Retaining our Constitutional culture
Essayist Gerald L. Early once wrote that 2,000 years from now, America will be known for “the Constitution, baseball, and jazz music…the three most beautiful things our culture has ever produced.”
Tough to argue with that.
But if the Constitution is to be enshrined in this immortal trio of Americana, why do today’s leaders continue to dismiss what’s written inside?
Before the current era of bailouts and ballot measures, the Constitution was largely considered a dusty relic, rarely discussed outside of law school courses and legal briefs. Today, a heavy dose of public skepticism in the expanding scope of government has sparked a “mini-revival” in the actual text of the wrinkled old document. Note to Congress: this isn’t a bad thing. Applying the Constitution’s 1788 phraseology to the issues of 2009 offers more than a dry legal exercise. Just like eating a hotdog at the Yankees’ new ballpark or downloading old Coltrane songs on an iPod, it’s an example of distinctly American culture being rediscovered, refreshed, and renewed. Our politicians should embrace, rather than denigrate, this new found enthusiasm.
Although each member of Congress takes the same oath to “support and defend” the Constitution, both sides of the aisle have a long history of referencing the text only when necessary for their specific purposes. Many Democrats often seem flabbergasted or annoyed that a 200 year old piece of parchment has the audacity to hinder their current utopian visions of societal progress. These same liberals, however, were not shy about raising the hammer of “unconstitutionality” to bash George W. Bush for his alleged civil rights abuses as President.
By the same token, today’s Republicans have manned the bulwarks to protect the nation from Obama’s anti-constitutional national spending spree. These same conservatives, however, often bury their head in the sand whenever their hallowed Constitution is used to protect conduct or speech they deem “icky.”
These differences are telling. The right legitimately questions the constitutional authority to throw endless truckloads of taxpayer cash into the gaping maw of federal bureaucracy. The left legitimately questions the constitutional authority for warrantless wiretaps or for throwing medical marijuana users in jail.
Can’t both sides be correct? If, along with jazz and baseball, the Constitution is to remain a “beautiful product” of our society, shouldn’t it become more of a cultural guidepost instead of a partisan lightning rod? We don’t need to agree on its every interpretation or its every outcome. But just like a home-plate umpire or a double bass line, the Constitution should set the pace of the game.
Latest posts by Tyler Andrews (Posts)
- Pat Robertson swears a pact with the crazy - January 13, 2010
- To my fellow conservatives and libertarians: A third party is not the answer. - January 12, 2010
- Retaining our Constitutional culture - December 9, 2009
Print This Post
Good post!
Keep in mind that the two party system is, in the end, statist. Both parties disagree on how the government should grow, but accept the premise that “grow it should” without debate.
Democrats are upset when the government grows in a conservative leaning fashion, Republicans are upset when it grows in a Democrat leaning fashion, whereas I get upset when it grows at all because it means my taxes are going up.
Republicans want a government in our bedrooms, despite Reagan’s advice, and Democrats want government in every other room in our house, despite the failures of strong-government movements like communism the world over. Bottom line: both want government.
It’s time for a true third party.
Nice post, Tyler. My biggest problem is with the title – I don’t see that we really have a Constitutional culture to retain. “Rebuilding” would be a more appropriate verb. At best, our existing “Constitutional culture” comprises some vague notions about small gov’t and civil rights. Better that than nothing, but we still have some rebuilding to do. Too much has been lost.
All that said, I don’t see a constitutionalist revival happening any time soon. Why? Because the only party that has any incentive to talk about the Constituion is the Democratic party, and only then because they can use it as a wedge issue against Republicans. Attack a social conservative for his “unconstitutional” in-the-bedroom interventions, and that social conservative will lose some small gov’t voters. Attack a small gov’t conservative for her plans to repeal “unconstitutional” drug laws, and that small gov’t conservative will lose some social conservative voters.
On the flip side, how doe the Constitution – as an issue – help Republicans reach working class voters, the constituency they most need to reach? Working class voters tend to support the war on drugs, wiretaps, some degree of restricted civil liberties as a response to terrorism, and some degree of gov’t intervention in the economy.
In addition to there being little political hope for a constitutionalist revival, it’s hard to see why a culture as cut off from its past as ours would shower its attention on a “dusty relic, rarely discussed outside of law school courses and legal briefs” (great description, btw).
Mr. Peck:
The real problem would be if we ever decided to return to the Constitution, or to start over.
Do you know how hard it would be to get a document together that could win approval in California AND Texas?
The rebuilding idea is great, and it will have to occur sooner or later (nothing man made is eternal), but the result is going to be VASTLY different than what we started with in the late 1700s and early 1800s.