Constitutionalism

The constitution of the United States, like that of all great nations, changes over time. The document from 1787 was a sensible organization of already existing features in colonial politics - a normative text and a descriptive text woven together in prudence. Since then, certain critical features have changed - this could be a long list - such as degree of loyalty felt towards the individual states, the quality and bent of general education, the position of the United States in international affairs - not least the constant waging of war, the extinction of free and fertile land for prospective settlement, the extension of bureaucracy which goes along with an aging legal system, and more. All these things are factors which go into making up the constitution of a nation.

The old document does not solve the problems presented by these new features; the injustices perpetrated by modern governments are, it seems to me, apart from instances of intentional evil, best understood as a failed attempt to solve the modern problems, which begins by struggling to find the answers to what is new within the answers to the old, and ends by throwing out the old altogether in a fit of frustration. The Constitution indeed has no specific answers to the modern problems, but rather asks us to solve them ourselves within certain proven boundaries. In this request, the Constitution argues at the same time for both its sufficiency and its insufficiency. If, then, we are to call for the restoration of strict constitutionalism, it must be on the grounds of prudence in relation to the current factors, not on the grounds of dogmatism about an old, problematic philosophy. Perhaps we might appeal to it on the grounds of inherited tradition. But I should guess that the founding fathers would think that to be an odd appeal.

It seems to me that my argument is these days understood to be true even if it is not acknowledged. How do you explain the contradiction between the ferment of complaint about the government and the jesting about violence, and, when you press any serious person, the reluctance about staking their lives on an attempt to restore a strict 1787 Constitution?

Post-Script: an unwarranted political prediction:

I am persuaded that, given the tremendous development of traditional powers over the 223 years of the existence of this constitutional system, an successful restoration of 1787 principles could only happen by revolt and revolution against the Federal government. Our current federal system is simply totally unlike what it once was. But a newly created state would die very quickly, because it would have cut itself off from its history and lost the old spiritual and theoretical energies, and would be absorbed back into a modified Federal government which by that time will have followed more openly imperial instincts.

Symbolism in American Politics

There is a strong element of the French imagination which is part of the American spirit. It is an imagination which cares about symbols as much as it cares about policies and results.

In 1871, Henri, Comte de Chambord, ultimately refused to take up the throne of a restored constitutional monarchy in France because he refused to reign over a state that flew the Tricolour, while those desirous of a restoration of the monarchy refused to bring back the white flag of the Bourbons.

Conservatives would do well to be aware of this element, not to dismiss its significance, nor to look upon it with contempt. Since the Third Reich, we have been taught that all symbolism is mere propaganda. This is not true.

Critics like to say that Mr. Obama was elected because he ran on a hypocritical manifesto of low taxes and bureaucratic reform. This is only partly true. Self-interest explains only so much. He won the African-American vote because he was a symbol of emancipation, and the votes of countless other groups and individuals because he was a symbol of progress. These facts ought not to be dismissed as mere childishness. They should be taken for what they are, homages to the place of passion and poetry and things of the spirit - think of Yeats - in the hearts of countless peoples, passions that must be moderated but that cannot and ought not be silenced.

Universal Literacy

Since the earliest times, literacy was the mark of education; it was the prized possession of jurists, legislators, priests, and generals, no doubt for its enormous practical value, but also, surely for its intrinsic beauty and power. For what other reason do hieroglyphics in their thousands graffiti the walls of the Egyptian palaces? As wealth increases, so education envelops a larger proportion of the population, so alphabets develop partly to simplify the problems of teaching language, so that around the Mediterranean, noun-pictures become syllabic pictures, and finally abstract letters, whereas in China the Mandarin alphabet has been horribly complex up until very recently, when a concerted effort is being made to simplify it. A body of higher knowledge preserves civilization, but literacy is at the root, and taught from the earliest age.

In the last three centuries we have reached the logical conclusion of this historical process (and be quiet, I'm not a Whig), where everyone can read and most can write. Now obviously not everyone can, but this is a fault of inefficiencies and philosophical stupidities in the present pedagogical system rather than inherent limitations in the possibility of universal literacy.

Now the democratic system of government depends upon universal literacy. Over the course of the 19th century the Liberal and Tory parties of England debated the wisdom of extending the franchise. It was a chief complaint of the Tories that Englishman without an education couldn't be expected to participate in government, and it was a chief effort of the Liberal party to give everyone that education, precisely as a rebuttal to the Tory objection, so that in 1866 Gladstone could accuse Parliament of foolishness and senselessness to withhold political power from the working classes, as since 1832, they had increasingly become fit for the exercise of it. Likewise the American founders held universal education to be a necessary defence of sensible government. The early frontier schools didn't teach much, but they taught as much as was needed to read the papers and consider the merits of an argument. The middle class, especially, was trained to read very deeply. Almost every independent household before the revolution had at least a Bible and either a work of history or law written by an Englishman.

