I am fired up about the Constitution, and perhaps my reverence for it qualifies as a secular religion, and as such might cast haze over my eyes when it comes to more immediate, pressing considerations in the realpolitik of American politics in general and advancing the progressive agenda in detail.
I have, sometimes nicely, received this hint from quite a few persons the past few weeks.
The short form: CSK, you need to look at the big picture.
I answered, not always nicely, that what was bigger than the Constitution?
Let me be up front and apologize for that belligerence. Sorry, guys.
So I took the advice and revisited my thoughts on this election for the past several months...and here is what I came up with.
The chief purpose of the Constitution is that it serves to keep blood off of your streets. It is not an article of faith, it is a structured means to resolve political disputes peaceably and orderly in such a way that obstructs the formation of a permanent controlling faction. When such a thing arises, it is invariably bad for a sufficient number of persons out of power that they in time react and generate a paradigm shift. It's fair to say we are seeing such a thing now, in favor of the Democrats and the progressive movement.
The substance of this shift is being worked out in real time and has been for the past two years. To many (hand raised and there are many, many others) discussing, debating and dissenting the trends, real and apparent, of the new Democratic majority is a matter of utmost civic responsibility. Applauding wisdom and decrying foolishness is part of that conversation, not "even when" Democratic leaders screw up but especially when they do so... because they represent the majority, and as such will be the ones holding the levers of power, they and their successors, for quite some time to come.
Not everyone who concurs on this point agrees with my views, priorities or choices. Consensus is not important; synthesis is. We are smarter through deliberation on contentious issues than without it. Our leaders are brought closer to their better angels with dissent than with adulation.
Now perhaps the Constitution needs amendment or replacement... that its season has come and gone. This idea has been lofted with various tones, with varying degrees of commitment, repeatedly in the past week. This is part of a wider reframing of constitutionality that draws on the tradition of the founding document as a nice start, but not the end-all of liberty and justice, when it is patently obvious that, as originally written, it was a deeply flawed document. Regardless, it remains unique among all the basic laws of all lands worldwide as the first fundamental code that included within it the remedy for its own flaws. Prior to this date, all constitutions held closer to Machiavelli's observation that laws should be changed rarely if ever but when they must be altered, that they should be changed wholesale and suddenly, preferably by a single highly-respected lawgiver. Machiavelli's exemplar was Numa, founder of the Roman Republic.
Why would we wish to change the Constitution at this time? First, its legitmacy is greatly questioned by left and right alike. The call for amendments, substantial alterations of the test, are made all the time but never before has there been such a high level of institutional disregard for the competing checks and balances within the government. This is beyond a matter of the Bush administration destroying data, issuing signing statements, openly mocking and defying subpoenas and search warrants, violating its own promises and the laws and principles it dares maintain that it defends. Oh, and let's not forget the by-decree creation of a virtual fourth branch of government under the auspices of the Vice Presidency. No, it is worse. Because every time such activities happen, the Constitution dies a little death. And it dies a greater death, every time no sanction is levied against the transgressors. In this fashion, the legitimacy of the regime has been corroded, beginning with the principles of the Constitution.
Taking a step back, it is easy to see how Overtoned that reverence for the Constitution has become; the contempt for the law of the land shown by the Bushies sets such a vast standard for tolerance of abuse of law, principle and human dignity, all done by the least popular administration in modern American history, all without any sanction as slight as arrest for refusal to answer a Congressional summons, that it is difficult to envision any check being set against any future presidency, especially a hypothetical one that shares partisan affinity with Congress, and arrives with far higher approval ratings.
In which case, all we can do is hope we continue to elect good consuls for Rome, sorry, good presidents for the Republic, and hope his or her conscience is both strong and constant and includes a willingness to release the reins of power once the term of office is concluded.
There is the possibility that we have already seen a change of Constitution, thanks to President Bush, who in the aftermath of 9/11 and with the near-complete complicity of Congress, effectively rewrote the law of the land via USA PATRIOT, after which his administration explored vigorously all the possibilities under that sweeping act of legislation to assert the primacy of the Presidency vis a vis the Congress and the Courts, and vis a vis the States and the Bill of Rights as well. That exploration has gone not just unhindered by Democrats but, post 2006, greatly enabled.
Taking a step back, their behavior is consistent with a political leadership reorienting itself around the new rules and realities of the game which are still changing. The results of the 2006 election meant that Democrats were for the first time dealt into the new order. We in the netroots had a different idea of how that hand should have been played than the Congressional leadership and, as recent events regarding the FISA topic have revealed, this disconnect in perspective remains.
The first question then is have we in effect received a new Constitution via USA PATRIOT? Certainly that sweeping act and subsequent legislation have significantly altered the political reality on the ground.
The second question: Do we, not just the leadership class but the American people at large, fully understand the change that has taken place?
The third: Are we by and large comfortable with the going on the same trajectory, only faster, and with bipartisan cooperation?
The fourth: If not, what do we do about it?
