Just so we're all on the same page here: anything with the phrase "A modest proposal" in the title is satire[1].
The main point is that the symbolic and ceremonial responsibilities of reflecting the character and attitude of the nation fall on someone with a real job, while most other countries have a separation of concerns. On the other hand, the United States has a long-standing tradition of treating the government as an enemy rather than an extension of national identity, so we wouldn't actually have that much for such a figurehead to do. The closest that you get is the First Lady taking up A Cause and enacting change at the philanthropic and national-awareness level.
[1] The original "Modest Proposal" put forth the idea of eating Irish babies as a solution to feeding the poor in London, and is regarded as one of the finest satires in the English tradition.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
Governments that deviate from their proper purpose of protecting individual rights become an outright enemy of their citizens when they supress speech to the point that no one can speak to change things for the better.
It is an understatement to say that this American view of government is just a longstanding tradition; see quotes by Jefferson and other founders.
See quotes? See Declaration of Independence. For anyone who hasn't read the full document in a while, a close read probably the best way you could spend the next 10 minutes of your life.
OK, provided that we are clear on the distinction between state rights and individual ones as understood today. Most of the colonies went into the revolution with established churches; all states but Massachusetts reached the first census with slavery legal.
Then, a little investigation proved that it is, ironically, also in the declaration of indipendence Ho Chi Min wrote for the democratic republic of vietnam.
Well, I'm OT but I felt it was interesting to share this :)
It's not ironic. Ho Chi Min was literally inspired by the United States. It's a tragedy that we (the US) and Ho Chi Min became enemies. I'm not a proponent of communism, but Ho Chi Min's Vietnam could have had great potential due to his charisma, knowledge and 'founder' status among his own people.
What other country went from 0-super power in such a short time? While it isn't necessarily the BEST or RIGHT or anything like that, I think it's pretty straight forward to claim the U.S. is 'special'.
> What other country went from 0-super power in such a short time?
Maybe that's a point.
Though, here are some other examples of possible quick rises: Germany past 1971-unification? France after the Revolution shaked up the the country and dragged it kicking-and-screaming into the century of the fruitbat? Japan after its defeat in WWII.
And of course, if only rise to super power counts, look at Britain and how they started the original industrial revolution there.
Soviet Russia was a change in government from Tzarist Russia, which was already a Big Deal in the world, not a 0 to Super Power transition.
And I wasn't suggesting it was a reason to read the constitution, I was suggesting that the United States is, in fact, special. I believe the OP was referencing the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Maybe it's my jaded, indoctrinated US education, but is the US Declaration of Independence not a unique document, and special on it's own? At least in our (admittedly biased) educational curriculum, it ranks up there with the Magna Carta as an important political document.
We did not talk about the Magna Carta at all in school (as far as I remember), but then, I have a biased German education.
The founding of the US paralleled the earlier founding of the Netherlands. Both fought for independence from a foreign monarchy and were founded at republics. The Dutch also embraced capitalism and a pursuit of happiness. They might not have been as individualistic as the Americans are usually seen as, but the Americans had a very community-minded side to them, too.
"From an economic perspective, the Republic of the United Provinces completely outperformed all expectations; it was a surprise to many that a nation not based on the church or on a single royal leader could be so successful. This period is known in the Netherlands as the Golden Age. The Dutch dominated world trade in the 17th century, conquering a vast colonial empire and operating the largest fleet of merchantmen of all western nations. The County of Holland was the wealthiest and most urbanized region of Europe."
Interesting - I don't think we covered even a tiny bit of Dutch Independence in school. They were just 'there', rocking out with their international trade and huge market place.
The main point is that the symbolic and ceremonial responsibilities of reflecting the character and attitude of the nation fall on someone with a real job, while most other countries have a separation of concerns. On the other hand, the United States has a long-standing tradition of treating the government as an enemy rather than an extension of national identity, so we wouldn't actually have that much for such a figurehead to do. The closest that you get is the First Lady taking up A Cause and enacting change at the philanthropic and national-awareness level.
[1] The original "Modest Proposal" put forth the idea of eating Irish babies as a solution to feeding the poor in London, and is regarded as one of the finest satires in the English tradition. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal