The Constitution wasn t made for partisan warriors

Opinion: The Constitution wasn’t made for partisan warriors
Opinion by Grant Madsen
9/16/23

Opinion: The Constitution wasn’t made for partisan warriors
© Illustration by Michelle Budge, Deseret News / Source: Adobe Stock
On Sept. 17, our nation will celebrate the 236th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. At Brigham Young University, where I teach constitutional history, we do this by explaining how the Constitution provides the rules of republican government while protecting fundamental rights. But we also remind our students that it makes an implicit demand of its citizens. As John Adams explained, “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

To understand just what Adams meant, I tell students to be alert to the way words tend to shift meaning over the centuries (what linguists call “semantic drift”). This is particularly true of the word “moral.” Indeed, one particularly important element of the word has been lost to history: Adams would have emphasized “disinterestedness” as the critical virtue informing the morality of a successfully self-governing people.


In our contemporary usage, we equate “disinterest” with boredom. If used at all, people say it to signal they could not care less. By contrast, if the founders called a man “disinterested,” they paid him the highest compliment. It meant fair-minded and wise. Samuel Johnson’s famous dictionary of 1755 defined disinterestedness as “superiority to regards of private advantage.” A disinterested citizen could not be bought nor persuaded by personal advantage; instead, he remained committed to the good of the republic and the interests of all. When Pennsylvanians wished to commemorate George Washington for his service in winning the Revolutionary War, they noted in particular his “disinterestedness and generosity of … soul.”

Related
Opinion: The U.S. Constitution is not a parliamentary system. Why are we treating it like one?
Opinion: Celebrating all of America’s constitutions
If disinterestedness stood as the chief virtue for the young republic, “faction” (what today we call “partisanship”) stood as its opposite. The founders understood that the spirit of faction had doomed all prior republican experiments to failure. Faction created “unsteadiness and injustice,” James Madison argued in what we now call “The Federalist Papers,” because factions coalesce precisely to subdue and exploit some number of their fellow citizens. They place exactly their “private advantage” ahead of the public good —usually by articulating their own desires as if it were the “the public good.” Rather than seek compromise or, better yet, search for an innovative and inclusive solution to a pressing public issue, most factions seek only victory.

A moral leader, as Adams understood it, refused to abide such a narrow attitude. Indeed, Adams often frustrated his fellow Federalists by refusing to favor a party system precisely because of its tendency to bring faction in its wake. Washington famously decried the party system in his farewell address. Madison, a brilliant political theorist, realized that the dangers of curing faction could prove worse than faction itself, and so he wrote much of our Constitution as an effort to at least alleviate its worst effects. But devising a system that tolerates faction is not the same as celebrating it, and none of the founders thought that a republic dominated by factionalism would prove the model of self-government they hoped this nation might become.

On a more personal level, as the historian Carl Richard notes, the founders understood that faction would force them into precisely the kind of dilemma they hoped to avoid: “Membership in a political party inevitably involved defending the indefensible vices of one’s allies,” he writes.

Today, we poke fun at the overwrought way the founders defended their reputation (which, in Alexander Hamilton’s case, led to his death in a duel with Aaron Burr). But give them credit, they would never, as it were, give over control of their reputation to just anyone who might become the figurehead of the party. More to the point, a focus on faction would deprive them of exactly what they hoped to become: historically significant.

To get one’s face carved in stone usually means rising above the petty squabbles of the day.
We historians rarely celebrate the “party man.” To get one’s face carved in stone usually means rising above the petty squabbles of the day. We have filled Washington, D.C., full of statues of figures who transcended their time; we have relatively fewer statues of partisan warriors who absolutely “destroyed” their opponents on YouTube (or its earlier equivalents).

As we celebrate the Constitution’s birthday in 2023 and, by extension, admire those figures who devised it, we might ask who among us has not only embraced the freedoms it provides but also the spirit of the founders who created it. Which of us will achieve enough disinterest to rise above faction and, ideally, transcend the limits of our time? If history is any guide, this kind of moral commitment will do best by the nation and its founding document, the Constitution.

Grant Madsen is an assistant professor in the History department at Brigham Young University. His research focuses on American political institutions both inside and outside the United States. His views are his own.

***
How the Constitution left American democracy vulnerable

Harvard Professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, co-authors of 'Tyranny of the Minority,' and 'How Democracies Die,' join Ali Velshi to discuss how American democracy fell behind the rest of the world in our commitment to upholding democratic principles and the three key solutions to restoring the broken system that is impeding progress.

