Reverence For the Constitution & the Dreadful Alternative

Anyone who doubts that American citizens should revere the Constitution should be locked in a closet with a copy of the collected works of Shakespeare. Said skeptic should not be released until he or she has passed a test on Henry VI, parts 1, 2, and 3.

The Henry VI plays are the bard's attempt to put Machiavelli to music. They describe the gradual disintegration of political order in England. The root cause of that disaster is a Christ-like and (or therefore) altogether ineffectual king. Everyone acknowledges his authority and acts as if he didn't exist. The result is that pretty much everyone cuts someone's throat and then gets his own throat cut by someone else. Serial assassinations, betrayals, and wholesale slaughter on the battlefield, make for rocking good drama but very woeful history.

Contemplate Sudan or Cote d'Ivoire. You'll see why Thomas Hobbes thought that tyranny was a good idea. Fear of that uber-rascal Saddam isn't pleasant, but all the other rascals are hiding and it's quiet at 3am. John Locke thought we could do better than that. He thought that we could transfer our reference for the king to the social contract between all the citizens, a contract that in turn empowered the King or Congress or what have you. Such a social contract could secure order while protecting each against the powers that provide that security.

The United States is, in part, a Lockean experiment. With more than two hundred years of data logged, it's going pretty well. Our great factions duke it out with ballots rather than bullets. Republicans may fear the policies of Democratic majorities, and vice versa, but neither side is afraid of being tortured or disappeared. If there is anything to fear on America's streets, it isn't the House of Lancaster or York.

It's a little disturbing then that the recent reading of the Constitution in the U.S. House has encouraged a lot of very educated folk to remind us of how unsacred that institution is.

New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler

called the "ritualistic reading" on the floor "total nonsense" and "propaganda" intended to claim the document for Republicans. "You read the Torah, you read the Bible, you build a worship service around it," said Nadler, who argued that the Founders were not "demigods" and that the document's need for amendments to abolish slavery and other injustices showed it was "highly imperfect."

Michael Lind urges us to stop pretending that the Constitution is sacred. Alex Altman weighs in on a Times blog.

The Constitution is a remarkable document, and eminently worthy of the reverence heaped on it, but it's also flawed. Despite their genius, the framers were fallible. Law professor Sanford Levinson wrote a book called "Our Undemocratic Constitution" which points out some of these flaws-including its treatment of slavery, which the House papered over today.

I have argued that a genuine reverence for the Constitution requires that we acknowledge the flaws of its authors and the costly compromises out of which it was fashioned. If that is Altman's point, I am with him.

Why then attack the "cult of the Constitution"? Well…

It's not that it isn't worthy of veneration or study. It's that too often, the Constitution is wielded as a political cudgel, even if, as Garrett Epps wrote this week at the Atlantic, the cudgelers fail to grasp the document's finer points.

The Constitution is worthy of veneration or study (why not both?), so long as it doesn't get in the way of something really important like ObamaCare. There's the rub. Genuine veneration for the Constitution might stop Altman from getting something he wants, like ObamaCare or a York on the throne.

I am very skeptical of the health care legislation as policy, but I would put up with it gladly if the alternative were to diminish the reverence with which Americans regard the Constitution. Would Barack Obama do the same in reverse? I really don't know.

Contrary to what Altman says, it's a very good thing when each side claims that they are right by the Constitution. That is a way of revering the document. But somebody has to lose. When someone says the Constitution isn't really all that sacred because it stands in the way of his or her policy preference, well, a little time in the closet with Shakespeare is in order.

Comments

[A.I.]

It's a matter of how one expresses reverence. Al Franken's explanation of how conservative vs. liberals express love of country is applicable to reverence for the the constitution as well. This from Talking Points Memo: "As Franken noted, liberals love America like adults love their parents, while conservatives love America like a four year-old loves his parents. Liberals love America, but can emotionally and intellectually recognize that America sometimes takes an errant path and try to get back on course. This is the same way an adult child loves a parent. Conservatives, on the other hand, think everything America does is right, just as a young child thinks everything Mommy does is right even if Mommy is acting unwisely. And a four year-old will punch you in the nose if you ever say anything bad about Mommy."

I believe applying Franken's analysis in all instances would be an over-generalization. However, it does explain why at least a large number of conservatives are dismissive of liberals as unpatriotic when they question things like our invasion of Iraq.

[KB]

A.I.: you say that "a large number of conservatives are dismissive of liberals as unpatriotic when they question things like our invasion of Iraq." Can you show me a "large number" of examples? Can you show me a single example?

[A.I.]

Two examples include Sarah (Obama is trying to destroy America, pals around with terrorists) Palin and Glen (exploit the fantasies of the crazy right to make a buck) Beck and their devotees. In light of the Gifford's shooting though, dismissive may be a bit weak--if the shooting was politically motivated.

