« The Keystone Kops Go To New York | Main | Comparable Worth is Not Equal Pay for Equal Work »

August 17, 2005

1787 With Fewer White People

Harold Meyerson has a very good op-ed on Iraq in today's Washington Post:

It looks increasingly as if President Bush may have been off by 74 years in his assessment of Iraq. By deposing the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, Bush assumed he would bring Iraq to its 1787 moment -- the crafting of a democratic constitution, the birth of a unified republic. Instead, he seems to have brought Iraq to the brink of its own 1861 -- the moment of national dissolution.

It's true. I was thinking about this the other day: we like to imagine Iraq's current Constitutional Convention as an analogue, at least of sorts, to the one attended by our own Founding Fathers. But that's a bit off the mark. It's more as if our Found Fathers had to also deal with powerful, represented contingents of newly freed black slaves and politically empowered Native Americans. Could they do it?

It's one thing to create a democratic republic of basically similar white people, but quite another to deal with ethnic groups who you've traditionally subjugated (or have traditionally subjugated you) and apportion the country in such a way that your dominance is accepted by their leaders. That's what Iraq is going through right now. And, thinking about it, I gotta say: even with the deification of Jefferson, Adams and all the rest, my wildly inflated opinion of the group still doesn't think they could've figured this one out. But then, I'm no longer particularly convinced this one can be figured out. If I'm wrong, however, and Iraq does have a happy ending, their "Founding Fathers" are going to deserve some damn fine plaques in recognition.

August 17, 2005 in Iraq | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/3014356

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 1787 With Fewer White People:

» Iraq: Like 1787 except with less powerful white people from E Pluribus Unum
Ezra:[W]e like to imagine Iraq's current Constitutional Convention as an analogue, at least of sorts, to the one attended by our own Founding Fathers. But that's a bit off the mark. It's more as if our Founding Fathers had to... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 17, 2005 1:14:56 PM

» Iraq: Like 1787 except with less powerful white people from E Pluribus Unum
Ezra:[W]e like to imagine Iraq's current Constitutional Convention as an analogue, at least of sorts, to the one attended by our own Founding Fathers. But that's a bit off the mark. It's more as if our Founding Fathers had to... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 17, 2005 1:16:05 PM

Comments

Aside from the fact that the Founding Fathers didn't have to deal with troublesome Injuns and uppity Negroes wanting a say in the constitution, there is another rather large difference between our nation in 1787 and Iraq today.

No one invaded the colonies, deposed their leaders, disbanded their military, destroyed their infrastructure and then installed a puppet government that is beholden to a foreign power.

And if, say, France had done all of that, our civic ancestors would have fought them just as hard as the Iraqis are fighting us now.

Let's get a few historic analogies straight: Iraq does not equal Pearl Harbor. It does not equal WWII, the Revolution or any of that. It does closely resemble what we did to Native Americans, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and what the Japanese did to most of Eastern Asia in the early 20th century. This is not a noble, "democracy spreading" fight for freedom, it is a ruthless, brutal power grab in a resource-rich part of the world. That's it.

All of the elections, constitutions and magnetic ribbons in the world will not change these simple facts, nor will they allow us to actually win this war.

Posted by: Stephen | Aug 17, 2005 12:10:03 PM

The lack of ethnic homogeneity also should render comparisons to post-war Japan and Germany moot.

Posted by: Matt | Aug 17, 2005 1:18:52 PM

It's more than ethnic disruption.

They're lacking some of the tools the US had at its inception--a big one was federalism. There was a notion that laws could be different in different regions, and that was fine, and that there could be some sort of central federal group that had its own separate powers. Now, obviously, the compromises they hammered out eventually fell apart, but there was enough comfort with federalism as a problem solving technique that it allowed them to table an issue that should have been an utter dealbreaker--the rightly intolerable issue of slavery was tolerated for 80 some odd years.

My understanding is that this kind of balancing act is not a familiar form of governance in Iraq. It makes problem solving MUCH harder, because every issue needs to be faced and solved nationally.

Posted by: theorajones | Aug 17, 2005 2:17:25 PM

My understanding is that our Founding Fathers (tm) punted on the slavery issue on purpose in order to form a more perfect union (as in not completely perfect yet, but at least a union), figuring it was more important to get a basic government in place. We still did need to deal with the freein' o' the slaves later, but by then the union was at least saveable (albeit after a very nasty war).

Not sure what the analogies are to this in current Iraq though. What's puntable there?

Let's not forget the Soviets in Afghanistan as another model of a foreign power coming in, kicking out the gov't and installing a pliable puppet government that met their needs and fit their ideals of what gubmint ought to be.


