What is the Value Added of the Constitution, or having a constitution at all?
It is a reasonable question to ask. Those of us who live in the real world, who are not the 1%, must justify our existance, and our time. Now sometimes there are institutional shields for this, such as "Child" which is cared for by their parents, or "Disabled" which is cared for society at large, but as a practical matter, to receive resources in our current society (ie money which obtains food) you must have a place in society and a reason to have the rights and privilidges you receive. In theory, there are certain baseline rights we all receive, but from an enforcement perspective, those rights are applied very differently based on who you are - All of which comes basically down to the question the 1% asks of us on a daily basis, "What is your value added?"
So why a constitution?
The standard off the shelf answer is that a Constitution provides a blue print for society. It's the foundation, the touch stone upon which all other elements of society are built.
That makes sense, because that's really the way most of us think about the constitution, when we bother to think about it at all.
But what most people don't realize, is that as much as our society has changed, conservatives have inherent biases and advantages built into the founding document; its why they like it so much.
Some of this might seem obvious, but its worth going over again:
Who wrote the constitution? Rich, White, Elite, Business Owning Men 200+ years ago
Why did they write it? Because the previous government, the Articles of Confederation wasn't working. It was feeble and couldn't enforce its own laws. We needed a government that would allow the states to remain united and strong but flexible enough to give the states the individual freedom that both the states, and the inhabitants of those states demanded at that time.
What has changed? A lot has changed. On a practical level, its been amended in a lot of ways; but primarily it has expanded the right to vote to more of the population and determined practical matters of how power is handled within certain branches. The other major change was that it clearly established the dominance of the federal government, but the actual wording of the document is still kind of vague in certain areas; it does not say for example, "States can't leave" or "The Federal Government shall always triumph over States in any disupte between the two"...that was established by Right of Conquest, which isn't in the constitution at all.
But think of all that has gone on in 200 years -
Racism is now acknowledged.
Sexism is now acknowledged.
The inherent superiority of an indivudal just because they have money has been challenged....but that question is still very much in play.
There are elements of the constituion that favor the wealthy, because it also favors commerce. There really isn't any distinction between markets or governments directly in terms of which is which and which role one should play. Of course there were implied elements, but the phrases of the time have often changed, leaving room for interpretation.
But if the constitution affects all of us, every one of us, shouldn't the language at the blue print level be simple enough so that almost anyone who has the right to affect it, and obligation to be governed by it be clear in a way that anyone and everyone can understand?
How much do you have in common with Thomas Jefferson, George Washington or the slave owning southerners from the slave states? The former were honorable, intelligent men. The latter were perhaps intelligent but still thought that owning slaves was a cool idea.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
A lot can change in 200 years. A LOT can change in 200 years.
If the purpose of the constitution is that it is the social contract, the thing that binds all of us together and are the rules that we play by; how then can something that was crafted in so distant and so alien a time be binding upon us?
Are the amendments sufficient to govern society today? Conservatives argue yes. Liberals just assume the answer is yes.
But if the Constitution is the foundation of our society; then the advantage automatically falls to Conservatives. Conservatives resist change. Liberals embrace it.
The most common arguement for a stable constitution is that stability promotes growth. And that is absolutely true. For a lot of reasons. Change of any kind risks conflict, and the more conflict rises, the greater the chance that it will resort to force of arms to resolve.
The popular historical narrative is that this only occurred once in the Civil War.
The practical actual narrative is that it tends to occur about once a generation: The calling of the army against Unions in the early 20th century, the crushing of the occupy movement, the calling out of the national guard in the civil rights era (either to crush protest or ensure that desegregation would occur), the whiskey rebellion, the Bonus Army, etc etc.
On a practical level, the federal government seems to need to show force on the domestic population every 10-15 years, and if you notice, the VAST VAST majority of the time it is to resist change rather than embrace it.
Our society has changed. Our constitution has changed very little.
