The article cherry-picks its history and has a disagreeable tone; but this is an easy dismissal. I think this article begs a deeper analysis. I see the main v

The article cherry-picks its history and has a disagreeable tone; but this is an easy dismissal. I think this article begs a deeper analysis. I see the main virtue of the article thus: it identifies a successful (by some measures) political system; attempts a deconstruction into its components; and then draws some conclusions from them. The political system of England and its sister nations (the article argues) is successful in providing a robust government that maintains important personal freedoms. While the main support the article lends is pointing out the failure of most other countries' political schemes, we can also find strong evidence elsewhere. For example, the United States has ended slavery and granted suffrage to the poor, to former slaves, and to women, all while maintaining a nonviolent transfer of power between administrations and fundamentally similar Constitutions. Of course, the American Civil War was anything but nonviolent, American Presidents have been assassinated, and some Constitutional Amendments fundamentally change the structure of that nation (for example, the 14th). Nonetheless, it is hard to argue that other political systems can claim even such results. The article then attempts to deconstruct what this "Anglo-Saxon civilization" entails. The author provides three broad components: the rule of law; personal liberty; and representational governance. For example, the author groups the protection of property under personal liberty (it might justifiably be grouped under the rule of the law, but I believe the author means, by "rule of the law", the simple belief that no entity is above the law). Of course, one is a fool if one says the United States', or England's, political system is perfect. The shared history of the "anglosphere" (let's assume for a moment this is well-defined) is a history of a political system, but also of its use for racism, xenophobia, class schisms, for the destruction of civil liberties. But I think we can perhaps attempt to understand a few points: whether or not the political schemes used in England and her sister countries are in fact more successful than other schemes; if so, how we can characterize the successes, and perhaps distinguish them from its failures; and if so, how we can characterize the necessary components of this political system as leading to successes or failures. Now, I do not claim the linked article was good; in fact it had so many flaws. But it is easy to criticize these flaws, much harder to write an article like the linked. Yes, we do not do a writer justice by blindly nodding along to his words. But it is so easy to find a flaw to complain about---maybe trying to understand what the article is saying, and trying to correct its flaws, is a more noble exercise than criticism?