Thus, my raising the topic of amendments. Perhaps it is just a warning shot and the remedy of legislative repeal is far more appropriate. Or simply having a moratorium on legislation with alters the balance and separation of powers further in favor of presidential primacy.
A more sensitive and contentious topic has been the framing of online discussions as a zero-sum conflict between support for the Constitution and support for the Obama candidacy.. I certainly do not see this as appropriate framing, though I freely admit I have fallen into less clear-thinking and more angry-passioned moments on this matter. I would as soon find that path back to reasoned civil discourse; otherwise, I would not take the time to write this rather exhaustive treatise today.
Yet, I take issue with comments that dismiss the Constitution in favor of a Hobbesian worldview, the war of all against all, because at the moment that view seems to strongly favor the Democrats in general and the Obama campaign in particular, and that at the end of the day abuse of power, as the Bushies have shown is, is strongly driven by not what the law says but the willingness of those under it to abide by its tenets. And that, for much of American history, for many of the Republic's residents, full rights of citizenship have not only not been respected, they have not even been acknowledged and this is the reality on more streets than ever before thanks to the Republicans under George W Bush. And, this being the conclusion, anyone who wishes to remedy such abuse needs to focus less on changes in the writ of law and more on changing out the personnel who are sworn to uphold it, yet foreswear doing so.
And that is a perfectly reasonable basis for weighing the generalities and particulars of the current political situation...so long as we through our elected Democratic majority in Congress do not further the agenda of the same people we are seeking to kick out of office come November.
I take special issue with this Congress, which will be long remembered for exerting itself to aid the creation of a imperial presidency, rather than deliberate on whether doing so is good for American, never mind their own position And I have taken special issue with those who hold leadership in both houses of the legislature, and those who aspire to higher office, for not considering the fquestions above directly and sharing their thoughts on them, namely how USA PATRIOT has changed their behavior, why that change is necessary and proper, and why helping advance the Bush agenda in any particular helps advance the interests of avowed opponents of same?
Granted, I do not have access to classified or privileged government information and the Democratic leadership presumably has some security clearance which is yet recognized by the Bush administration as the price of getting its wars started and paid for. Perhaps if I had such special knowledge I would be singing a song more in accord with the apparent tastes of Senator Rockefeller and Congressman Hoyer. As it stands, I do not. And as it stands, I and many others do not see how Democrats using their control of the Congressional agenda to move Republican legislation forward and enable GOP talking points in an election year helps the majority agenda and the majority power position in any generality or particular.
There is the meme out there that compromise in this matter strips away a powerful Republican hammer against the Democratic presidential candidate. The 'soft on terror' line.
I would offer up the glaring evidence of not one, not two, but three special Congressional election races, all in deep Red districts.
In every one, opposition to telecom amnesty was an express position of the Democratic candidate.
In every race, the Republicans spent scarce donation dollars like it was going out of style, hammering home the 'he's giving the phones to the terrorists!" line.
In every race, the Democrat one.
Did I mention they were all in deep Red districts?
At every level you can poll for, there is no electoral support for telecom amnesty. It is just something that, for some opaque reason, almost all Republicans and a sufficient and sufficiently-well placed number of Democrats want to give President Bush..and all the presidents who will ever be.
I take special issue with retroactive immunity for what amount to deputized private agents of the Federal Government, because when any law can be broken by same, so long as they have a national security justification, given at the pleasure of the president, sooner or later will be broken. I took the tedious trouble of adding the phrase "at the pleasure of the president" to every substantive portion of the Constitution. It was a truly depressing exercise, but it was uplifting in a way. It gave me the opportunity to revisit and remind myself in great detail everything that we are casting aside, because we have become distracted by the dramas and crises of the moment, both domestic and foreign, both substantive and inane.
The real danger of retroactive immunity is that it represents a wholly new quality of abuse, a level of discretionary power in the hands of a chief executive that makes getting the "right person" elected president even more essential a taste..without any commensurate refinement in the electoral process to ensure the most salutary outcome. Granted, that is not the scope of the current FISA legislation. I would just offer that making who is President a potential regime-killer, i.e., locking in the dreadful risk that the past few years have been, then magnifying it, is short-sighted and irresponsible. We are meant to be a Republic of laws, not of men (sic); making who is president the single most important part of the political calculus is nothing short of reverting to an electoral form of monarchism. That is my opinion, my choice of words.
It is also my opinion that this condition exists, whether those who in time serve as President reject the idea or not. Because if you place kingly powers into the highest office of the land, sooner or later someone is going to be elected who prefers not to preside and prefers instead to reign. Ah, but we have seen this in action the past seven years, have we not? We know what a virtual monarch looks like, so when it happens again we will not be misled.
Regardless, the risk remains. It would be good to mitigate it, rather than trust the wisdom of the American electorate and a long streak of wise electoral choice to keep venal, villainous persons out of the Oval Office.
But it would be wishful thinking, I fear. Wisdom and fortune foresook this land for eight years. It is more than likely than not going to do so again someday.