About the Book

"A call to reform our antiquated political institutions before it's too late-from the New York Times bestselling authors of How Democracies Die. America is undergoing a massive experiment: It is moving, in fits and starts, toward a multiracial democracy, something few societies have ever done. But the prospect of change has sparked an authoritarian backlash that threatens the very foundations of our political system. Why is democracy under assault here, and not in other wealthy, diversifying nations? And what can we do to save it? With the clarity and brilliance that made their first book, How Democracies Die, a global bestseller, Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt offer a coherent framework for understanding these volatile times. They draw on a wealth of examples-from 1930s France to present-day Thailand-to explain why and how political parties turn against democracy. They then show how our Constitution makes us uniquely vulnerable to attacks from within: It is a pernicious enabler of minority rule, allowing partisan minorities to consistently thwart and even rule over popular majorities. Most modern democracies-from Germany and Sweden to Argentina and New Zealand-have eliminated outdated institutions like elite upper chambers, indirect elections, and lifetime tenure for judges. The United States lags dangerously behind. In this revelatory book, Levitsky and Ziblatt issue an urgent call to perfect our national experiment. It's a daunting task, but we have remade our country before-most notably, after the Civil War and during the Progressive Era. And now we are at a crossroads: America will either become a multiracial democracy or cease to be a democracy at all"--

Book Synopsis

A call to reform our antiquated political institutions before it's too late--from the New York Times bestselling authors of How Democracies Die
America is undergoing a massive experiment: It is moving, in fits and starts, toward a multiracial democracy, something few societies have ever done. But the prospect of change has sparked an authoritarian backlash that threatens the very foundations of our political system. Why is democracy under assault here, and not in other wealthy, diversifying nations? And what can we do to save it?

With the clarity and brilliance that made their first book, How Democracies Die, a global bestseller, Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt offer a coherent framework for understanding these volatile times. They draw on a wealth of examples--from 1930s France to present-day Thailand--to explain why and how political parties turn against democracy. They then show how our Constitution makes us uniquely vulnerable to attacks from within: It is a pernicious enabler of minority rule, allowing partisan minorities to consistently thwart and even rule over popular majorities. Most modern democracies--from Germany and Sweden to Argentina and New Zealand--have eliminated outdated institutions like elite upper chambers, indirect elections, and lifetime tenure for judges. The United States lags dangerously behind.

In this revelatory book, Levitsky and Ziblatt issue an urgent call to reform our politics. It's a daunting task, but we have remade our country before--most notably, after the Civil War and during the Progressive Era. And now we are at a crossroads: America will either become a multiracial democracy or cease to be a democracy at all.

Review Quotes

"Old democracies tend to last, and so do rich democracies, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt point out in this searing, unsettling, and essential new book, but American democracy, which is both old and rich, is dying. In Tyranny of the Minority, they explain why, and they explain, too, how to save it."--Jill Lepore, author of These Truths
"Among rich democracies, America is uniquely vulnerable to authoritarianism. If that statement surprises you, it shouldn't. In their new book, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt explain why this is true and how we can fix it: To stop democratic decay, we need to embrace our own tradition of constitutional reform. Just like their previous work, this book is concise, readable, and convincing."--Anne Applebaum, author of Twilight of Democracy

"Extending the brilliant analysis of their runaway bestseller, How Democracies Die, the authors vividly analyze the facets of America's democracy, some of them hardwired into our constitutional design and others baked into our history, that make our political system uniquely vulnerable to unrepresentative rule by the few over the many. To their credit, they offer no easy solutions, but Levitsky and Ziblatt challenge us to use our voices and our votes to push back against these inherently antidemocratic features of our endangered republic."--Laurence H. Tribe, University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus, Harvard

"Levitsky and Ziblatt explain why we Americans are still in the fight of our lives. The smaller of our two major parties has traveled down the road of authoritarianism--rejecting fair election outcomes, casually accepting rightwing violence, and embracing extremist political figures. But our antiquated political institutions and practices entrench the power of this extremist minority and keep the pro-democratic American majority from governing. This eye-opening study, filled with analysis of analogous historical moments from around the world, is an essential primer in the struggle for democracy this century."--Rep. Jamie Raskin, author of Unthinkable

"[A] chilling study of how recent political turmoil demonstrates that, 'far from checking authoritarian power, our institutions have begun to augment it.' . . . The authors bolster their wide-ranging narrative with geopolitical and historical examples and informed analyses of the intricate mechanisms of governance. . . . A well-organized and convincing argument."--Kirkus Reviews

About the Author

Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt are professors of government at Harvard University and the authors of the New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, which won the Goldsmith Book Prize, was shortlisted for the Lionel Gelber Prize, and was named one of the best books of the year by The Washington Post, Time, and Foreign Affairs.

