What are your favorite historical periods for your country?

[Julie4]

For me my favorite period is the period of the great century under Louis XIV, and after the Napoleon period even if it does not equal the period of Louis XIV.

And you what are your favorite periods for your country?

[RavVid]

My particular interest is the development of modern democracy.

I can make an argument that Australia is oldest modern democracy because we implemented all the essential elements first and they have endured. (The US is the oldest republic not the oldest democracy).

But I need to look back further than Australia. Charles the first and Cromwell in particular for the destruction of absolute monarchical rule though it was re-established with Charles the second. The English Glorious Revolution which brought monarchy under the heel of parliament and put paid to absolute rule. The cross pollination between puritans in England and the to be US puritans.

I am particularly interested in the 1848 revolutions. Partly because my forebear fled Prussia with an in abstentia death sentence but mostly because that's when modern democracy started taking shape. In Australia there was the Eureka stockade a bit later (1854) and a lot of our reforms stem from that.

I really need to pay more attention to France's passage as my knowledge there is mostly schoolboy level.

[Sixgunsound]

THANK YOU for acknowledging that we are a republic not a democracy. Most of our own citizens don't even understand that.

[Sixgunsound]

Wasn't that period that caused the revolution?

In the US, my favorite period is the 1780's through the 1840's. It took that long for the original Americans to die off, and for government overreach to begin.

[Sixgunsound]

Thanks for MHO

[RavVid]

It is a little before the American Revolution mostly but certainly within living memory. A key point is that political philosophy hadn't developed before Oliver Cromwell but did afterwards (Locke etc).

Obviously the puritan colonies corresponded with the puritans in England so I am interested in this period. Yet to read the Federalist papers systematically.

I'm interested in 'it took that long for the original Americans to die off'. I would have thought that plenty around at 1776 would be still around till about 1820. Not the founders I guess.

I expect there will be a referendum in Australia to switch to a presidential system in 3 years or so. I am therefore interested in how the office of President migrated from the chief of clerks to governing by presidential orders and congress taking to describing itself as the governance body. Seems a complete inversion of what was intended.

Would appreciate anything you might say on that. My view from far away might be be very wrong.

[Sixgunsound]

@RavVid congress has abdicated its originally designed function to recent presidents who abrogated powers they do not have in co-equal branches of government. We are switching to a socialist dictatorship as cowardly congressional and local politicians cede decision making authority to career bureaucrats in federal agencies so as to avoid voting for controversial policies on the record which might endanger their electoral futures. The branches are supposed to balance eachother, not allow executive fiat to sidestep the checks and balances built into the original founding documents. Executive orders were intended to be used for legitimate, not political, emergencies. Now they are used to ram agenda driven policy through when the originators faction doesn't have the votes in the legitimate, historical process to get their agenda accomplished.

[RavVid]

That is pretty much what I surmised. Julie has described France as having a republican monarchy i. e the president has autocrat powers of a monarch. I was astounded by a congresswoman in the US describing Congress as the governance body instead of the Legislature body. The situation seems to be exactly opposed to what your constitutional founders wanted.

I guess one way of looking at it is that if Congress is deadlocked then there is still a branch of gov't that can do some things. With a parliamentary system we can just have another election to sort it out but you guys have elections on set dates so I would think it would be more of a problem.

It is a little sad to see this. Parties have well and truly captured our political processes but it had seemed to me representatives were more independent of party in the US. I would have agreed the US Senate was the finest deliberative body in the world's democracies but it is looking effectively more party captured - from afar - now. I think there was a period when there weren't effective parties in the US. Quite an ideal state.

[Sixgunsound]

@RavVid the original purpose was insurmountable gridlock to paralyze government. The original American founders were deeply suspicious of government, and people who wanted to be in government. They wanted to prevent government from growing too powerful out of fear that it would simply repeat the abuses of King George, and thereby render everything they fought for meaningless. The current American government is more abusive of its citizens than King George could possibly have dreamt of being or had the ability to enforce.

[RavVid]

Yes. I think I have read that they weren't keen on the executive being within congress as in the British parliamentary system because Ministers could become too powerful. It is a good interesting point the intent was to keep Federal gov't highly constrained - hadn't taken it that far in my mind. But yes what you say ties in and makes sense - thanks for that. It also makes sense in that context to make it hard to change the constitution. Occasionally a light is shone and this is one of them!

Oliver Cromwell would have given your founders pause for thought. At the time of founding, back in England Ministers of the Crown did get too powerful. Hence the concept of Impeachment was developed. A Few nasty executions later it was sorted out but the execution side I imagine is why your constitution says 'no other punishment than etc' It has struck me as anachronistic that you still have impeachment but it makes sense now with that light you shone.

So many thanks!

If there is a move to have a President in Australian than I'll be advocating for an impeachment clause. (But retaining the excution side. I think the fear of god is helpful to good conduct).

Again many thanks for the light.

[Sixgunsound]

@RavVid impeachment only exists as a means for bad politicians to save their own skins. Previously execution was the method of getting them out of office ahead of schedule, and the founders were keenly aware of that practice in their home country prior to independence. The fear of God is definitely helpful to good conduct, why do you think politicians in both hemispheres do whatever they feel they can get away with because they have protection from capital punishment for crimes in office?

[RavVid]

Sadly impeachment isn't in our constitution and has lapsed in the UK. I see the point that impeachment actually saves corrupt politicians. Aside from capital punishment I am inferring that even jail or asset seizure is precluded by 'no other punishment'. Is that a correct interpretation?

[Sixgunsound]

@RavVid in the US no other punishment means they walk away smiling and mocking their victims and the entire nation, with nothing said victims or nation can do about it. Unless you're Trump in which case they will bleed you dry in legal fees for the rest of your life because they can't win honestly but he still has to defend each attempt. I'm waiting for the American left to realize that the precedents they are setting will be eagerly employed once they are out of power.

[RavVid]

From my external view, I would wish that the US was not so politically divided at this point.

As a non US citizen, it is not appropriate for me to comment on US domestic politics. From a more general democratic view it is worrying that elected officials of one persuasion pursue an opponent of another persuasion but then the law should apply equally. I hope you guys sort it out suitably.

[DizzyDesii]

I was honestly gonna say early 2000s which i didn't think was actually a historical era but then i saw this (1991-2008) and i was like okay yeaaa, no

[4ngelic]

france: mid 1800s to early 1900s

us: 1960s-1980s

[Staximus]

Did Napoleon really wear that Caesar Salad on his head or did the artist just paint it in the portrait? My favorite period in American history was probably WW2 because we killed nazis.

[RyanEC]

I would say early years of America 1776-1800.
Late 1800s.
Post World War 2 until contemporary times 1945-2000.

[Andres77]

Pauline Bonaparte makes me wish I'd "known" her.

🤪

[KostasKouvalis]

PRE-history, so the Indigenous period

The Colonial Period

And the Slave Period

[msc545]

Latee 60's and early 70's in California

[Anonymous]

1453 :D