reasonably free and fair elections for decades.
2. Though India is not a superpower (yet), the voting system is fully electronic and it precludes many common malpractices. America's is not fully electronic and remember the 2000 election?.
3. Reflecting the many Indias in India, the regional political parties have gained a lot of power in the last 20 years or so, and made possible better representation of all Indias in the Parliament, unlike in the US where you have to choose between the better of two evils.
4. NRA and its ilk are also, ostensibly, people of the book (the second amendment). Look what they are doing to the US!
ASP, Farmington Hills, MI
Is it a disgrace or an irony that an American cigarette company then used P. Stuyvesant's name to brand their products?
Andrew, Ramsgate, Kent
At least we don't arrest 6 years olds for hugging their kindergarten warden.
Matt, Wuerzburg, Germany
America did not burn witches. We hung 'em. And not all that many, as I recall. And many of the persecuters of those poor, emotionally-disturbed women later expressed a profound sorrow and remorse over what they had done. As for what keeps us on an even keel no matter who inhabits the White House, it is our Bill of Rights and our difficult to amend Constitution. Not to mention a congenital mistrust of the political and chattering classes. And now that British national identity will soon be lost in the United States of Europe, undoubtably our system of governance will look more remarkable still.
Leon A. Davis , Scottsdale, Arizona
For good Obama's sake I hope he does not win the Presidency for the simple reason that there's a possibility that some redneck (and there are plenty of different shapes and sizes throughout the world) might truncate his office by the same method that got JF Kennedy to relinquish his.
SD Goh, PJ, Malaysia
AH, Flushing. I know thee well. Home of two worlds fairs and in recent years mostly asian: Indians, Chinese, Koreans. Adjacent to Corona, home of the Ice Queen of Corona, a group of shops selling flavored Italian ices, from an earlier wave of immigrants and familiar to Paul Simon, of next door Forest Hills and made famous in his top ten song.
"Goodbye Rosie, Queen of Corona
See you, me and Julio down by the schoolyard"
glenn schaefer, holbrook, ny/ USA