The United States Constitution begins with a "purpose statement." Does everyone remember what that "purpose statement" says? Here is a reminder:
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
As you will notice, the very first statement made was an acknowledgment that the then-existing government, operating under the Articles of Confederation, was not a success. Our Constitution was, first and foremost, intended to form a "more perfect Union," admitting, without actually saying so, that the Union then in place was inadquate and a failure.
In an opinion column published in the Saturday-Sunday, June 15-16, 2024, edition of The Wall Street Journal, Barton Swaim asks this: "Can the Constitution Reconcile America?"
Good question! Sounds kind of like a nice idea!
Being honest, it is not really accurate to say that much "domestic Tranquility" is currently existing, so Swaim's question is definitely pertinent. The "purpose" of our Constitution is, among other important things, to "reconcile" America, which is another way of saying that the Constitution is supposed to "insure domestic Tranquility." When Americans are threatening each other with "Civil War," if the next election doesn't go their way, "domestic Tranquility" seems to have been forgotten.
Let us say that we want actually to achieve the kind of "reconciliation" and "domestic Tranquility" that the Constitution calls for. How should we do that? What I found most interesting in Swaim's column was his comparison of our system of government to the "parliamentary" governments found in most democratic nations today - think of Britain, France, Germany, etc. Parlimentary governments are, essentially, formulated upon the proposition that the voters should decide who they want to run the government (on behalf of the people, hopefully), and then let the parlimentary winner do its best.
While our American version of the "party" system seems to suggest that this is how we do things, too, that is not actually what the Constitution prescribes. Americans don't believe in "parliamentary" government. Our Constitution is premised upon the idea that all those various "purposes," as outlined in the Constitution's "purpose statement," are best achieved when there is disagreement, conflict, and division, politically speaking, not when one party, or another, is declared a "winner," and given responsibility, thus, to run the nation.
Here is Swaim's commentary, as he reviews a new book, American Covenant, written by Yuval Levin:
“The breakdown of political culture in our day,” [Levin] observes in the book, “is not a function of our having forgotten how to agree with each other but of our having forgotten how to disagree constructively.” The framers of the Constitution, he argues, were aware of the dangers both of centralized power and of democracy: They had fought an imperious king a decade before, and in the intervening years they had lived through a democracy so disunited that it fell apart. What they fashioned in 1787 was neither a monarchy nor a libertarian compact but a system whose stability and cohesion arose precisely from the guarantee that its citizens would be forced to deal with each other constantly—always negotiating, competing and forming coalitions.
Maybe the best way to encapsulate Mr. Levin’s contention is to compare American democracy with parliamentary systems like the one from which ours departed. In Britain, when one party wins an election, it can do more or less what it wants until the next election, with the opposition there mainly to criticize it. By contrast, even if an American party wins big, it may not win both chambers of Congress and the presidency, and even when it does, the minority retains enough power to force the majority to negotiate.
The idea that Levin advances is exactly the idea that Hannah Arendt has said is the true "genius" of the government of the United States. NO ONE, no individual, and no political party, is ever to be given unchecked and unilateral power. Power is opposed to power, and to accomplish anything a compromise must be achieved. Trying to "wipe out" those with whom we disagree, politically, is the antithesis of what the Constitution calls for.
Swaim seems to think that the "progressives" have forgotten this. As someone who would self-identify as a "progressive," my inclination is to say the problem lies with the "conservatives."
Well, let's call a truce on who is most at fault. Let's forget about the labels, can't we? Different people, different regions, different states, and different religions have different ideas about what is "right," and what is "wrong," and what is a "good" idea and what is a "bad" one. That is, in fact, the way it is supposed to be. That understanding reflects the truth of who we are.
By definition, a "union" is the bringing together of disparate elements. Politically speaking, let's not try to wipe out the "other side."
Let's "make a deal."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!