The "old constitution" was followed for many decades and was only seriously altered 80 years later as a result of the Civil War. Thereafter the amended "old constitution" was followed well into the 20th century even after Wilson until the New Deal. So the old constitution gave us quite a long stretch of service.
We do not know whether the "new constitution" will be followed but we certainly have no historical warrant to foreclose the probability that it will in fact be followed for decades, perhaps even long enough to save the Republic.
Much of what comes out of the Article V process of course depends on the kind of amendments which might be ratified. As one FReeper has already posted on this thread, it will be difficult to fail to follow an amendment which prescribes term limits. Other amendments, carefully drafted, would be equally difficult to evade. In any event, careful drafting will modify the old constitution and bring it back to its original conception and should not therefore simply be dismissed as a "new" Constitution but should be considered the restoration of the old.
Most of the advocates of this process support "process" amendments which change the way we are governed. I for one like an amendment which says that bureaucratic regulations which are not confirmed by a majority vote of both houses of Congress within a specified time limit are automatically repealed. We might not like the results we get in Congress when it comes time to ratify these regulations but at least the new process brings the bureaucracy under scrutiny and democratizes what has become a tyrannical combination in the executive of lawmaking, adjudication, and punishment. It would also return us to a separation of powers in this area.
My point is that process amendments make it more difficult for the establishment powers to play their games.
Finally, I simply cannot accept an argument of despair which says since it might not work we should not bother to try.
