Last June, I did a little Corner note — actually, a biggish one — on a conversation I had with a cabbie in Texas. I said that journalists must never, ever write about their conversations with cabbies. It’s the worst cliché in the world. I also said I didn’t care — which I don’t.
This cabbie was from Tunisia, and as I remarked, “he ought to teach in Middle East Studies departments — or at least lecture.”
Let me quote a bit more from that post: “Of his native country, he said, ‘They say they have stability, but how can you have real stability without freedom and democracy? Their stability is just a dictator, who will be replaced by another dictator.’”
Then there’s this: “He finds our political system kind of a miracle: ‘When a president’s term is up, he has to leave. He has to get out. If he tries to stay, the police or the military will come throw him out. He can’t just hang on to power for as long as he wants.’ It’s amazing what we, as Americans, can take for granted. Rotation in office is not a universal principle.”
One more, please: “America, he says, has an independent judiciary, and legislatures, and executive branches. In Tunisia — as in most places — it’s all one. The cab driver thinks that the separation of powers is a miracle. Again, amazing what we take for granted.”
Would kind of like to talk to that cabbie today. He is sounder than many well-paid analysts in think tanks, and governments.
Jay - I think our system is even more remarkable than your cabbie gives it credit for - he says "the police or military can come throw [the president] out" if he attempts to overstay his term. That may be true, but we can't say for sure, because none of our presidents have ever tried. 43 men, 43 possible dictators - no takers.
Washington's example of laying down the sword holds to this day, 214 years and running. Unprecedented in history, I would wager.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, democracy is remarkable. But being impressed by how much better the U.S.A. is than Tunisia is a little silly. They have democracy in Canada too, and in many other countries. Let's stop patting ourselves on the back for something that should be normal.
Why do we insist on talking as if there are only two kinds of countries: Dictatorships and the U.S.A? It's inaccurate and it can't help but lower our standards. If the Red Sox only compared themselves to little league teams they'd probably never make the playoffs again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI remember working in Washington DC, when Nixon's impeachment was proceeding.
Somewhere along the line I came across some commentary from some Europeans I believe. In essence, they were fairly amazed there WASN'T a coup d'tat.
For a second I scoffed at that. Then I thought about it for a minute, realized that was virtually all of the rest of the world's experience in such circumstances and understood (just as the cabbie) how amazing is this place.
Yeah, they have democracies, of one kind or another, in plenty of places....now. But to have transitions of power, in the most powerful nation on earth, handled so....routinely (even under an impeachment), is amazing from a broader, historical, perspective.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not that amazing. It's amazing in the sense that every raindrop is amazing. But lots of democracies have peaceful transfers of power. Every inauguration we here about our amazing record of successive peaceful transfers of power. There are democracies that haven't had a civil war in 200 years, as we have. There are democracies that have never had a head of government assassinated, as we have multiple times. That's not to say the U.S.A. isn't great - maybe even the best! - but why do we insist on talking as if no one comes close?
"But to have transitions of power, in the most powerful nation on earth, handled so....routinely (even under an impeachment), is amazing from a broader, historical, perspective."
I don't get this. Our transitions are all the more amazing because we're powerful? Why? Britain is powerful, it hasn't had 4 transitions caused by assassinations. It never had a prime minister's wife govern the country after the prime minister had a stroke.
If American democracy is so strong, stable, and routine, why are we so amazed by it? If I was constantly amazed by the internet, would you think I was tech savvy or would you think I was fifteen years behind everyone else?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDuring Bush's second term I rode in a New York City cab driven by a youngish guy who, from his strong accent, appeared to be of Indian or Pakistani origin. Just minutes after I got into the cab he engaged me in a conversation about American foreign policy, which he thought naive, meddlesome and pointless.
Fair enough; that was a commonly held position then, as now. But what struck me was his referring to the USA as "we" or "us", as in "How come we spend so much money supporting some countries, so much elsewhere bombing them? No wonder they hate us." We. Us. Already thinking of himself as an American, and already comfortable with engaging in free speech criticizing the "Powers that Be." Where else does that happen?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Where else does that happen?"
Canada.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's a good point--Canada is so much like the US that it could be the 51st state if it tried really hard.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIsn't Canada where the monarchists went to, instead of joining the revolutionary fight for independence by the nascent states? Let's get a little perspective, beyond our own meagre years, before patting on the back even Canada for its peaceful transfer of power.
Until the inception of the Unites States of America there was no such thing. Power passed from one king or queen, or one despot or tyrant, to the next. So, no wonder the cab-driver was (and, one hopes, remains) amazed by America. He'd never seen such a thing before, nor have so many in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Jay was right to reflect on our being so fortunate, and to remind us in this excerpt. This is just one of the many things that make The United States of America exceptional, and George Washington a fitting hero. Probably the most important one, and strong enough to trump the designs of the present occupier of the WH.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusetim_t:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm curious how you arrived at 43. Are you remembering that Grover CLeveland counts only as one man, but two in succession? If so, then you are including Barack Obama, when in fact he has not yet faced the test. In any case, those Presidents that did not complete one full term (Harrison, Taylor, Garfield, Harding, and Kennedy) also never faced the necessity of peacefully leaving office, so technically, I think the right number is 37 men. All nit-picking, unless you meant to include Obama before we really know what he will do. That is not a nit.
Jason:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can kind of see your point. We should measure ourselves against principle, and nothing else. Otherwise, we grade on a curve. A few questions, though:
1) Why shouldn't it be more impressive because we are powerful? What is being addressed is the routine rejection of a temptation that is sometimes, in some places, not rejected. More power = more temptation. Therefore rejection of it = more impressive.
2) What do assassinations have to do with it? These are illegal acts, perpetrated by those who demonstrate their own desire to opt out of the social contract of the nation. What bearing does that have on peaceful transfer of power? If anything, it shows that even in times that might present unusual opportunities for the power hungry (remember Al Haig?), our system endures and our people abide by it.
3) Your point that peaceful transfer is not unique to America is well-taken. The fact remains that it is both desirable and in an historic context, far from the norm. If you want to argue against honoring it, wouldn't you be better serve talking about FDR's court-packing, and his rejection of the informal two-term limit originated by Washington?