One of the latest talking points from the “Bush can do no wrong” brigade is to point out the difficulty our founding fathers had putting together a constitution when defending the problems plaguing Iraq’s. This terrific article from Slate pretty much destroys that comparison :

The real inference to be drawn is that the American colonies were as well-fit for a democratic union as any society in human history—and they took more than a decade to get their act together. Today’s Iraq enjoys almost none of their advantages, so how long will it take to move down the same path—and how long will we have to stay there to help?

Let us count just a few of the obstacles.

A major dispute at both constitutional conventions was how to divide power between the central government and the regional provinces. But in the American case, the provinces—i.e., states—were well-established political units, with governors, statutes, and citizens who identified themselves as, say, New Yorkers or Virginians. There are no comparable authorities, structures, or—in any meaningful sense—constituents in Iraq’s regions (except, to some degree, in the Kurdish territories, and many people there want simply to secede).

America’s Founding Fathers shared the crucible of having fought in the Revolutionary War for the common cause of independence from England. This bond helped overcome their many differences. Iraq’s new leaders did not fight in their war of liberation from Saddam Hussein. It would be as if France had not merely assisted the American colonists but also fought all the battles on the ground, occupied our territory afterward, installed our first leaders, composed the Articles of Confederation, and organized the Constitutional Convention. The atmosphere in Philadelphia, as well as the resulting document and the resulting country, would have been very different.
. . .
Sectarianism did not exist in early America. Yes, there were sharp regional differences between mercantile New England and the agrarian South, as well as moral splits over slavery. But no groups exacerbated these tensions by asserting an exclusive claim on God.

Early America saw armed revolts, notably Shays’ Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. But they were protests led by debt-ridden farmers against rising taxes—not pervasive or murderous insurgencies against the entire established order. They were also put down fairly promptly—Shays’ by a state militia, the Whiskey Rebellion by a mere show of government force.

Or as Bill Maher put it, Jefferson’s people weren’t gassing Hamilton’s people.

It’s worth pointing out that the argument during our constitutional convention 220 years ago (or so) was about whether or not the relatively new and ill-defined “United States of America” needed a strong central government. The main question in Iraq isn’t whether or not to have a strong central government, but the degree to which that government will protect minority rights (among other issues). Yeah, our founding fathers punted the issue of slavery, but not having any slaves participating in the process probably made that one a little easier too.

If the Bush Administration is serious about these comparisons to the American revolution, then the best thing they could possibly do to help Iraq remain stable and independent is to relax the tariffs on imported tea. It worked so well for us.