Monday, June 7, 2010

The Constitution Was Not Based on Common Sense

So says Jonathan Bernstein:
We all know that Sarah Palin loves the words "common sense." And "conservative." She's recently adopted another one, a favorite of Tea Partiers: "Constitutional." Alas, she's also taken to combining them: things she likes are now "Common Sense Constitutional Conservative."....You know what, though? I won't get into whether conservative ideas are common sense, or Commonsense, or not. But I'm certain that the Constitution of the United States of America is not common sense. It's a sophisticated document, based on a complex and subtle theory of politics. It was drafted by brilliant men, who relied not on common sense but on serious study of politics, history, and philosophy. Chief among them was James Madison. Madison was a practical man, and certainly had practical political experience, having served in the Continental Congress and the Virginia General Assembly. But he did not believe that the sorts of things that he learned from practical experience were enough when he took it upon himself to organize the Constitutional Convention and to prepare a draft plan for a new government. So Madison made a study of it.

Read on for what Madison studied to form the Constitution (many of them French philosophical works). The point is: these were not works that Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, or the Tea Partiers would approve of today.

Modern conservatives have severely warped their own understanding of the Constitution in order to fit it into their pre-existing views. In many ways, they treat the Constitution much like they treat the Bible. Its inerrant! (except for those parts we don't agree with, like "turn the other cheek". Jesus...ur....was exaggerating to make a point). We should not be interpreting it! (except when it fits our goals). If one trait marks the Conservative movement today, it is a lack of self-analysis and introspection, the ability to see glaring inconsistencies hiding in plain sight.

No comments:

Post a Comment