Now, let's be perfectly clear: There are worse things than Barack Obama having these powers; who wins in November does matter greatly I have spoken on this in the past, and had my critiques of recent Obama and Obama campaign behavior rejected using language that my detractors could have lifted from my own past prose. Of course! Stipulated! Were we to be led by a string of Obamaian leaders going forward, we would stand a far stronger chance of restoring the full reach of our power, our principle, our prosperity and our prestige in the world than we would under a mcCain-powered extension of the Bush-led Diminishment of America.
But I remain, as before, less worried about a succession of vain, venal forgetful fools attached to truly obsolete views of the bases and uses of power. I am much more concerned about the eventual rise of a truly capable and ambitious tyrant, someone with all the designs of Bush and Cheney, and the intellectual and persuasive chops to see their will done, beginning with the head start handed them by the post-9/11 transformation of the Republic into something less popular and more praetorian in nature.
Stipulated; who wins in November matters greatly. Because of the inactions of Congress against Bush and their vigorous actions on his behalf, who is chosen President will matter greatly from now on... until the overwhelming power of the foolishly-aggrandized Presidency is reduced to parity with the other branches, and the culture of deference in the name of security to the holder of that office is discredited.
Yes, indeed, we do have a choice, America - Redemption or Rendition. And I do not think that John McCain represents a happy choice for this country, not in any way.. and Barack Obama is not the deliverer. It might take a generation to prepare the way for a transformation of American politics and a return to the point where at least we are dealing with the hard issues and not pretending that everything is well and good in an America that has not even faced its reflection in the mirror in over thirty years.
One thing is assured. This election is no longer a choice of the same or change, any longer. Rather Americans must choose the direction of change.
We have seen the direction of change that the McCains and Bushes, Clintons and Cheneys of the world desire. They have made their choices by the words they have spoken and left unspoken. We have seen their vision in the deeds they have done and conspicuously left undone. And that direction is unacceptable.
So I am all for choosing the direction of redemption, and declaring that the rendition of our rights and the flensing of our dignity under the Republicans is almost over.
And if you want to see the difference that one good person can make with the power to turn their vision into reality, just consider the impact of this one speech, the one on race delivered by Obama back in March... not for those who already supported him, but for those most hesitant to do so...and yet found themselves nodding their heads in agreement that day.
The speech, that one speech, was a long overdue rhetorical gift to the world, and to the American people most of all. It was a gift of redemption and reconciliation. Not a magic wand being waved, hardly; it was a messaage of service and exertion, a call for courage to let go and take a swim in the waters of trust. Some do not swim so easily as others, for want of familiarity, or education, or enlightened examples in their lives. But some of these took the plunge, and began to trust, just a little more than they did the day before. Tentative, flailing, foolish at times, they are trying. And I think the speech on race was for such persons most of all.
I think that speech made a huge difference in American culture. "Just words", some might deride. Yes. The most powerful kind; the ones that chance people's lives for the better.
I look forward to more of them. And more of them are coming
More's the pity for these folks...but it would be a good idea not to scare them more than they are already. As things are shaping up, the Republicans and wider conservative movement are going to have a bitter lesson: learning how to live under Democrats. I am of a mind to be magnanimous, as the best remedy for ignorance is education. I think we should , as in the section above, do our conscientious best to teach or brethren how to swim in progressive waters. Yes, they will be starting in the shallows, but they have to start somewhere.
But they will look to us for examples on how to stay afloat and survive in the future that they will be giving us our turn to create.
All the more reason not to to embrace, aid or abet their dying political creed in any particular.
Wrap
I have tried here to reconcile my own heated passions of late with a review of my more detached and better-considered thoughts on contemporary politics, to look at the bigger picture, as I have been chided of late. I find for the most part the substance of my positions is constant;
- That we should watch our own leaders as closely if not more so than the Republicans, for ours are the ones that currently hold power in Congress and are likely to soon hold power in the White House as well.
- That we must look past the well-deserved admiration for Senator Obama and take the longer view, that the changes to how we practice the Constitution in the post-9/11 world are yet fully understood, which is all the more reason not to hurry additional aggrandizement of presidential powers along.
- That we must engage dissent, even that from the right, if our country is to thrive, for we are stronger when presumed truths are challenged than when assumptions remain uncriticized and tested only when lives and liberty and property are at risk. We have seen how well that practice plays out in how the Republicans have run their affairs and insofar as they could manage, the rest o the planet's into the ground. It is not an example worthy of admiration or emulation.
- That Barack Obama can be a truly transformative figure in American culture, not just in politics. But he is not a deliver, but rather a catalyst, for needful change. It is important to recognize the distinction, and hold even Obama to the bright light of inquiry and when called for excoriation, for even as he inspires, he is after all only human. But I am okay with that.
- Someday, persons not so easily inspiring of trust will be president again. We would do well to use these precious few years to ensure that foolish villains are less likely to become president, ever again, and if they do despite our better interests and vigilance get through, that the means to limit their damage are restored to full credibility and fully exercised. Because the past few years do not inspire confidence that the system as constituted and practiced works very effectively.
Thank you for your time reading this. I hope in doing so, I have given something valuable in return. And if not, I owe you. :)