[rcktmrtn]

> This is less historical record than medieval propaganda piece

I think you could make a good case that the title is a little sensationalistic, but you could pick at US civics class in exactly the same way (and not just in recent history). The branches of government we learn about fail to include (or at least emphasize) the fundamental role of regulatory capture, lobbyists, and opaque/undemocratic three-letter agencies in real-world governance. Not to mention the fact that even the founding of the country was based on high ideals that were highly caveat-ed ("all men are created equal" unless those men are property).

Regardless of the extent to which ideals are lived out in practice, to many people it's notable that those ideals are there at all. In my experience as a US citizens, most people educated here seem shocked to learn that there can be any ideals behind monarchy besides divine right of kings/"I am the state" [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27%C3%89tat,_c%27est_moi

[tshaddox]

Separation of powers as it’s described in civics class also doesn’t even pass the sniff test. As soon as you hear the idea your first question should be “why wouldn’t the 3 branches collude to the detriment of the public?”

[massysett]

Ambition counters ambition. Federalist number 51.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp

[tshaddox]

A prediction a reasonable person might make at the time, clearly. But clearly proven to be an incorrect prediction.

[lisper]

> unless those men are property

And unless those men are women.

[mbonnet]

or non white, or foreign, or not cishet, or ...