Missing The Big Point About The Constitution

Now that it's 'out there', Seidman's op-ed piece in the NYT about needing to scrap "parts" of the American Constitution will only gain momentum moving forward I reckon.

It's like any bad thought masquerading as progressive; it finds a lot of fans.

I think he misses not only the actual problem, explained well here:

"Our system of government was designed so that major change could only be accomplished with broad consensus from the politicians and the consent of the governed.

The problem is that both parties spent the past 100 years creating a monstrous "administrative, bureaucratic, redistributionist, welfare state". The Democrats took us leftward faster than Republicans, but they both took us leftward. And they had the consent of the governed to do so during much of that time. Walter Russel Meade calls it the "blue state model" (which is a bit of a misnomer - because both parties created it). This unmanageable mess of cronyism, corruption and subsidization of special interests is not what was intended by the Founders. Actually, the Founders created the Constitution to prevent it. It's absurd to blame the Constitution. The blame lies with 100 years of politicians and judges who abrogated their oath to defend it. Everything was fine as long as both parties and the electorate were willing to turn a blind eye to the Constitution to pursue administrative bureaucratic statism. But now that Republicans get elected promising to reform the "blue state model", and Democrats promise to keep their head in the sand and refuse to reform the reactionary policies of the past 100 years, the system grinds to a halt. When both parties shared a vision of an ever expanding state, compromise was easy. When that shared vision no longer exists, there is little common ground for compromise. That makes the system appear broken and dysfunctional.

The problem is not with the Constitution. It's with an electorate that is pretty evenly divided about their vision of the country they want to leave to future generations."

(cont'd) but the over-arching point of what the framers achieved: That liberty as bestowed by God's authority is something to be guarded and governed tenaciously and vigorously.

Aside from his bizarre connection to the "fiscal cliff" which has zero to do with the Constitution and more to do with the bad general direction of poor economic policy and outdated ideas designed with top-bottom nonsense, he adds:

"If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by “We the people” is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance."

To expand on the framers still some more. Up until 1776, man was a slave to various political systems. What the Constitution did (leaving aside all the imperfect realities surrounding it) was enshrine in writing that a nation would guard the progress of liberty.

If we accept this, if anything, it's the Constitution that needs to be upheld and the contemporary political mindset thrown in the gutter. It's the very dishonest nature of the people who swore to uphold it who damaged and diminished the document. Not the other way around. He argues Americans are "slaves" to or "obsessed" with the Constitution. I don't know if this is true but it strikes me as incorrect. Maybe it has become so because citizens feel it's been trampled on for too long?

What does he suggest replaces it that would "give real freedom a chance?" The example of contemporary liberal doctrines which, at the heart of it, is nothing but shrill, tyrannical coercive action?

I wonder what would give "real freedom" a chance?

Liberals take the liberal tradition and philosophy that gave birth to the minds and ideas behind the Constitution for granted. They no longer recognize it because they have changed their position. It's why libertarians and conservatives wrapped up in classical liberal lingo have taken to defending it. Seidman seems to think that all the things Americans cherish - freedom of speech, religion etc. - would be protected anyway with or without the Constitution.

History suggests he'd be wrong. Can he point to any period in world history where "true freedom" within a nation-state construct existed as it was intended in the United States?

Freedom of anything is always the first to go. My God, has he not noticed that "freedom" is constantly under attack? You can't take a crap anymore without some yahoo screaming for a bureaucrat to regulate the movements of your bowels.

If it weren't for the Constitution, the U.S. would have drifted left-ward into a socialist paradise long ago. It's the only thing - that flimsy, old document so chastised and ridiculed for its age - keeping the Republic - what's left of it - standing. Albeit, meekly.

If the Constitution were a movie character it would be Jake Lamotta or Rocky after a beating in the ring.

Tell you what, I'd rather stick - if I were American - with the Constitution than whatever alternatives are out there and what's out there is thin and without enlightenment.

***

Americans on the left really need to get a calculator.

While in principle the reliance on the military complex needs to be revisited, it's not military spending or not enough taxes on the rich bankrupting the country. It's spending and entitlements.

I really don't see how this is possibly a debate on any grounds.

***

If Seidman wishes, I'd trade for the Constitution any day. He can come up to Quebec and watch how liberty gets hacked away when left to the devices of pygmy tyrants.

Democracy my ass. More like tyranny of the majority.