Right now there is a huge disconnect between our conservative society and our progressive society, and independents tend to sort of dangle in between them.
That's because we're on two different foundations...the conservatives are on the written constitution that is TWO HUNDRED YEARS OLD with a few patch works to keep the raft floating about expanding the franchise...
And liberals are on what judges have said the constitution means, such as the 1937 expansion of the commerce clause which was an unspoken agreement between the executive and the supreme court that the president would not dilute the power of the current court in exchange for their more generous interpretation of his measures.
Compromise is good, and it is necessary...
But the conservative foundation is built on stone, and the liberal position is built on sand; especially modern liberal tradition which is based on a wide interpretation of the social contract and judicial culture...but if a sufficient amount of judges are CHANGED...
Where in the constitution does it say that politicians should be honest? Where in the constitution does it say you have a right to health care? Social Security?
Having your food labels so it isn't poisoned or bad for you?
All of these are good ideas; and there are LAWS for some of this...but the more time passes, the more you have to IMPLY that the government can do this things rather than DEMAND it do them because that's the founding purpose of what it does.
A constition that promotes stability is a good thing; but a foundation built in an earth quake zone needs to be flexible. Granite foundations in California are going to crack and buckle eventually...
And our constitution is crumbling. You don't know it. You don't look at it that way, but how much do you approve of government?
And that's on both sides.
What's congress's approval?
The courts?
If they were working so well, why aren't people satisfied with the result?
And every generation there is a test, a stressor that forces force to be used. 9 times out of 10 that comes down on the side of the conservative view point. Historically, there has been a compromise after this to make things work.
But....Fox News exists now. There is a disconnect between the ways conservatives and liberals look at the world. Fox news is perfectly legal and perfectly constitutional. One message and one reality can be crafted and created...
If that generational test occurs...and the people who believe in Fox take power....why do you just assume that the compromise will take place after the fact?
I argue it won't.
Amending the constitution is difficult. Very difficult, and in those moments of pressure in the past, a sufficient number of conservatives had to come to the table to make change possible - such as allowing 18 year olds to vote or eliminating poll taxes.
How likely do you think conservatives are to come to the table to reform immigration?
To change tax policy in a liberal direction?
To put health care in the constitution?
The number of 'red line' issues is only growing...thanks to Fox. And Occupy was already crushed.
The center cannot hold because a house divided cannot stand.
Either we come to an accord on a constitution that we can all agree on, or sooner or later there will be a civil war. Now think about the most radical conservative you know..and ponder how they feel about liberals...
Now add in 10 years of civil war and think about how that person now talks about immigrants or muslims or someone they REALLY don't like...
They would feel that way about liberals in a civil war.
Now imagine that person in charge of nukes...
You see where I'm going with this?
Either we solve the problem of the disconnection from reality NOW (their problem, not ours) or they will KILL us later.
This is not hyperbole. It is basic observation of human nature and repeatable human fact.
Either we have a shared narrative where we can make our disagreements work...or we die.
Because the current constitution gives THEM all of the cards, not us.
But more importantly...when we build the next constitution, we need to build certain safe guards that cannot be changed (basic rights and representation) but a repeatable mandate that it be rewritten and reinterpreted on a cycle long enough to ensure flexibility stability but short enough that the past does not govern the present or much more importantly, the future.
Personally, I think a cycle of 50-75 years is good...indeed, make it flexible based on the current expected life span, so if we all start living 300 years, it can go up to 100 if we need it to.
The advantage in the constitution should be with liberals, not conservatives...since as far as history is concerned, its the conservatives that are wrong 99% of the time. You want a firm enough foundation to keep hysteria from taking over (usually also from conservatives) but flexible enough so that legitimate change is acknowledged over time in a way that makes it real and makes it happen.
It also means that a region that is alien as the south compared to the rest of the country probably shouldn't be a part of your country to begin with.
No comments:
Post a Comment