Replies

Huck, you seem pretty comfortable in your role as a wet blanket. I would submit it’s more of a cop out taking the low road than it is to actually offer some solutions of your own. What would you like to see happen?

I'll take the second part first. What I would like to see happen is for conservatives to abandon the argument that the constitution would work fine if the politicians would only abide by it. To me, that's like saying a faulty lion cage, with bars too wide, and a latch that won't hold, would work just fine if the lions would only stay inside of it. The old 12-step line--the first step is admitting you have a problem. Until I'm convinced otherwise, I've arrived at the conclusion that the Constitution is in fact a problem.

As to your thoughts about it being a cop-out to tear something down, to criticize, without offering an alternative. Yes, I've heard that before. I don't agree with it. I refer you to some points made by the bard of baltimore, HL Mencken, in his essay (appropos for the times) entitled "A Cult of Hope":

Of all the sentimental errors that reign and rage in this incomparable Republic, the worst is that which confuses the function of criticism, whether aesthetic, political or social, with the function of reform. Almost invariably it takes the form of a protest: “The fellow condemns without offering anything better. Why tear down without building up?” So snivel the sweet ones: so wags the national tongue. The messianic delusion becomes a sort of universal murrain. It is impossible to get an audience for an idea that is not "constructive"—i.e., that is not glib, and uplifting, and full of hope, and hence capable of tickling the emotions by leaping the intermediate barrier of intelligence.
In this protest and demand, of course, there is nothing but the babbling of men who mistake their feelings for thoughts. The truth is that criticism, if it were confined to the proposing of alternative schemes, would quickly cease to have any force or utility at all, for in the overwhelming majority of instances no alternative scheme of any intelligibility is imaginable, and the whole object of the critical process is to demonstrate it.

The point is that criticism has its place in its own right, and shouldn't be confused with reform. Am I saying, as Mencken did, that the problems are unsolvable? I am not ready to say that. I am definitely saying things are even worse than they appear--that it isn't abuse of the Constitution that is the problem, it is the Constitution.

If I am right, I believe it is worthwhile to understand it, even if that understanding unveils a dire view of things. I want to face the facts.

The problems, as they now exist, are in fact unsolvable. The conservatives, if I am right, cling to a romantic notion of the Constitution that will never win out in reality. As time goes by, this romantic ideal becomes further and further removed, and the mountain of federal law to the contrary becomes that much higher and harder to climb or knock down.

The people are ill-informed, and do not seem possessed of a love of true liberty to a level necessary to face the actual problems. They are not even aware of the actual problems. They are soft, and domesticated, and care mostly about material security and comfort. Nothing will fundamentally change in the short run, in my opinion. But if my view is correct, step one is to recognize the true source of our political problems. Then, at least, conservative intellectuals, thinkers, talkers, etc could lay the groundwork for real change. Then, perhaps, the Limbaughs of the world would stop insisting that the Federalists were right, and that reversion to some imagined interpretation of the Constitution will be our salvation. It would be the first step on a long quest.