Centerfield

Probably end up like Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Burgeron".

Thomas Jefferson advocated that we tear up the Constitution and start over every 19 years (strange number to pick). He believed that each generation should decide how to govern itself and not be beholden to any "forefathers".

Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.
-T.J.

Truth is, we would never create nearly as good a constitution if one were drafted today. Our present Constitution was created in a series of secret meetings. Today's belief in open government (which I wholeheartedly support) would interfere with the compromises that would be necessary to forge such a document.

Sure, we could put something together, but it wouldn't hold a candle to the original.

This sort of hypothetical, in which we imagine our current lawmakers vested with much greater power than they now possess, is perhaps the most convincing argument in favor of the sort of judicial activism advocated by those of the Brennan school of thought. As my Constitutional Law Professor used to say, I would rather have the judges making it up than ask Tom DeLay and Harry Reid to act as Founding Fathers of anything, let alone a nation.

I often share the sentiment voiced by Staunch Moderate about the effect of public meetings laws on our political process. I keep meaning to start a post exploring the structural factors which have led to the greater partisan divide we see today. I think one of those factors is definitely the foreclosing of the old back-room ways of doing business. Not that those ways didn't have their own problems, but they also allowed the ugly compromises of which Tully is so enamored (as am I).

With a closed-door compromise, face could be saved and both sides could agree on the parameters of the name-calling which would ensue. With open meetings and very public debate, any softening by one partisan is picked up instantly by the party base and immense pressure is brought to bear to force them back into the party line, lest their support (and contributions) dry up immediately. With open, public votes and meetings for just about everything, it is next to impossible for real-politik "horse-trading" to go on. And that horse-trading is part of what kept America such a fundamentally moderate country for so long.

It may well be that the open nature of political debate may have contributed to, or at least permitted, the level of partisanship we have today. However, openness is something to be valued. The problem really has to do with the structure of our political system and our electoral laws. 45% of the American public are moderate and would like politicians to just do what there supposed to do: make decisions according to what is best for the nation first, and best for their constituents second.

However, this moderate group is weak for two reasons: first moderate people tend not be as rabid as the extremes, so there is a passion deficit. We hope to correct this at the centrist coalition.

Secondarily, the two-party system and our electoral laws make it easy for the wingers to have control. It's modeled on two warring factions that must somehow distinguish themselves from the other. Each party has its loony base that it must mollify and placate. So we really have a vacuum in the center that is a reflection of the structure of the system. I'm in favor of a centrist third-party in the long term, but not being a political scientist, I'm not sure if this the best way of accomplishing this or what precise changes need to made in the system to faciliate/enable centrist dominance.

The real root of the problem are the loony bases and if a party is forced to pick one of them, then we will have a problem.

But Adam, we've had a 2-party system for a long time. Indeed, I dare say it is probably easier today to get more attention for a third party than it has been previously in our history (not that it's easy, just easier). What has changed, structurally, in the past say 20 yeas to affect the level of partisanship? Did we not have loony bases 30 years ago?

I think there's simply no way that we could draft today a constitution that even began to approach the genius of that which we have. Look at the proposed EU constitution, or the Italian constitution, or the Russian constitution - they run to hundreds of redundant pages, in contrast to the simple beauty of the American constitution. But I really doubt that the US constitution would pass today - the first amendment, for example, would have twenty pages of qualifications and exemptions to the "freedom of speech" clause, or it would simply disappear altogether. Plus, it would be offered in English AND spanish, and nobody would be willing to say that the English version was definitive or authoritative, because we don't want to "offend" anyone.

The simple reality, in my view, is that there's nothing wrong with what we have, and even if there were, we flat-out don't have the talent or the restraint - or the sense of urgency - to write anything better.

I vote we leave the lid on this can of worms. :p

I probably overstated my case, Pat. The way I see it is that the centrist coalition is trying to become a "special" interest group that will praise and aid the politicians for doing the right thing. For instance, I thanked via email several of the senators who participated in the nuclear compromise. If the centrist movement becomes to strong enough to form a party it will, if not, it won't. So it is a bit of unnecessary speculation.

I do think the bases today are "loonier." The internet has allowed them to be more powerful and to mobilize--look at moveon for instance. And many have noted that the Christian right have contributed to the level of the partisanship we have today. I am young, only 24, so I don't have much background to compare it to, but from what I hear, they are loonier, or at least more vocal, rabid, and energized. Did we have this kind of polarization in the bases a long time ago?

In any case, I think the two-party system is enabling the current crisis because it easily deprives the center and sets up warring camps when you have an energized base. Probably openness and things like c-span and the net have contributed, but do we really want to go back to the days of secret graft? Accountability has dramatically increased, though the accountability is often to the loony-toon bases.

I guess, all in all, I would strongly oppose a reduction in openness. The gang of 14 hashed out their deal in private; we still don't know all the wrangling that goes on. Mike Castle was able to get the stem-cell bill to the floor because of a side deal with Hastert and I don't think that's widely known.

If we can't get rid of the people with crazy ideas, we've got to stand up and be counted, on which we probably agree. Maybe if I understood your proposal better I would agree, but it seems to be just trading one problem for another.

And maybe with all the new technology and increased access to information, we're due for a major shift in how we do political business. The people at the New America foundation, or at least Halstead and Lind, think so.

Adam,

I won't pull the age and experience card on you, but I do suggest you look into some political history. The people of this country really haven't changed significantly, in my opinion. There's an excellent book which reviews the history of presidential election campaigns since George Washington. It's not pretty. You've probably heard some of the better stories, like the taunt against Grover Cleveland, alleged to have fathered a child out of wedlock: "Ma, Ma, where's my pa? Gone to the White House, ha, ha ha!"

In the earlier part of last century, there were a whole lot of rabid loonies out there. Socialists, isolationists, "progressives", you name it. I don't think it's possible to identify any point in our political history where we purposefully elected "centrist" minded people to office. For a variety of reasons (including the one I mention above), I think the rhetoric may have been toned down, and the raw ugliness of bare-knuckle politics in earlier times may have led to slightly more centrist results, but I think most of any changes we have experienced can be explained as the result of a small number of structural changes rather than any real change in the people of the country. Even apparently good changes (public meetings) can have unintended negative consequences.

This is such an unanswerable question, since we don't know what our nation would be like NOW without a constitution.

For America to be what it has been and now is, we needed a constitution. If we didn't have one, we'd have had to invent it.

Then there's that other question that people seem to be trying to answer in spirit, which is, are today's American leaders capable of responding to serious circumstances with far-looking statesmanship? My hope is that we'd rise to the occasion if we needed to...but I think it's valid to point out that the Constitution was written in a time when it was OK to make decisions by ceding substantial power to a fairly small group of powerful elite decision makers. Especially when expedience is an important virtue, such a process has merit.

So if tried to hash out a constitution give the processes today's Americans feel entitled to, it would probably take 20 years, and be a horror show, like, say, the EU's weak attempt.

PatHMV is right that historically there have been more vocal "extremists" politically, but one of his earlier points is dead wrong: "it is probably easier today to get more attention for a third party than it has been previously in our history (not that it's easy, just easier)."

This is empirically false. Look at the vote totals for third parties at virtually any point in the past, and you will see that third parties have historically had a much more important voice in American politics. And they have never been centrist.

This means that the relevant difference today is that the most extreme people have become a part of the two dueling parties, making the debate more acrimonious than ever. This, too, is an empirical fact--look sometime at the work of Norman Ornstein, resident angry moderate at the American Enterprise Institute.

Very nice blog.

Great blog. It's nice to be here! port a buayar , Fantast author