[unicorn4711]

Here are the results from a five minute Google search. It's all hearsay and you can discount it if you'd like.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/sd_09-20-04.html

Remember 2004? "Daschle's three years as Complainer in Chief have brought shame to the honor of his office, concern to our men and women in uniform, and comfort to America's enemies." --Randy Fredrick, South Dakota Republican Party Chairman

While not leveling the charge of being unpatriotic directly, Fredrick (and later Thune) went one step further by arguing that Daschle's words aid the enemy. I found the whole exchange weird on both sides. BTW: Do you really take people to the woodshed in Aberdeen?

Or here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2106109/

"While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief." Quote attributed to Zell Miller.

It's not that far from alleging that those who oppose the president oppose the USA.

Sean Hannity allegedly made various quotes calling those who question policy in Iraq unpatriotic, as is reported here:

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/unpatriotic-sean-hannity/Content?oid=1115092

[KB]

A.I. provides no quotes and what he invents is not germane. unicorn admits that his evidence is "not that far from" what he is trying to prove. Strange, that with large numbers of conservatives saying something, these two can't come up with any actual evidence.

[A.I.]

You can find a few quotes from some folks who are hardly liberals here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/8/934191/-Saturday-hate-mail-a-palooza,-BEST-OF-THE-YEAR

I did slightly misquote Palin in that she only accused Obama of trying to "weaken" America:http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/sarah-palin-obama-hell-bent-on-weakening-america. The quote about "pal'n around" with terrorists is accurate. Both indicate he is treasonous which seems to me is at least unpatriotic. As for make-your-skin-itch Beck, are you really in need of direct quotes to prove he advances conspiracy theorys about Obama and liberal anti-American sentiments. And by the way, he was the one saying Obama wants to destroy America.

[KB]

A.I.: Even if these quotes were germane, is two a "large number" of conservatives? In neither case do you provide the slightest support for your claim that "a large number of conservatives are dismissive of liberals as unpatriotic when they question things like our invasion of Iraq." More than a few conservatives questioned the invasion. George Will has been a consistent critic. The KOS page you link to is a dump of hate mail. Almost any large site on either side gets that kind of mail.

I have yet to see a single case where a reputable conservative or a Republican accused someone of being unpatriotic because he or she questioned the Iraq war. Yet the Left repeats this canard over and over.

[unicorn4711]

With all respect, you've got to admit that say that a US Senator who states that questioning the President's policies emboldens the enemy destroys discourse.

As for other "reputable" conservatives and Republicans who suggested that to question Bush's policy in Iraq was unacceptable, how about the President himself?

"Bush has suggested that critics are hurting the war effort, telling U.S. troops in Alaska on Monday that critics 'are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that's irresponsible.'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501450.html

In this article, Hagel, not Bush, transferred the allegation from "irresponsible" to unpatriotic. You may be completely correct that no "reputable" conservative or Republican ever called those who questioned Iraq policy "unpatriotic." The exact quotes from high-profile Republicans, like a child's game of telephone, may have been distorted by responders like Hagel and the press. However, the idea propagated by the likes of Bush and Thune that questioning the President either on Iraq policy (as Bush stated) or in general (as Thune's quote suggests) is an extremely cheep method of trying to quite decent.

[A.I.]

You asked me to name just one KB, I gave you two and their devotees--or do you think those listening approvingly to these two do so only for entertainment. I used Iraq accusations as one example of conservatives dismissing liberals as unpatriotic and unicorn4711 has done an admirable job of validating that claim.

Dismissive was a weak term though in that it did not convey the fact that liberals are also demonized by a good deal of contemporary rhetoric. But I chose the word to note another characteristic of current conservative rhetoric, which is it's tendency to delegitimize liberal and moderate policies on grounds that liberals lack reverence for America and the constitution and thus can and should be dismissed out-of-hand. This includes the "show" of reading the constitution aloud with the stated purpose of showing the House was once again going to abide by its principles--with the clear implication being that for the past four years that had not been the case.

[KB]

A.I.: you have no case. I am sure that somewhere out there is someone who believes that anyone is opposed to the Iraq is unpatriotic. With over 300 million people, there has got to be someone. Apparently, that someone is hard to find.

Neither "large numbers of conservatives", nor large numbers of Republicans, nor the Bush Administration believes or has said any such thing. Nor large numbers of Conservatives "delegitimize liberal and moderate policies on grounds that liberals lack reverence for America". To be sure, conservatives think that liberal policies are bad for America. Otherwise they wouldn't be conservatives. The same goes in reverse for liberals.

You and I agree on a lot and disagree on several things. I would never for a moment question your patriotism. Every conservative I know of thinks the same way. The only attempt to delegitimize dissent that I can see right now is being led by the likes of one Paul Krugman.

[Jimi]

Al Franken is not a crediable person for a reasoned analysis. Why don't you ask the Cookie Monster what he thinks? Same Realm!

[D. Marmorstein]

Ken, would you consider presenting something on Shakespeare, the war of the roses and the U.S. constitution for Shakespeare Club sometime?

[KB]

D. Marmorstein: Yes.