Pardon me, but is this the same country that put a man on the moon? And is this also the country that invented the light bulb, the telephone, the airplane, the computer, and the internet; not to mention sliced bread, motion pictures, and the electric guitar! Ours is a nation of dreamers and innovators; free from the ossified culture of Europe, breathing the fresh air of a new world, Americans are equal to any challenge that God or commerce may place before them. At least this has always been the story...
So how can it possibly be that when our own government is so clearly broken, Americans, rather than accepting this as a creative challenge, resign themselves to an endless cycle of frustration; as though Government was not a human invention amenable to tinkering but rather some unfathomable obstacle that we must circumvent, like the Cyanean rocks of Greek mythology, a marine hazard to navigation that sailors could only survive by means of divine intervention? Government is a human invention, a social adaptation which in evolutionary terms was created yesterday; if our social and technological development has vastly exceeded the capabilities of our current system then it is time to move on! Like a caterpillar shedding its cocoon (or a snake shedding its skin?), we should not be afraid to cast off something which has become a hindrance rather than a help. That the existing Government has in fact become a hindrance to our existence should by now be abundantly clear to everyone. If we are waiting for assistance in the form of divine intervention we are likely to be disappointed.
Once a beacon of hope, America is now well on the way to being the world’s largest basket case. Her citizens are impoverished, unhealthy, and illiterate , and these are just the superficial indicators; there are more ominous portents as well. Due process, the bedrock of any free society, increasingly has the appearance of an expendable luxury; electronic voting threatens us with an insidious and undetectable form of election fraud; and the "free market" which is the spiritual core of our society has (once again) been exposed as a hoax – equal parts hall of mirrors, house of cards and three card Monte hustle. Is it the will of god that we should suffer thus or is there a predictable chain of causation beginning with the U. S. Constitution, extending through the statutes, and terminating in the general unhappiness which pervades our land? The last of the preceding revelations offers a clear indication as to the answer. The failure of the free market is not the result of some occult mystery; it is the result of undue influence exercised over the legislative process by a powerful minority whose interests are opposed to those of society at large. Instead of writing laws to safeguard the workings of a complex system on which every of us depend, statutes were crafted to facilitate the transfer of enormous sums to a small number of people.
Ah for the days of yore, when financial trickery was largely restricted to debasement of the currency by Kings melting down coinage and re-casting it with an ever smaller proportion of gold. This crime at least was something that the general population could understand and even account for (with inflation that would actually hurt wealthy money lenders). Today’s financial wizards have come a long ways indeed. Now, thanks to modern technology and a concentration of intellectual talent not seen since the heyday of the space program, we have a financial system that leverages greed to heights previously unimaginable. We have now maximized the efficient movement of capital to areas of highest return, with the result that most of our capital (and employment) has moved to China while in return we have acquired a full market saturation of worthless commodities in the form of shoddy appliances, useless gadgets and dangerous toys. None of which, of course, would have been possible if we had not allowed these same wizards a free hand (noblesse oblige they’d call it) in our Legislatures. But we should not condemn the titans of Wall Street too harshly, they are only a symptom; the problem is a system which would grant them so much authority in the first place!
It is a fundamental tenet of Western political philosophy as old as Solon and as recent as The Federalist that Governments are instituted to protect society at large from the depredations of any faction that would subvert the greater good in pursuit of its own selfish ends. Solon faced a society prostrated by a minority faction of usurers, while the Framers sometimes used the word "faction" as a code word for "rabble" (i.e. – that majority faction of Americans who were not represented at the Constitutional Convention). Either way however, an underlying assumption of most political philosophy has always been that society is unavoidably separated into different classes and that each class must have some voice in Government, otherwise the result is tyranny. Recent events in this Country have demonstrated that one faction, the financial interests, are exercising a tyrannical power which has done much to undermine the common good of society at large. And history reveals that this is not a freak occurrence but rather a regular feature in the economic life of our country. Anyone who doubts this should look back to the first congress of 1788 and Hamilton’s "full funding" of the Continental Debt (During the War the Continental Congress had assumed enormous debts which were foisted onto hapless citizens and soldiers, ill equipped to wait years for repayment that was uncertain at best. These debts were largely acquired by speculators who paid pennies on the dollar, and then received full credit from the U.S. Treasury courtesy of Hamilton ). Strictly speaking "full funding" was entirely legitimate, but then so were the recent AIG bonuses. The intervening centuries have seen many similar examples, but the point here isn’t to beat up on bankers; they are simply one of the factions which have undermined our society. There are others. The point is that our Constitution has failed to satisfy one of the most basic functions of Government, it has failed to safeguard the common good from the tyranny of faction, and this failure is as old as the Republic. In other words, our Government is fundamentally broken and it is time for us to finally accept the challenge and fix it!
