Malcolm Rivera
The American Constitution is a revered document that has been at the centre of American politics since the country's founding. The Constitution is designed to limit governmental power and protect citizens' rights, including the right to liberty. However, in recent times, there has been a perceived divide between the Left and Right regarding their interpretation and application of the Constitution. Some on the Right accuse the Left of attempting to terminate the existence of states and ditch the Constitution, while the Left accuses the Right of restricting free speech and not understanding the First and Second Amendments. This dynamic has placed left activists in an uncomfortable position, as they navigate between societal expectations and their own interpretations of the Constitution. The Left's frustration with the Constitution stems from the lengthy and challenging amendment process, and they seek an alternative vision for constitutional politics that extends beyond procedural design.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Disconnect between nationalist narrative and institutional reality | High |
| Devotion to the Constitution | High |
| Fear of collapse | High |
| Fear of civil war | High |
| Fear of losing faith | High |
| Fear of a race war | High |
| Fear of unlimited centralized control | High |
| Fear of "activist" Supreme Court | High |
| Fear of imperial presidency | High |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The left's desire for a revolution
While the left's desire for transformative change is not new, the current intensity of these sentiments may be fuelled by a perception of instability and a sense that their gains are fragile. There is a recognition that their strength could be fleeting and that the underlying issues within the current system remain unresolved. This is coupled with a belief that the Constitution, as it stands, is an impediment to their goals of creating a more equitable and just society.
The left's criticism of the Constitution centres around a few key arguments. Firstly, they argue that the Constitution is a barrier to much-needed social change. The Constitution, with its emphasis on limiting governmental power, is seen as an outdated document that protects the status quo and hinders progressive policies. This view holds that the Constitution is not a static text but one that should evolve with the times, adapting to meet the needs of a changing society.
Secondly, the left challenges the idea that the Constitution is a sacred document. They argue that it is not beyond critique or revision and that blind reverence for it is unhealthy in a democracy. This critique extends to the founding fathers' intentions and the notion of "originalism" in interpreting the Constitution. The left contends that the framers of the Constitution feared concentrated power and designed the document to restrict government intervention. However, this has resulted in a system that struggles to address modern issues effectively and efficiently.
Additionally, the left expresses concern about the impact of the Constitution on civil liberties and freedom of speech. They argue that the right selectively interprets the First and Second Amendments to suit their agenda while restricting certain types of speech they deem "obscene". The left also highlights instances where government agencies have worked with private platforms to censor speech, viewing this as a violation of the First Amendment.
In response to these criticisms, the right accuses the left of wanting unlimited centralized control and of promoting authoritarianism. They point to historical examples where progressive policies led to involuntary sterilization and prohibition, warning that the left's desire for revolution could lead to similar outcomes. The right defends the Constitution as a safeguard against tyranny and credits it for the peace, prosperity, and freedom enjoyed by Americans.
Despite these differing views, there is a shared concern about the concentration of power. The framers of the Constitution deliberately left impeachment justifications vague, recognizing the danger of governmental power. Similarly, the left's critique of the executive branch's increasing power aligns with the framers' worries, particularly regarding the potential for presidential immunity from Congressional investigation.
In conclusion, the left's desire for a revolution stems from a belief that the current system is broken and that the Constitution, as interpreted and applied today, hinders progress. Their calls for radical change reflect a dissatisfaction with incremental reforms and a desire to address systemic issues at their root. While their rhetoric may seem extreme, it underscores a fundamental disagreement about the role of government and the interpretation of the Constitution in the 21st century.
The USS Constitution: A Construction Story
You may want to see also
The left's rejection of constitutional veneration
The American Left's rejection of constitutional veneration stems from a belief that the Constitution fails to serve the needs of the nation. This stance is particularly evident among left activists, who find themselves in the uncomfortable position of ambivalently participating in a dominant devotional culture. This culture of reverence for the Constitution is deeply ingrained in American society, often used to justify American exceptionalism and imperialistic actions abroad.
The Left's criticism of the Constitution is not a new phenomenon. As early as the election of 1912, both the Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson and his Progressive Party opponent Theodore Roosevelt campaigned against America's founding ideals and documents, advocating for freeing the government from the restraints imposed by the Constitution. This progressive movement gained traction, leading to policies such as the prohibition of alcohol and the involuntary sterilization of those deemed unfit to breed.
The Left's stance is further shaped by their understanding of the dangers of concentrated power. The founders of the Constitution deliberately left impeachment justifications vague, recognizing the threat that government power posed to individual freedom. However, the executive branch has increasingly accumulated power, with figures like Attorney General William Barr advocating for an imperial presidency. This expansion of executive power is a significant concern for the Left, who view it as a threat to the checks and balances system intended by the Constitution's framers.
While the Left's rejection of constitutional veneration is not a call for the destruction of the Constitution, it reflects a desire for a more dynamic and responsive interpretation that addresses the evolving needs and realities of the nation. This includes acknowledging the failures of the Constitution in protecting the rights and liberties of all Americans and seeking alternative approaches to governance that better align with modern democratic ideals.