(And didn't the French in fact give us not a little assistance in kicking the Brits out?)

Posted by: john I | Aug 17, 2005 3:35:17 PM

Cities vs Tribes

Juan Cole;short. However complicated you thought Iraq is...

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Aug 17, 2005 4:22:25 PM

"It's one thing to create a democratic republic of basically similar white people,"

why do you thin it is easier to create a democracy amoung white people?

Posted by: dan | Aug 17, 2005 8:00:51 PM

"why do you thin it is easier to create a democracy amoung white people?"

Please read more carefully. It's not whiteness that makes it easier, but ethnic homogeneity.

Posted by: Andrew | Aug 17, 2005 9:45:19 PM

"It's not whiteness that makes it easier, but ethnic homogeneity.

Please think more carefully. Why state "whiteness" if that is not the issue?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 17, 2005 9:58:36 PM

Please think more carefully. Why state "whiteness" if that is not the issue?

Because it's factually correct? Or were there some non-white founding fathers of which we're unaware?

Posted by: paperwight | Aug 18, 2005 1:08:06 AM

Because it's factually correct?

That is simply the dumbest statement ever. Andrew stated that white didn't matter, yet you insist it is relevant somehow.
Why not bring in the color of the colors of the factions fighting in Iraq? Oh, that's right, it doesn't give the loonies on the left a chance to hate white people.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 18, 2005 8:49:02 AM

Fred Jones, in 1787, the only people allowed to participate in, and ultimately vote for, the new Constitution, were property-owning white males.

That's why it's relevant.

Posted by: The Dark Avenger | Aug 18, 2005 10:57:55 AM

Well, Mr. Avenger(you name stealing bastard), it's awfully nice of you to pinch-hit for Andrew, but he, did, indeed, state that it was not 'whitemess' and my question was, then if 'whiteness' was not the issue, why bring it up? If you are going to stick your fat head in a conversation, please have all the facts.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 18, 2005 12:28:24 PM

Listen, I realize, on some level, that you guys have to be conservatives. That's your role, that's fine. But you don't have to be idiots, do you?

So knock it off. Reply to the point of the post and don't idiotically twist things to make it some racist issue. I will not have my comment threads ruined by this sort of conscious stupidity.

Posted by: Ezra Klein | Aug 18, 2005 2:02:06 PM

F.J., I'm willing to bet any amount of money you can name that I wasn't responsible for any of the recent name stealing that went on here.

Ezra knows the truth, and what I told you before is coming true: You're the one who'll be responsible if you get banned here, so if you can't keep your temper in check, oh well.

Posted by: The Dark Avenger | Aug 18, 2005 6:53:29 PM

Well, Mr. Avenger (you name stealing bastard), thanks for the advice. It is worth pretty much what I paid for it!

Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 19, 2005 9:52:44 AM

Anytime, Fred Jones(you twisted, misogynistic fucktard).

Posted by: The Dark Avenger | Aug 19, 2005 12:11:27 PM

...you twisted, misogynistic fucktard

Amanda, it that really *YOU*??

Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 19, 2005 6:24:27 PM

Great site and pretty colors!
Pallet truck Lmctruck.com Used truck bodies Water truck Classic ford truck parts Sterling trucks Truckload transportation Truck trader.com Chevy truck transmission Rc nitro trucks Custom truck parts Minnesota truck accident lawyer Watkins trucking Nitro rc trucks Truckstops Las vegas truck accident lawyer Truck shocks Truck suspension Pickup truck caps Truck bed Truck winches Used ford trucks for sale Car and truck accessories Truck driving careers Truck financing Truckload carrier Truck lift kits Peterbilt truck Trucking schools Truck running boards

Posted by: Trucks p | Jun 23, 2007 7:23:06 PM

Your know last news! What is this? Discounts!
Princeville resort Sunday river ski resort Georgia resorts Lake tahoe resorts Royal resorts Maggie valley resort Oscoda resorts Brasstown valley resort Disney resort Big sky resort Lake tahoe ski resorts Lawrence welk resort Gaylord opryland resort Tucson resorts Resortquest Summer bay resort Wolf creek ski resort Bora bora lagoon resort Door county wisconsin resort Sandles resorts Phoenix resort Deerhurst luxury resort Turtle island resort Mandalay bay resort Sedona resorts Angel fire ski resort Fairfieldresorts.com Last resort by papa roach Big mountain ski resort Tamarack resort

Posted by: Resort e | Jun 27, 2007 8:28:05 PM

Post a comment