Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The perils of constitution-worship
Economist ^ | 23 Sep 2010 | Economist

Posted on 09/25/2010 1:04:09 PM PDT by Palter

One of the guiding principles of the tea-party movement is based on a myth

Wouldn't it be splendid if the solutions to America’s problems could be written down in a slim book no bigger than a passport that you could slip into your breast pocket? That, more or less, is the big idea of the tea-party movement, the grassroots mutiny against big government that has mounted an internal takeover of the Republican Party and changed the face of American politics. Listen to Michele Bachmann, a congresswoman from Minnesota and tea-party heroine, as she addressed the conservative Value Voters’ Summit in Washington, DC, last week:

To those who would spread lies, and to those who would spread falsehoods and rumours about the tea-party movement, let me be very clear to them. If you are scared of the tea-party movement, you are afraid of Thomas Jefferson who penned our mission statement, and, by the way, you may have heard of it, it’s called the Declaration of Independence. [Cheers, applause.] So what are these revolutionary ideas that make up and undergird the tea-party movement? Well, it’s this: All men and all women are created equal. We are endowed by our creator—that’s God, not government [applause]—with certain inalienable rights…

The Declaration of Independence and the constitution have been venerated for two centuries. But thanks to the tea-party movement they are enjoying a dramatic revival. The day after this September’s constitution-day anniversary, people all over the country congregated to read every word together aloud, a “profoundly moving exercise that will take less than one hour”, according to the gatherings’ organisers. At almost any tea-party meeting you can expect to see some patriot brandishing a copy of the hallowed texts and calling, with trembling voice, for a prodigal America to redeem itself by returning to its “founding principles”. The Washington Post reports that Colonial Williamsburg has been crowded with tea-partiers, asking the actors who play George Washington and his fellow founders for advice on how to cast off a tyrannical government.

Conservative think-tanks have the same dream of return to a prelapsarian innocence. The Heritage Foundation is running a “first principles” project “to save America by reclaiming its truths and its promises and conserving its liberating principles for ourselves and our posterity”. A Heritage book and video (“We Still Hold These Truths”) promotes the old verities as a panacea for present ills. America, such conservatives say, took a wrong turn when Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt fell under the spell of progressive ideas and expanded the scope of government beyond both the founders’ imaginings and the competence of any state. Under the cover of war and recession (never let a crisis go to waste, said Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel), Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and now Mr Obama continued the bad work. Thus has mankind’s greatest experiment in self-government been crushed by a monstrous Leviathan.

Accept for argument’s sake that those who argue this way have identified the right problem. The constitution, on its own, does not provide the solution. Indeed, there is something infantile in the belief of the constitution-worshippers that the complex political arguments of today can be settled by simple fidelity to a document written in the 18th century. Michael Klarman of the Harvard Law School has a label for this urge to seek revealed truth in the sacred texts. He calls it “constitutional idolatry”.

The constitution is a thing of wonder, all the more miraculous for having been written when the rest of the world’s peoples were still under the boot of kings and emperors (with the magnificent exception of Britain’s constitutional monarchy, of course). But many of the tea-partiers have invented a strangely ahistorical version of it. For example, they say that the framers’ aim was to check the central government and protect the rights of the states. In fact the constitution of 1787 set out to do the opposite: to bolster the centre and weaken the power the states had briefly enjoyed under the new republic’s Articles of Confederation of 1777.

The words of men, not of gods

When history is turned into scripture and men into deities, truth is the victim. The framers were giants, visionaries and polymaths. But they were also aristocrats, creatures of their time fearful of what they considered the excessive democracy taking hold in the states in the 1780s. They did not believe that poor men, or any women, let alone slaves, should have the vote. Many of their decisions, such as giving every state two senators regardless of population, were the product not of Olympian sagacity but of grubby power-struggles and compromises—exactly the sort of backroom dealmaking, in fact, in which today’s Congress excels and which is now so much out of favour with the tea-partiers.

More to the point is that the constitution provides few answers to the hard questions thrown up by modern politics. Should gays marry? No answer there. Mr Klarman argues that the framers would not even recognise America’s modern government, with its mighty administrative branch and imperial executive. As to what they would have made of the modern welfare state, who can tell? To ask that question after the passage of two centuries, says Pietro Nivola of the Brookings Institution, is to pose an impossible thought experiment.

