Framer Fetishism
People often invoke the Framers when arguing about poltical philosophy, the proper role of government, etc. This tendency is understandable, but it can go to extremes. In particular, the Framers intent, or their alleged intent, is often used as an attempt to end the argument. The only response is to "out-Framer" them with a contrasting reference.
I certainly believe that the Framers were a bright bunch of guys. (The "Framers" are what we used to call the "Founding Fathers" lately the more gender-neutral term seems popular.) And they did indeed leave us with an excellent document. But unless you subscribe to a "divine intervention" or at least "divine inspiration" theory, our Constitution, and those who wrote it, cannot be assumed to be either flawless or uniquely grand, indeed the story of its drafting and adoption suggests otherwise. One of the wonderful features of that august document is that a mechanism for amending it is built in, this carries with it the obvious implication that the Framers understood that they hadn't created perfection. If the original document was perfect, no amending would ever be required.
Let me be absolutely clear, we should not ignore the Constitution or amend it casually. I believe that one of the great strengths of our republic has been not just the Constitution in itself, but our respect and allegiance thereto. While there have been more than a few crises along the way, it seems to me that we have by and large followed and respected it as the supreme law of the land. It is this allegiance and respect that helps ensure that we maintain a rule of law and not of men. The behavior of some of our leaders (including the current administration) notwithstanding, we tend to believe that no one is above the law and that no one man makes the law unto himself--and that tradition is as important as the actual document.
I have not done a comparative study of modern constitutions, but I suspect ours would hold up reasonably well. Furthermore, I bet that if we did find other constitutions that are as good or better, they will by and large postdate our own, and their authors had the benefit of cribbing heavily from the Framers' work. But it should go without saying that the original document had some serious shortcomings. It almost seems trite to point out failings such as allowing slavery and counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, but those flaws are no less real for having been observed many times before! There was even a little civil unrest related to various flaws of the constitution, sometime in the second half of the 19th century, I believe.
And if the document has had some acknoweledged flaws, it stands to reason that it may have more that are yet to be remedied. So, it may be true that the Framers, and the document they left us, did not have a vision of liberty as expansive as some modern thinkers, such as libertarians. That doesn't make us wrong. We are talking about ideas now, and we need not be slaves to tradition, or the facts of the document and history we are left with. I repeat, by no means should we abandon the Constitution or amend it willy-nilly, quite the contrary, that is why I discussed above the importance of honoring the constiution and abiding by it. But when discussing what is possible and what should be done, in the best of all possible governments, we cannot treat ours as somehow sacrosanct. We must be willing to embrace the idea that change might be not only possible, but good.
In the most extreme conception, "conservatism" and "traditionalism" say that you can't change anything, because change is bad. At the opposite extreme, pure "liberalism" (in the modern sense) or "progressivism" argues that we can constantly remake society, law, etc. to make things better. Isn't it obvious that neither extreme is tolerable? We cannot function if everything is in flux, and indeed we could fall victim to fatal flaws like moral relativism or the tyranny of (often temporary) majorities. But we cannot function with an ossified and inflexible notion of the law either. The Framers were pretty smart, but not omniscient, and that's part of what they were smart enough to know.
I certainly believe that the Framers were a bright bunch of guys. (The "Framers" are what we used to call the "Founding Fathers" lately the more gender-neutral term seems popular.) And they did indeed leave us with an excellent document. But unless you subscribe to a "divine intervention" or at least "divine inspiration" theory, our Constitution, and those who wrote it, cannot be assumed to be either flawless or uniquely grand, indeed the story of its drafting and adoption suggests otherwise. One of the wonderful features of that august document is that a mechanism for amending it is built in, this carries with it the obvious implication that the Framers understood that they hadn't created perfection. If the original document was perfect, no amending would ever be required.
Let me be absolutely clear, we should not ignore the Constitution or amend it casually. I believe that one of the great strengths of our republic has been not just the Constitution in itself, but our respect and allegiance thereto. While there have been more than a few crises along the way, it seems to me that we have by and large followed and respected it as the supreme law of the land. It is this allegiance and respect that helps ensure that we maintain a rule of law and not of men. The behavior of some of our leaders (including the current administration) notwithstanding, we tend to believe that no one is above the law and that no one man makes the law unto himself--and that tradition is as important as the actual document.
I have not done a comparative study of modern constitutions, but I suspect ours would hold up reasonably well. Furthermore, I bet that if we did find other constitutions that are as good or better, they will by and large postdate our own, and their authors had the benefit of cribbing heavily from the Framers' work. But it should go without saying that the original document had some serious shortcomings. It almost seems trite to point out failings such as allowing slavery and counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, but those flaws are no less real for having been observed many times before! There was even a little civil unrest related to various flaws of the constitution, sometime in the second half of the 19th century, I believe.
And if the document has had some acknoweledged flaws, it stands to reason that it may have more that are yet to be remedied. So, it may be true that the Framers, and the document they left us, did not have a vision of liberty as expansive as some modern thinkers, such as libertarians. That doesn't make us wrong. We are talking about ideas now, and we need not be slaves to tradition, or the facts of the document and history we are left with. I repeat, by no means should we abandon the Constitution or amend it willy-nilly, quite the contrary, that is why I discussed above the importance of honoring the constiution and abiding by it. But when discussing what is possible and what should be done, in the best of all possible governments, we cannot treat ours as somehow sacrosanct. We must be willing to embrace the idea that change might be not only possible, but good.
In the most extreme conception, "conservatism" and "traditionalism" say that you can't change anything, because change is bad. At the opposite extreme, pure "liberalism" (in the modern sense) or "progressivism" argues that we can constantly remake society, law, etc. to make things better. Isn't it obvious that neither extreme is tolerable? We cannot function if everything is in flux, and indeed we could fall victim to fatal flaws like moral relativism or the tyranny of (often temporary) majorities. But we cannot function with an ossified and inflexible notion of the law either. The Framers were pretty smart, but not omniscient, and that's part of what they were smart enough to know.
posted by wRONgainey at 9:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home