NYT Op-ed: “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution”
So argues Louis Michael Seidman, who, as is routine with progressives from Woodrow Wilson onward, is gracious enough to keep the parts of the Constitution he likes, but bemoans the very checks and balances that serve to protect individuals from the government, and deny temporary demagogues the power to affect enormous sudden systemic change. He also (predictably) ignores that the Constitution contains an amendment process, a strategic rhetorical bracketing on Seidman’s part, presumably because that process is too slow and cumbersome and doesn’t allow progressives to capitalize immediately on the latest ginned up crisis to savage the framework for our constitutional republic. You can read the whole thing here if you’d like. Me, I’m tired of such treachery, disguised as it always is in appeals to “getting things done” and decrying having to answer to dead white propertied slave owners. So I’ll say only this (yet again): go find a state or set of states with people who agree with you, Mr Seidman, and secede. Declare your independence from the tyranny of the Constitution. Declare your independence from our founders and framers, with their dogged insistence on keeping government constrained and the individual empowered. Declare your independence from independence, and be content that you’ve salved your psychic wounds and political conscience.
It’s been done before, you know, this declaration of independence thing. And if it’s progressive Utopia you’re after, it’s easier to force such collectivism on the masses if they happen to be those masses who claim to agree with your collectivist, liberal fascist principles.
— Although come to think of it, that’s the real rub, isn’t it?: were you to succeed in building your post-Constitutional Marxist dream state (may I suggest taking Illinois, California, DC along with you?), you’d need “masses” to rule over. You’d need people to herd, to manage, to nudge, to coax, to direct, to molest, to bully, and to dictate to.
And since progressives fancy themselves the de facto ruling class of such a civic paradise, come that glorious day of Utopian freedom from a stable rule of law and the perverse American experiment, they’d be left battling amongst themselves over who now plays the role of subject and who gets to play the role of politburo.
Which, in the end, is why you wish to drag us all into your post-Constitutional fantasies, Mr Seidman: you need subjects to enslave, to lord over, to control, and because you and your kind aren’t willing to become slaves yourselves, you’ll need the rest of us to play the serfs. And the first step to bringing that about is trying to get us to surrender our protections, guaranteed by the Constitution, against would-be tyrants like you.
But here’s the thing: even were you to succeed in your Marxist coup, after a time, we who cherish our individual liberty and sovereignty would just declare ourselves independent of you, and adopt a Constitution that protects us from the tyranny of those centralized few who presume to rule over us.
And that, too, has been done before. Just as assuredly as it would be done again. Only this time without the muskets.
Just something to ponder.
(h/t JD, geoff B)
update 2: More, from Mike at Cold Fury.