None of this is to say that the modern state is not bloated or over-mighty. There is assuredly a case to be made for reducing its size and ambitions and giving greater responsibilities to individuals. But this is a case that needs to be made and remade from first principles in every political generation, not just by consulting a text put on paper in a bygone age. Pace Ms Bachmann, the constitution is for all Americans and does not belong to her party alone. Nor did Jefferson write a mission statement for the tea- partiers. They are going to have to write one for themselves.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: barfalert; constitution; economist; editorial; leftistgarbage; teaparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last
To: Palter
"Constitutional idolatry" is sneering mockery, not sober analysis. In fact, there is nothing in the least wrong with insisting that the social contract that forms the political foundation of the country be adhered to. Adhering to an agreement does not constitute worship.

The author's case, if it might be flattered by the term, is a sad example of how far down the Economist has fallen in terms of editorial standards. The same pen that mocks those wishing to live up to an agreement writes the silliest nonsense as if it were received wisdom, with no argument or evidence in support. For example:

But this is a case that needs to be made and remade from first principles in every political generation...

Really? Why is that? Does the author really believe that the basis of a country's legal code and governmental structure needs to be reinvented each generation from first principles? What on earth for? And who says so?

The reply is silence, which is probably a mercy. Clearly the author has very little familiarity either with the Constitution or the numerous arguments that (1) we have strayed from the plan, and (2) that returning to it might serve the country's interests. For example, why do we have a Department of Labor and a Department of Commerce under the Executive when Article I states that those interests are properly under the Legislative? Why has that basic guarantee of no search without a specific warrant been simply disregarded? These are perfectly legitimate questions, not "worship", and if the author thinks that they may be evaded by reinventing the entire agreement once a generation, he or she badly needs to reconsider.

On the contrary, a return to a form of government described by the Constitution is the very key to reduction of the overall size of government. Where government has exceeded its Constitutional mandate, it may be cut. We already have a plan, a pattern, an agreement, and to insist that it is infinitely negotiable serves to negate every reason for having it in the first place.

The author is simply mistaken, both in appreciation of the motivations of the Tea Parties and in apprehension of what a 200-year-old document serves to offer in the way of contemporary guidance. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is burning incense to the Constitution. It would be sufficient if people would read it.

61 posted on 09/25/2010 4:22:58 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter
That is nothing but sophistry. The premise, that conservatives worship the Constitution, is false. The author also displays a rather profound ignorance of what the Constitution is and what it represents. Which is amazing since the Declaration of Independence clearly spells out what it represents. Our unalienable rights to be freely functioning human beings to the best of our individual abilities.

The Constitution is nothing more than a blueprint for a government, created by us, to protect that which it represents. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our basic human rights. If those things aren't the basics of human life to the author then what ideals or goals does he want to pursue? Spell it out. If he has a better way to secure basic human rights then spell that out.

Ridiculing reverence and reliance on the best plan we have for securing our most basic needs is infantile. Lacking any argument for a better plan or a more basic need of humanity than life and liberty the author is just ranting incoherently. As it stands our Constitution is the only document that has been written that establishes a government for the express purpose of protecting the natural rights of man.

It seems to me that the author isn't making fun of the Constitution's ability to achieve that purpose he's making fun of the purpose itself. If life and liberty aren't worthy of a passionate defense then what is? Equating that passion with idolatry is sophistry.

62 posted on 09/25/2010 4:44:40 PM PDT by TigersEye (Defend liberty. Destroy socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter
That is nothing but sophistry. The premise, that conservatives worship the Constitution, is false. The author also displays a rather profound ignorance of what the Constitution is and what it represents. Which is amazing since the Declaration of Independence clearly spells out what it represents. Our unalienable rights to be freely functioning human beings to the best of our individual abilities.

The Constitution is nothing more than a blueprint for a government, created by us, to protect that which it represents. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our basic human rights. If those things aren't the basics of human life to the author then what ideals or goals does he want to pursue? Spell it out. If he has a better way to secure basic human rights then spell that out.

Ridiculing reverence and reliance on the best plan we have for securing our most basic needs is infantile. Lacking any argument for a better plan or a more basic need of humanity than life and liberty the author is just ranting incoherently. As it stands our Constitution is the only document that has been written that establishes a government for the express purpose of protecting the natural rights of man.