That our Government is fundamentally broken hardly seems like a controversial position requiring arcane supporting evidence in the form of ancient historical references and abstract philosophy, the evidence is all around us in glaring contemporary display. Despite dire warnings by Jimmy Carter more than thirty years ago on the dangers of oil addiction, we still don’t have a credible energy policy; our last president was elected by means of blatant well documented fraud and the Supreme Court, rather than providing justice, chose to anoint the criminal; our Generals now see fit to supplement our regular military with mercenaries! (a step which signaled the end of the Roman Republic); the majority party, holding both houses and the executive, was barely able to pass a modest watered down package of healthcare reform; and a war was waged exclusively on the basis of lies and fabrications – yet not a single person was held accountable!. And these are just a few of the highlights. But still, the idea that we might wish to overhaul the law of the land is not yet suitable for polite conversation. Broach the subject and nine out of ten people will fall silent. At what exact point would it become appropriate? To be sure, there are many solid and sensible arguments against the idea of a Constitutional Convention or any similar gathering. However, to be fair, there were also excellent arguments against Queen Isabella’s investment in the hare brained scheme of one young Italian, and the Declaration of Independence was regarded by many sensible people as an act of lunacy– with the benefit of hindsight however, these decisions are most often regarded favorably.
Yes there are great dangers and tremendous difficulties involved in changing our Government. (no sane person would deny this) The institutional hurdles which must be surmounted in order to amend the Constitution are very high and if the necessary consensus were "manufactured" (as Mr. Chomsky so aptly put it) out of our popular discontent by a powerful faction acting through the medium of a mob, then anything could happen – including most likely some form of theocratic fascism. But, if the impetus for change were to come in the form of an authentic (non-Astroturf) popular movement with a solid plan, a well considered strategy and unwavering commitment to the process of rational debate, this is a movement that might truly serve the people and which would be difficult either to manipulate or subvert, no matter how great the media budget of the opposition. This latter course should be the preferred option of all thinking people, but the former course becomes more likely with each passing year as the general population becomes both more desperate and ignorant (consider the "tea party"; this mob, as laughable as they seem, might easily represent an incipient fascist party). To imagine that the middle road of the status quo is our "safe" option here requires a degree of optimism that may be difficult to justify. History (or Herstory) does not stand still, and simply because the outward forms of our Government have persevered is no indication that the substance of the Government is healthy. In Imperial Rome the Caesar’s exercised absolute power, but the Senate, a vestigial relic from the Republican era, still continued to meet.
What‘s proposed here as an "impetus for change" is not a ten-point plan, silver bullet or ruby slippers, but simply a civilized, rational public debate - ultimately leading (presumably) to a national consensus for Constitutional changes that would benefit society at large. There are many good ideas regarding steps to repair Government, but in order to reach a consensus and generate the necessary political majority it is first necessary to create a public forum more prominent, credible and neutral than any blog where this debate may take place. Superficially this probably sounds as crazy as Obama’s bid for bi-partisan co-operation in Congress, but maybe it’s not so crazy. Humans are capable of rational civilized behavior, but only under the proper conditions – the rest of the time we’re a pack of wild dogs. Obama wanted to change the culture of Washington without first changing the institutional structure; that wasn’t a credible plan. But if we can create an institution, however limited, which will nourish some germ of civilized debate, it may then be possible for this debate to grow into a national conversation and ultimately a political consensus sufficient to pass a package of amendments. Such an institution might possibly take shape in the form of a "Congressional Commission to review the U. S. Constitution".