This isn't the place to assess the reasons for the link between universal education and democracy, and the most basic reasons should be obvious to the educated person. What I want to consider, briefly, is the danger to democracy when universal literacy begins to decay, as it is doing today: when the system is in place, but repeated attempts to reform it fail; when a growing percentage of citizens no longer claim to be able to read and write; and when those who can make abominably poor use of it. Consider the rise of the paperback bestseller. An elderly fellow who works at the funeral home, a '63 graduate of Hillsdale, used to be an English highschool teacher. He told me today that when he gets Imprimis he immediately throws it into the trashcan, not because he thinks its rubbish (and there's something of an argument there), but because he just doesn't read that stuff. He went by the library today to pick up several volumes of mysteries to entertain himself during the hours he works here, and because recently, apparently, T.V. isn't so good. Many people I know and you know do the same thing.

Here is the problem, as an deductive argument.
Major premise: Democracy depends, and has always depended, among other things, on universal education.
Minor premise: Schools have always taught, and continue to teach, literacy.
Minor premise: Literacy used to stand for, but longer stands for, an education.
Conclusion: Our country is no longer a stable democracy.

"The glories of the past are destroyed, they are no longer understood, and language is forgotten. Letters, you have gone down in a cataract from depth of folly to further depth, from obscenity to obscenity, until you have reached the inane. For whom should any man now write? What ears remain to hear?"
Hilaire Belloc - The New Keepsake (1931)

Kyrgyzstan (yes, one of those)

The US lacks decent supply routes into Afghanistan (it's landlocked, remember); meanwhile, President Obama has already begun to order many more troops moved into the region, which is still suffering heavily from Taliban attacks. One route goes through the Khyber Pass from Pakistan, but in recent months Pakistan has become more tolerant of the Taliban organization which has set up in the northwestern villages, so that route is coming under heavy attack. The only major airbase supply route is in the northern country of Kyrgyzstan, called Manas (after a legendary national hero who united the tribes against the Mongol hordes),

It appears that the Russians offered the Kyrgyzstanis a $2.15 billion package earlier this year to kick the Americans out of Manas airbase. No doubt they will use this as leverage in negotiations against the missile shield in Eastern Europe. At the same time, it seems that Mr. Obama, in a formerly secret letter to President Medvedev, has offered to give up the missile shield in return for Russia abandoning its nuclear financial and technological aid to Iran.

This seems the height of folly. It swaps a temporary setback for Iran (which will continue to press forward in nuclear technology with or without Russia's help) in return for a permanent setback for the US (which will leave Europe undefended from long-term future Iranian attacks, Russian attacks, or anyone else's attacks). In consequence it shows Russia that underhanded power-politics works, that the US is weak and irresolute, and perhaps most importantly of all, it injures the trust that we have earned in Eastern Europe, which depends upon us to keep the Russians in check; when we show our ignorance of Russian diplomatic methods and the absence of backbone, they will begin to transfer their trust to the EU. NATO itself may be threatened (I know that already France and Germany are in major disagreement with the US about policy, for instance over inducting Georgia into the alliance system).

Considering this background, it seems that leaving the airbase just as we are doing is part of the same weakness of will and blinkered foreign policy focusing exclusively on the immediate problems in Iran and Afghanistan.

Now, it may be IN FACT that allowing Russia to exercise dominance of Central Asia is the most prudent policy, because it may satisfy its imperial ambitions in the medium-term, thus keeping pressure off of Eastern Europe. Also, China is interested in expanding its power, and may clash with Russia (both nations apparently have been conducting joint wargames with the Asian countries, including special-forces operations). But this outlet for Russian ambition would be made terribly dangerous if China and Russia were to form an Asian alliance. Someone should figure out the likelihood of this event.

But I think it more prudent, as a rule of course, to show Russia that they cannot exert control over this region, or anyother, most especially with such obvious ploys like the one over Manas, in which absolutely no Russian interest is served except that America is hurt. In fact, Russia is hurt by it also. When a militaristic state can only afford an (openly acknowledged) military budget of $50 billion, $2.15 billion as a diplomatic bribe hurts a lot. If they end up paying it, but their purpose is nevertheless totally defeated, they lose money and face. That ought to be our goal.