It seems to me that the author isn't making fun of the Constitution's ability to achieve that purpose he's making fun of the purpose itself. If life and liberty aren't worthy of a passionate defense then what is? Equating that passion with idolatry is sophistry.

63 posted on 09/25/2010 4:44:40 PM PDT by TigersEye (Defend liberty. Destroy socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2
It can be criticized as crap but it is also part of the other guys agenda i.e. our Constitution is a living document and is and should be subject to change. It is wise to know if not understand what we are up against. They are out there.

It can be criticized as crap or it is crap? This was not some eloquent argument. It was the mindless ramblings of a complete idiot. What was so special about this that it deserved posting on FR without comment?
64 posted on 09/25/2010 4:48:47 PM PDT by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Palter
Should gays marry? No answer there.

What an ignorant comment by an ignoramus! Any power not specifically delegated to the Congress belongs to the states or the people.

The Constitution says the people's vote in California is the ruling law. Some asswipe judge says it falls into his personal baliwick.

These people are such liars.

65 posted on 09/25/2010 5:28:16 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NavySEAL F-16
I will never understand the thought process of a liberal/socialist.

That's because there is no thought process.

66 posted on 09/25/2010 5:39:38 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
"Wouldn't it be splendid if the solutions to America’s problems could be written down in a slim book no bigger than a passport that you could slip into your breast pocket? That, more or less, is the big idea of the tea-party movement, "

Nobody believes that the Constitution holds all the answers to all the problems, but it surely holds the answer to protecting individuals from a predatory, power-hungry state.

67 posted on 09/25/2010 7:13:25 PM PDT by cookcounty (Dec 31st is coming: .....Stop Obama's Midnight Jack-Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Palter
The Rothschild toadies have spoken.

Now they can shut the hell up.

68 posted on 09/25/2010 7:26:49 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Democrats were the Slave Party then; they are the Slave Party now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightInEastLansing
"This guy totally misses the point. “Should gays marry?” He is correct that the Constitution doesn’t address gay marriage, and that is why it falls back to the State authorities."

One thing is certain that some judges seem unable to get. It absolutely does not compel gay marriage.

69 posted on 09/25/2010 7:29:44 PM PDT by Ranald S. MacKenzie (It's the philosophy, stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill; Publius

Anti-constitutional tripe being put forth. Perhaps a link to the current project?


70 posted on 09/25/2010 10:07:20 PM PDT by Don W (I keep some folks' numbers in my 'phone just so I know NOT to answer when they call...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter

Hogwash Alert!

71 posted on 09/25/2010 11:51:32 PM PDT by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NavySEAL F-16
I will never understand the thought process of a liberal/socialist.

....only because they don't have one.

72 posted on 09/26/2010 12:03:16 AM PDT by upsdriver (The revolution begins on Nov. 2 to take back our country. The American people vs the ruling elite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Don W
FReeper Book Club: The Debate over the Constitution
5 Oct 1787, Centinel #1
6 Oct 1787, James Wilson’s Speech at the State House
8 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #1
9 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #2
18 Oct 1787, Brutus #1
22 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #1
27 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #2
27 Oct 1787, Federalist #1
31 Oct 1787, Federalist #2
3 Nov 1787, Federalist #3
5 Nov 1787, John DeWitt #3
7 Nov 1787, Federalist #4
10 Nov 1787, Federalist #5
14 Nov 1787, Federalist #6
15 Nov 1787, Federalist #7
20 Nov 1787, Federalist #8
21 Nov 1787, Federalist #9
23 Nov 1787, Federalist #10
24 Nov 1787, Federalist #11
27 Nov 1787, Federalist #12
27 Nov 1787, Cato #5
28 Nov 1787, Federalist #13
29 Nov 1787, Brutus #4
30 Nov 1787, Federalist #14
1 Dec 1787, Federalist #15
4 Dec 1787, Federalist #16
5 Dec 1787, Federalist #17
7 Dec 1787, Federalist #18
8 Dec 1787, Federalist #19
11 Dec 1787, Federalist #20
12 Dec 1787, Federalist #21
14 Dec 1787, Federalist #22
18 Dec 1787, Federalist #23
18 Dec 1787, Address of the Pennsylvania Minority
19 Dec 1787, Federalist #24
21 Dec 1787, Federalist #25
22 Dec 1787, Federalist #26
25 Dec 1787, Federalist #27
26 Dec 1787, Federalist #28
27 Dec 1787, Brutus #6
28 Dec 1787, Federalist #30
1 Jan 1788, Federalist #31
3 Jan 1788, Federalist #32
3 Jan 1788, Federalist #33
3 Jan 1788, Cato #7
4 Jan 1788, Federalist #34
5 Jan 1788, Federalist #35
8 Jan 1788, Federalist #36
10 Jan 1788, Federalist #29
11 Jan 1788, Federalist #37
15 Jan 1788, Federalist #38
16 Jan 1788, Federalist #39
18 Jan 1788, Federalist #40
19 Jan 1788, Federalist #41
22 Jan 1788, Federalist #42
23 Jan 1788, Federalist #43
24 Jan 1788, Brutus #10
25 Jan 1788, Federalist #44
26 Jan 1788, Federalist #45
29 Jan 1788, Federalist #46
31 Jan 1788, Brutus #11
1 Feb 1788, Federalist #47
1 Feb 1788, Federalist #48
5 Feb 1788, Federalist #49
5 Feb 1788, Federalist #50
7 Feb 1788, Brutus #12, Part 1
73 posted on 09/26/2010 12:18:25 AM PDT by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Palter
For example, they say that the framers’ aim was to check the central government and protect the rights of the states. In fact the constitution of 1787 set out to do the opposite: to bolster the centre and weaken the power the states had briefly enjoyed under the new republic’s Articles of Confederation of 1777.