The Congressional Commission is an established institutional structure designed to advise Congress on matters of special importance. Commissions are bi-partisan and often populated by non-politicians (i.e. – academics or specialists). Commissions take the necessary time to study a subject in depth (often one or more years) and the proceedings may be public. Thus a Congressional Commission meets a number of conditions essential for the creation of a prominent, neutral and credible forum. Even better perhaps is the fact that the word "Commission" has no legal standing and is thus entirely malleable. The Congressional Commission may be influenced by the precedent of others before it, but each Commission starts with a blank sheet of paper and the entity is designed specifically for the task at hand. But best of all is the fact that a Commission, unlike an Amendment or an Article V Convention, is created by a simple majority rather than a supermajority. Given the fact that nearly half the States have a ballot initiative, it is theoretically possible that a Congressional Commission to review the Constitution may be designed and instigated exclusively by citizens, with only the barest assistance of a few politicians from the non-initiative States. Thus, as befits a great Democracy, a review of the fundamental laws might be instigated by petition of the citizens.
It seems only reasonable that a Commission created by citizens and intended to spark a larger social debate, should be populated by citizens as well. Although the more conventional impulse would be to pick a bunch of academics, this course should be avoided. A Commission of academics might be well qualified, although this is debatable, but such a Commission would also most likely alienate the general public. The intention should be to publicize the proceedings as fully as possible and then to draw in the general population of alienated voters and include them in the debate (with daily press briefings, frequent polling, and an official Commission blog). This intention would be best served by drawing Commission members at random from every walk of life across the Country in much the same way that juries are selected. In this manner it would be possible for the public to identify with the Commission members. With a broad cross section of society represented on the Commission every voter should find at least one person on the Commission who shares their general outlook. Of course it would also be essential to establish some minimum intellectual standard for inclusion, a standard perhaps such as the College Achievement Examinations in American History and Political Science. Some people will insist that such standards are elitist and undemocratic but this is ridiculous. Every Government job has standards - the Army Corp of Engineers doesn’t accept people who can’t do basic math - why would a Commission on the Constitution accept people who know nothing of History or Political Science. But the standard would be reasonable, something within the reach of any intelligent and motivated layperson. Commission membership should be a plausible aspiration for anyone who really cares (albeit a statistically improbable one, like winning the lottery). Surely such a Commission, a body of intelligent, educated citizens given ample time to study and deliberate, should be able to find solutions that will tame the lobbyists, dissolve the gridlock, and bring a truce to the partisan warfare which has incapacitated our Government. And if the entire process is completely transparent and highly visible then surely the rest of the country (minus the banking, insurance, oil and pharmaceutical CEO’s) will support the decisions made by this body and demand that their elected representatives follow the recommendations of the Commission and approve the proposed amendment(s) for ratification by the States.
Cynics will scoff at this idea; it is well know that in Washington D.C. the word "commission" is synonymous with "memory hole". But a Commission designed by citizens may defy the usual Washington shenanigans. For instance, the Commission charter should require that the recommendations be read before both houses of Congress in the same manner as the State of the Union Address, and Congress should be required to give the recommendations an "up or down vote" within a fixed time period. Cynics, and enemies of progress, will also insist that intelligent, educated and thoughtful citizens simply don’t exist, but this is ridiculous. In a nation of three hundred million there undeniably exists a substantial minority of citizen scholars just waiting to be tapped for such an important task (Benjamin Franklin himself was a self educated tradesman, Thomas Jefferson believed strongly that talent is evenly distributed throughout society and this writer is a self educated house painter). Of course, there will always be practical reasons not to contemplate a bold and novel plan, but if our Country has become so conservative that we are incapable of innovation even when the situation is dire (as it surely is!), then it is clear that the high toned language of the Declaration was nothing more than a collection of empty phrases and the American experiment has already failed.
If you're even halfway convinced then please send me an email and get involved, without your help this idea will simply die.