***
CNN Gets Roasted for Absurd Chyron Warning Constitution is 'Outdated, Puts Democracy at Risk'
Opinion by Joe Saunders
o9-17-23

CNN / YouTube screen shot
© The Western Journal

The few remaining viewers of CNN got a remarkable dose of news on Saturday. Just in time for Constitution Day, CNN's dwindling audience learned that the Consitution of the United States -- the oldest written government charter in the world and the document that gave birth to the nation that has spread democracy around the globe -- has become so "outdated" that it's actually a "threat to democracy." Of course, that's democracy as CNN's scholars understand it. And you can't spell ignorance without "C-N-N." The word came on "Newsroom," anchored by former CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta. Acosta interviewed two Harvard professors of government who are of the opinion that the grand system of compromise, checks and balances devised by the Founders in Philadelphia in 1787 is as obsolete as the quill pens they used to write it down. Accompanying the interview was a chyron at the bottom of the screen declaring (in all caps): "Scholars Warn Outdated Constitution Has Put Democracy At Risk." And it was scorched on social media:

CNN chyron's are known for their quirks. The network's now-legendary description of the 2020 Kenosha, Wisconsin, riots as"Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Protests" is a classic contribution to American journalism that deserves to be remembered for decades to come. But in fairness to CNN's chyron writers (a job where respect for truth is clearly not a priority), there was a at least a tiny bit of justification for it this time. Acosta's guests, Harvard's Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt do indeed argue that the Constitution is a "threat to democracy." What they don't acknowledge, though, is that that "threat" was deliberately designed into the document -- a "feature," not a "bug." Levitsky and Ziblatt both surely know that. They're probably just as sure that a large segment of a largely ignorant American population do not. They are authors of "Tyranny of the Minority," a new book aimed at attacking the Constitution, judging by their conversation with Acosta, by hitting the usual liberal targets -- the Electoral College and the United States Senate. Check it out here: [firefly_embed] https://youtu.be/0ihv9XStzYM?si=MmzxXsLC2GJ3epWu [/firefly_embed] The Electoral College was the Founders' method of ensuring that states with small populations would have an equal say in choosing the leader of the country. It's also how a president can get elected without winning the nationally popular vote -- a concept that appears to outrage Messrs. Levitsky and Ziblatt but is a small price to pay for saving the country from being dominated by huge states like New York and California with little or nothing in common with, say, conservative Idaho or liberal Vermont. It doesn't take a scholar to understand that The Senate, meanwhile, is where bills go to die -- and it was meant to be that way, to protect the country from the rush of popular passion. In any apocryphal story that's almost too good to be true, George Washington is said to have told Thomas Jefferson that the Senate was a means of cooling off bills before they could become the law of the land, like tea needed to cool before it can be enjoyed. The Senate and its filibuster have stood in the way of some very good ideas -- the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for instance. They stood in the way of some very bad ones -- like expanding the United States Supreme Court. While the filibuster isn't in the Constitution, the Senate's role as an upper chamber of Congress is, with its members' terms are three times longer than in the House, and where only a third of the body turns over at mid-term elections. Contrary to what liberals -- and even sane Americans -- often think, the United States is not a democracy, it's a republic -- a collection of largely sovereign states united into the greater body of the United States. It's the autonomy of the individual states that helps make the country the freest in the world. Not only do American voters have to power to change their own government, they have to power to move to another government if theirs is not to their liking, but they don't have to leave the country. (Think of all those New Yorkers fleeing to Florida in recent years.) So naturally, that's what liberals hate. And since the Electoral College and the Senate's position are what guarantees the freedom of smaller states (leave it to the genius of the Founders to protect liberty by limiting democracy), liberals hate them passionately. And as happens periodically in history, the left is attacking the Constitution itself. (Before the turn of the last century, Woodrew Wilson, before he became president, might have been the document's best-known opponent.) But patriotic Americans know better, and on social media, it showed.

What's interesting is that Levitsky and Ziblatt seem to think that every change to the Constitution has been good -- ignoring the disaster of Prohibition, for instance (instituted by the 18th Amendment, repealed by the 21st) or the 17th Amendment that gave the country popular election of the Senate instead of senators being elected by state legislatures and has gotten worse ever since. (A truly conservative Republican Party would make repealing the 17th Amendment part of its platform.) The professors note that the country came close to abolishing the Electoral College in 1970 and appear to be convinced -- or trying to convince the shrinking band of Americans still tuning in to CNN -- that the fact that it hasn't makes the Constitution a weapon for tyranny instead of a shield for freedom. As the country marked Constitution Day on Sunday, remembering the gift from God that was the signing of the Constitution at Philadelphia's Constitutional Convention, the lesson from CNN a day earlier couldn't have been more timely. It's not that the Constitution needs to be amended immediately to satisfy leftists, though. It's something much of much more immediate importance: That you can't spell ignorance with C-N-N.