An essay in The Economist attacks the Tea Party for "worshipping" the Constitution. by GT Slade
(libertarian)
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
In his weekly essay, the pseudo-anonymous Lexington writes in The Economist that the tea-party movement is "based on a myth," promoting Constitution-worship. Incredibly, it is one of the least wacky attacks on the grassroots movement to date. Lex doesn’t call them racist or astroturfy or crazy, just naive.
While it is debatable that they are trying to take over the Republican party¹, it is difficult to argue with Lexington’s claim that the Tea Party have called for a return to the founding principles. Listen:
"Indeed, there is something infantile in the belief of the constitution-worshippers that the complex political arguments of today can be settled by simple fidelity to a document written in the 18th century. Michael Klarman of the Harvard Law School has a label for this urge to seek revealed truth in the sacred texts. He calls it 'constitutional idolatry'."
Putting aside the unlikelihood of a Harvard professor criticising the Tea Parties, the metaphor fails because it compares the Constitution to religious texts whose origins are nebulous and whose precepts are vague. Lexington suggests the Constitution is irrelevant because it was written too long ago to solve modern problems like, "Should gays marry?"
The framers must have thought that government has no jurisdiction over personal decisions of such an intimate nature. Washington are much better suited to destroying the economy than to providing moral guidance.
Peter Davis, a chap with two first names who portrays Lexington, deserves credit for identifying the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as distinct documents, the Declaration having been aimed at the then-ruler of the British empire, the Constitution a framework of laws that can be easily understood, even today, despite deliberate misrepresentations. He observes that the Constitutional Convention involved "exactly the sort of backroom dealmaking" that Tea Partiers decry in today’s government.
While the process may have been turbulent, the product is a work of geniuses. It is impressive that in 1787, when democracy was as common as cellphones, these gentlemen could devise a framework for a republic that lasted nearly two centuries. Anything omitted or subsequently considered wrong could be adjusted through amendments, although the record on those is flawed. The nation would have been better off had a few of them failed, at least those which eliminated rights, such as 16 through 18. Some consider 19 problematic as well.
Bitter wrangling resulting in a document melding diverse ideas into clear, concise text differs from political favours and compromises interwoven through thousands of confusing pages, like the health-care placebo legislation (Obamacare), which prolongs the problems it was supposed to solve and is incomprehensible, even to those who voted for it.
According to Lexington, the Heritage Foundation is promoting the founding principles as a "panacea for present ills." Yet today’s Federal government promote themselves as the "panacea." Even if one ignores their breaking an oath to obey the Constitution, government fails at everything it attempts, exacerbating problems more often than solving them. If they were not so incompetent, big government would pose a significant threat to freedom. You see, the trains do not run on time, as they did under Mussolini, reportedly.
After setting up the Constitution as a straw horse and setting it ablaze, Lexington admits, "None of this is to say that the modern state is not bloated or over-mighty" and there is a case for reducing government’s size and ambitions, which are the main themes of the Tea Parties.
Over the years, particularly during the 20th century, rights were ceded to the government, which assumed vast powers, without citizen approval. Certain protesters claim that people were fooled into passing the 16th Amendment [income tax]. That always seemed farfetched, until modern communication revealed the process of health care "reform" being rammed through, despite bitter opposition, lack of discussion or an open vote.
At least some living Americans were taught in school that citizens, but not necessarily aliens, have certain unalienable rights. Modern politicians have systematically reduced these rights in exchange for benefits which are alienable, at a steep cost to prosperity, safety and, yes, the pursuit of happiness.
To be fair, it is difficult lambasting a movement and our founding document in under 1,000 words. Lexington does his best, but it is today’s Tea Party protesters who face the demanding task of reining in a government gone wild.
_________
¹A Gallop Poll released on September 19 shows that 58% of the public feels a major new party is needed, whereas 35% do not. - Ballot Access News, Oct 1 2010
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of GT Slade only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
GT Slade is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
