The Great Experiment

>>508531
It failed, obviously, given how the USA centralized anyway.

>>508531
Last time I checked, it's still among the world powers...

How are you, personally, measuring failure and success? I would assume this question determines your answer.

>>508551
This. It centralized.
>GUYS, LETS NOT MAKE A STANDING ARMY BECAUSE THAT IS THE TOOL OF TYRANNY. MILITIAMEN WITH THEIR OWN FIREARMS = TRUE DEMOCRATIC ARMY
>Standing army after WWI.

>>508553
Has it kept its initial promises, goals, and ideals? Successfully? I guess one can say it succeeded on the world power stage, but I think it could be argued that America's become what its founders didn't intend.

>>508531
The Republic became more democratic. The more democratic America gets the more likely it will eventually collapse under its own weight

>>508573
>has it kept its initial promises

lol no

File: url.jpg (6KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 275x183px

>>508573
>Has it kept its initial promises, goals, and ideals?

I think that in some areas it has expanded on those promises and in others has limited it. I don't think the 18th century writers of the constitution could foresee the complexities of a nation, and international affairs/economics as they sit today. Thus, the experiment is living and breathing even today, with its political decedents adding, or subtracting, the original ideals. Whether this is good or bad, I leave to the historians and political contemporaries to hash it out.

In areas of personal liberty, we have grown to give rights to people despite their gender, sex, ethnicity, ect... but we are spying on everyone... hence it's give and take (living and breathing with the times). I think to assert what the founding fathers would think is a power play of speculation; an obtuse political ploy to create an abstract platform to engage in a historical or political conversation. I'm not interested in that, but /pol/ seems to be.

>>508531
What are some examples of how it has failed?
What are some examples of how it has succeeded?

The federal government is absurdly powerful compared to what they wanted, which was more or less a union to help the states cooperate. Their ideas emphasized self-governance, as in, government is largely local and decentralized, so there's no need to apply the laws of New York to Virginia (unless they concern business between NY and VA).

Also the founders were largely opposed to democracy as we know it and thought that demagoguery and granting the vote to the many would degenerate into mob rule. Considering that just about anyone can legally vote now (and some illegally), the America of today is completely contrary to the ideals of the founders.

Also, of course, the president's power has grown huge over time, when Congress was meant to be the main focus/driver of government, whereas now Congressional elections are largely ignored and the President can treat Executive Actions like they were acts of congress.

>>508558
Standing army = tyranny idea is a total meme. It arose at the beginning of the English civil war because of the fear was thatcharles I was bypassing parliament with tariff collections so as to raise an army independent of them, and that he would use this independent army to crush their liberties (al la bohemians at the white mountain). This fear became compounded with the idea that Charles was planning to raise troops in Ireland. But in all reality today you don't need a standing army to seize liberties from the people (which in those days meant either the gentry or aristocracy anyway) but an effective police force.

>>508531
Failed, sectarianism happened, supreme court kept expanding federal power, succession happened leading to massive centralization of power. The USA has morphed into an entirely different entity and all modern politicians who invoke the founding fathers are charlatans.