I take issue with this statement, simply because the Founders saw the failings inherent in the Articles of Confederation and sought to build a strong, but specifically limited and delineated system of government. It worked, not because either the Federal Government nor the States were at the top, but because the power of both levels of government came from the people. (...government derives its just poweers from the consent of the governed...)

The powers of both levels of government were delineated and limited by the Federal Constitution on the one hand, and the State Constitutions on the other, all other power being reserved to the People.

Were that still the case in practice, we would not have the mess we do.

74 posted on 09/26/2010 12:24:38 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; Palter
The Rothschild toadies have spoken.

Unfortunately, there aren't very many left here on Free Republic who even understand what you're talking about.

75 posted on 09/26/2010 12:28:35 AM PDT by tarheelswamprat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Palter

Dear Great Britain,

We had a war once on how to run our countries. In the immortal words of our President Obama, “We won. Get over it.”

You go right ahead and continue to run your country into the cesspool of Europe, while we try to recover from our private little disaster (the afformentioned President), via the Constitution you malign — hopefully, to return to being the driving force of innovation and human rights on the planet.

Love,

Laz


76 posted on 09/26/2010 5:00:34 AM PDT by Lazamataz (The battle lines are drawn: On one side, are Dems and Repubs. On the other, the Tea Party (us).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter
Indeed, there is something infantile in the belief of the constitution-worshippers that the complex political arguments of today can be settled by simple fidelity to a document written in the 18th century

This "analysis" is infantile. Swaddled in diapers to hold in the excrement.

I noticed that this "analysis" quotes the Brookings Institution and some pinhead from Haaaaavard.

'Nuff said.

77 posted on 09/26/2010 5:05:43 AM PDT by sauropod (The truth shall make you free but first it will make you miserable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texmexis best
The more surveillance cameras you install, the safer you are. Since this has proven to not be the case as the perps simply wear hoodies, attempts to shut down these cameras have been made. The bills have failed. The UK is now the most surveilled country in the world. Without any effect whatsoever.

And we are headed down exactly the same path. They're just a little further along it.

78 posted on 09/26/2010 5:13:04 AM PDT by sauropod (The truth shall make you free but first it will make you miserable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Palter
It is codswallop such as this that led me to cancel my subscription to The Economist earlier this year. They have long ago abandoned their libertarian-leaning free market direction and decided to give a full frontal face plant to Obama in 2008.

The decline of The Economist tracks well with the UK's slow, steady descent into third rate power status. Sad.

79 posted on 09/26/2010 5:34:25 AM PDT by hcmama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter
the complex political arguments of today
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The political issues are NOT NOT NOT complex! They are simple.

There are those who wish to move continually forward toward a communist Utopia., and those who wish to see the Constitution followed as written.

80 posted on 09/26/2010 5:44:46 AM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson