• PugJesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      We were trailblazers for a time. Other than that, we were always kind of fucked as a democratic system.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Late 18th century. The chaos of the French Revolution arguably diluted its viability as an example to other countries, despite the structure of democratic government being objectively better, so you can argue that we were still on the cutting-edge through the 19th century, even, when most countries were still autocracies or constitutional monarchies with extremely questionable de jure voting systems.

          I would argue as late as the 1950s, our democratic structure was closer to average than below-average, but by the 1970s, what gave the US more in-common with other developed democracies was that we had extensive practice with our democratic system; by then our structure was not just hopelessly outdated, but a structure that no one in their right mind would take seriously as a foundation for a new government. Come the fall of most of the single-party Soviet-backed regimes of the 1990s, and the only countries we actually beat out for being a ‘good democracy’ are ones that… well, are only questionably democracies to begin with. And even then, most of them have structures that are superior to our’s; only a tradition of civic participation has led us to hobble on as long as we have without becoming an outright authoritarian state.

          Though this might be the last month I can say that, which says a lot about the failures of our shitshow of an attempt at implementing democracy.

          • andros_rex@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Late 18th century

            The majority of the population could not vote, either due to their skin color, sex, or degree of property ownership (colony by colony/state by state as I recall).

            • PugJesus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              The majority of the population could not vote, either due to their skin color, sex, or degree of property ownership (colony by colony/state by state as I recall).

              Yeah, you should look into other governments of the period.

              • andros_rex@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Just to be specific, your argument is that the United States of the late 18th century can be considered a “trail blazer” in terms of democratic achievement. You are agreeing to my assertion that the franchise can be used as a measure of democracy, and you are asserting that the United States was uniquely forward in this area. This follow up statement is limiting this to a comparison of similar governments of the 18th century?

                • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Which is a comparison that makes complete sense. When you say that someone is leading the way, you are clearly referring to them being at the forefront at the time when they were leading the way. Any system that was a trail blazer 100+ years ago should be outdated by now, unless progress stopped or went backwards in the meantime.