Replies

Many thanks all, do continue, this is excellent...The point about conserving the revolution and America as exemplar was particularly illuminating. If I could clear up a few points though?
I am not a troll, nor am I a democrat trying to convert conservatives. It strikes me that if I were a democrat I would be best advised to try to convert the "floating voter" rather than a thriving explicitly conservative forum. Free Republic is unlikely to provide fertile ground for Democrat propaganda.

Also, question 10 seems to be generating considerable ire. Whilst I am interested in a genuine response, and I do not support the proposition in the question, I feel it is worth pointing out a few things about British history in this period. The rationale for much British military action at this time was not selfish empire (at least not in public). The British invasion of Egypt was "to restore order" and to bring Egyptian finances and administration back into shape. The government at the time proclaimed that this would be temporary. The advance into the Sudan was an early example of the fight against the Islamic extremism of the Mahdi (General Gordon, Omdurman etc). The Boer War was started in defence of the democratic rights of British subjects in the Boer Republics. Britain was the only global superpower at the turn of the century, according to the definition of being able to fight a great war in two theatres. In addition, Britain as understood by comtemporaries included the autonomous dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa), which with a little imagination could be compared to states.

There were considerable differences which it would be wrong and foolish to ignore, even besides the obvious time and space differences, but I thought it might be worth clarifying why some people have tried to draw comparisons here, and why it is at least worthy of response rather than dismissal as ridiculous.

Also, I realize the two questions concerning repealing and amending the constitution technically can be the same answer, as an amendment is needed to repeal another amendment. However, please accept my apologies on this point, and assume that I meant a fresh addition to the consitution. Also, I would broaden this question on further reflection to include alterations to procedure, precedent and custom e.g the role of the Supreme Court, or the practice of filibustering.

Also, question 7 posits a choice which is obviously not entirely representative of all of the possible foreign policy options- any other directions for 21st century American foreign policy would also be of interest.

Thanks once again

Many thanks all, do continue, this is excellent...

It is a common mistake/oversight to use the word "All" in a posting and somehow expect that everyone you refer to will get the word. Even if you put "All" in the "To:" box of a reply it will not get the job done.
If you hope to get replies to a reply, you must see that the FR handle of each poster is explicit in the "To:" box of your reply. I have taken the trouble to do that for you, above.

The point about conserving the revolution and America as exemplar was particularly illuminating.

I refer you to The Theme Is Freedom: Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition by M. Stanton Evans.
Further recommended reading: American Beliefs by John McElroy.
And anything written by Thomas Sowell (and he has written a lot) will be illuminating. See especially his recent book, Black Rednecks and White Liberals (note that Professor Sowell is black).

I feel it is worth pointing out a few things about British history in this period. The rationale for much British military action at this time was not selfish empire (at least not in public). The British invasion of Egypt was "to restore order" and to bring Egyptian finances and administration back into shape. The government at the time proclaimed that this would be temporary. The advance into the Sudan was an early example of the fight against the Islamic extremism of the Mahdi (General Gordon, Omdurman etc).

As my namesake the ancient Greek historian Polybius observed over 2100 years ago, every war has a "cause" (true, but not avowed) and one or several "pretexts" (avowed, but not true).

The cause of the 1882 invasion of Egypt was a threat to the continuing British access to the Suez Canal by an Egyptian civil war. The pretext was "to restore order and to bring Egyptian finances and administration back into shape".

The incursion into Sudan was necessary as Sudan's geographic position directly threatens Egypt and the Suez Canal.

While the U.S. has often acted, and also failed to act, on the basis of its own self-interest, it has also often fought for idealistic purposes in causes that yielded little or no strategic advantage to the U.S.

The Europe Union has recognized such idealism by the fact that, 60 years into the Pax Americana, it has virtually disarmed itself and has entrusted its defense to the Americans while reserving the right to sneer at America's preoccupation with such vulgar matters as the ability to successfully wage war.

By contrast, the British Empire and Imperial Germany so distrusted each other in regards to relative naval prowess that they bled each other almost to death on French soil when the traditional enemy of both had always been France.

While much can be made of Belgian neutrality as a British casus beli in 1914, such concern for neutral rights were not evident in 1801 when Nelson destroyed the Danish fleet at Copenhagen in order to eliminate the Armed Neutrality.

In the end, the Europeans trust America's idealism for their very survival much more than they ever trusted themselves.