Some historical highlights relevant to Populist Reform, Part 1. American Exceptionalism
Last edited Sat Aug 22, 2015, 08:57 AM - Edit history (1)
Those who don't understand their history don't understand their present, either.
(Apologies to those who, like Edmund Burke and George Santayana, expressed related sentiments about history much more elegantly.)
American exceptionalism is not a myth. For one thing, the Americas comprised an entirely almost brand "New World," at least to white Europeans (not counting Scandinavians). After all, 1492 was not so far removed from 1607 (settlement of Jamestown).
For another thing, the USA was the first nation in modern times to make a conscious decision to overthrow a monarch-type ruler, create an entirely new nation and put power in the hands of citizens. Well, a few citizens, anyway.
In any event, those two facts are indeed exceptional, though we usually take them for granted today.
The new nation had multiple personality disorder, though. While there was pride in the new nation, Americans tended to look to England and France for things they considered classy (literally and figuratively), elegant, fashionable, refined, etc. All men were equal-but not women of any kind, and some men were considerably more equal than others. Not even all white men were equal in the new nation, only those white men who owned land and could afford to pay a poll tax. In 1789, that was about 6% of the total population.
Even all that was good for only a vote for a Congressional representative, who had less power than Senators, the Framers having been quite leery of the rabble. All other votes were in the hands of the electoral college (President) and state legislatures (everything other than President and Congressional representatives, including ratification of the Constitutional and its amendments).
Moreover, land grants had originally come from the King and colonial officials who tended to end up in state legislatures had formerly been appointees of the King or of colonial Governors who themselves had been appointed by the King. Only landowners could vote, and land grants had also originated from the King. Money and class were quite meaningful. The same people often, but, not always, had both.
The best modern example of the Boston Brahmin class, for example, came to me via a story from someone I met while taking a summer course at Syracuse. He came from a blueblood family that had long since lost its money.
He had mentioned to his impoverished DAR member grandmother that he had voted for JFK. She responded: "The Kennedys are shanty Irish, with a whiskey fortune. You did not vote for him and that is that." I guess looking down on someone else is the surest sign of your own superiority/exceptionalism? 
What has all that to do with Populist Reform? Well, if none of the above seems to have any bearing on the USA of modern times, we'll just have to wait until I post a few more parts of this series.
= new reply since forum marked as read
rarely my intent. 