This is far and away the best analytic article (and short, too) that I have found on Manas, and asserts the Americans can find cheaper supply routes elsewhere. But we should not only find cheaper supply routes. We should secure so many of them that we show Russia to be impotent in regards to our foreign policy.

Though the article gives the right solution, it glosses over the central problem: Manas is not about supply routes, but about politics with Russia. I think the best analogy is to think of Russia building a blockade in our path. If we can blow up the blockade, great. If we can go around it more cheaply, and come out stronger than ever, better.

Revision of Judgment on Stimulus Bill

I asked my Constitutional History professor, Dr. Moreno, about the likelihood of the cabinet government I discussed three posts ago, as indicated by the progress of the late stimulus bill.

Really, the British custom of calling a Bill what the state is considering, and calling an Act what the state had made law, is far preferable to this American indistinction.

He told me of facts of which I had no knowledge, and which turns my thesis on its head. President Obama had very little to do with the construction of the bill. Essentially he delegated the business to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who promptly began the business of restoring the balance of corrupt investment, which has for so long weighed in the Republican's favor, back to the districts of Democratic congressmen. Many commentators are saying that Mr. Obama's actions in fact demonstrate weakness rather than strength. He's letting supervisory power slip from the executive back to Congress. It is also said that it's a sign of his inexperience.

Danger - But Small Cheese, Really

The formulation of the new stimulus package (which is certifying expenditure as far as 2019, when I suppose the assumption, goes, that we will still be in crisis, and still be in need of stimulus) demonstrates a peculiar danger to a custom of our government that, until now, has been, though corrupt and senile, still largely following the forms of the Constitution, if not its spirit. That is that money bills always originate in the House, and that the 'pork' associated with them is added by particular representatives.

Now of this new bill, near $900 billion fat, President Obama claims that none of it is pork. What does that mean? It means that no representatives are personally inserting money clauses into the document. It also means that Mr. Obama's cabinet, and their retainers, are in control of it. Given the vast number of particular benefits the bill actually dispenses, what does this imply? It implies that a relationship is growing between the presidential cabinet and lobbyists that is bypassing Congressional control.

Now I've no doubt that plenty of Congressmen are using lobbyists to get roads for their districts, but I've no doubt that private business are as well, and this time they aren't going through the Congressmen.

We conclude two important things from this little analysis:
1) Congress's hold on the budget is weakened dramatically by this precedent.
2) Executive authority is dramatically strengthened.

(The position of the lobbyists and everyone else appears to be unchanged)

Incidentally, independent money bills are being started in the Senate as well, although this is a direct violation of an express command of the Constitution that bills can only begin in the House. At this time there are actually TWO stimulus bills in Congress - one in each house. The idea is that they will compromise over a final result. Now whether or not anyone is plotting this, doesn't matter, the consequence remains: Congress is being divided against itself in regards to money. In the long run, this is the perfect opportunity for a non-partisan body, one which truly understands the people, one which stands above the corruption, etc. etc. to engineer the compromises, be the guiding light of the whole thing.

This is the exact path to cabinet government.

Death

From the DrudgeReport:

PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY
Sun Jan 25 2009 22:13:43 ET

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.

The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC's THIS WEEK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

There are so many things hideous about this statement I couldn't discuss them all without consuming your entire lunch-break, but let me list just the some of the worst:

An utter lack of moral sense (call it conscience). All right, she wants the best interest of the state, but the best interest of the state is evil, and thus not at all best, if built upon the slaughter of innocents.

It's premeditated.

It's shameless. They've dropped all pretense for concern for the woman's welfare.

They're all godless Philistines, damn them.

I'm sure there's some great sentence somewhere in Western literature on this point: once a culture treats its children as liabilities, it is doomed to die. Children are the promise of someone to carry on our work of today into the future, and the hope of greatness surpassing what we accomplished. A woman commits suicide on part of her soul when she allows her child to be killed, and a culture commits suicide when it AIMS at killing its children.

Consequent on the last point: its the last stage of the decay of political imagination. It's like the author who can't figure out what to do with the protagonist, so kills him off. There ARE problems with a booming population, but there are GOOD ways to deal with it, and even to channel to unsurpassed heights the latent energy and power of that most marvelous creation, impossible to manufacture, the human being.

And further: when the Speaker of the House treats citizens as items in a pocket book, you know that 1) she's hopelessly out of touch, and 2) that she hasn't read Dickens. Do we really want such a person governing our country?