Understanding Denial-of-Service Attacks: What Constitutes an Attack?
You may want to see also
The left's view of the Constitution as an immovable roadblock
Historically, the left has often seen the Constitution as a hindrance to their policy goals and aspirations for social change. This perspective stems from the belief that the Constitution, with its emphasis on limited government and protection of individual liberties, can impede the implementation of progressive policies and hinder efforts to address social and economic inequalities. The left has often advocated for a more expansive role for the government in addressing societal issues, which may involve interpreting or amending constitutional provisions.
This view of the Constitution as a roadblock is particularly prominent when left-wing activists and politicians seek to implement transformative policies. For example, in the early 20th century, progressive politicians like Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt openly campaigned against the constraints imposed by the Constitution, arguing that it hindered the government's ability to bring about change. Similarly, in more recent times, some on the left have called for a rejection of the current constitutional order, suggesting that it is necessary to "burn down everything, including the Constitution, and start over."
The left's perception of the Constitution as an immovable roadblock is also influenced by their interpretation of the document's historical role. Some on the left critique the Constitution for failing to live up to its ideals and ensuring equal rights and liberties for all. They argue that the Constitution has been used to justify oppressive actions and maintain systems of power that benefit certain groups over others. In this view, the Constitution is seen as a barrier to creating a more just and equitable society.
Additionally, the left's skepticism of the Constitution is shaped by their understanding of power dynamics. They recognize that the Constitution, designed to limit governmental power, can also be used to consolidate power and protect the status quo. This dynamic is particularly salient when left-wing activists and marginalized communities seek to challenge entrenched power structures. In this context, the Constitution can be perceived as a tool used by those in power to maintain their dominance and resist progressive change.
In conclusion, the left's view of the Constitution as an immovable roadblock stems from their desire for transformative social change, their interpretation of the Constitution's historical role, and their awareness of power dynamics. While this perspective is not universally shared by all on the left, it represents a significant strand of thought within left-wing politics.
Amending the Constitution: Two Distinct Methods
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The left's divisive drivel
Some believe that the left is afraid of the Constitution because it stands in the way of their goals. They want to burn it all down and start over. The left's refusal to openly debate the merits of a constitutional republic, as well as their push to cancel people and their disdain for the Second Amendment, are all signs of their true intentions.
However, this is not a new phenomenon. Since the early 20th century, many self-styled American "progressives" have turned against the ideal of limited, constitutional government. They want a system of unlimited centralized control by wise and beneficent technocrats. This is evident in the regulatory state that has emerged, employing hundreds of thousands of unelected bureaucrats who create and enforce rules that limit Americans' freedom, prosperity and happiness.
The left's war on the Constitution is also a war on America's founding ideals and documents. Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, in their 1912 election campaigns, openly dismissed the presumption of liberty as outdated and complained that some Americans were stuck in the past with the Declaration of Independence. By 1928, the progressives had achieved a primary policy goal of involuntary sterilization of people deemed unfit to breed.
The left's fear of the Constitution may stem from a recognition that their strength is unstable and coerced. When it collapses, it will be like a house of cards. This could be why they avoid debating the topic of constitutionalism, as they know they will lose.
The Constitution's Ratification: A Historical Turning Point
You may want to see also
The left's view of the Constitution as intellectually dishonest
The United States Constitution, signed 233 years ago, is an attempt to give practical expression to the principle that government exists to protect the natural rights of the governed, especially liberty. The Constitution is replete with provisions designed to limit governmental power and protect citizens' rights. However, by the beginning of the 20th century, many self-styled American "progressives" had turned against the ideal of limited, constitutional government. They wanted a system of unlimited centralized control by wise and beneficent technocrats. This shift in ideology has led to accusations that the left is afraid of or even hates the Constitution.
Some on the right argue that the left's push to cancel people and get them fired for saying controversial things is a social consequence and not a lawful consequence, so it is acceptable. They also point to all the books that the left is having banned and flags they don't want anyone to fly. The right also accuses the left of wanting to burn down everything, including the Constitution, and start over. They argue that the left knows that their strength is unstable and coerced, and that it will collapse like a house of cards.
However, others argue that this is simply a dumb lie that Republicans have been repeating for decades. They point out that the left does not hate the Constitution and Bill of Rights but instead values education and reading comprehension. They argue that the right does not understand the First and Second Amendments and is just as happy to restrict free speech when it is deemed "obscene". Additionally, the historical contingencies of the mid-twentieth century, such as the strength of the labor movement, created supermajorities behind the New Deal and the postwar political settlement, which defused class conflict and entrenched a limited welfare state. These developments calmed worries that the constitutional order was an immovable roadblock to even minor social improvements.
Furthermore, in the last two centuries, some 220 countries have appeared on the world stage and produced around 900 written constitutions. Constitutions are usually treated instrumentally, in service of a polity's needs. When legal-political orders break down or social upheaval brings new alliances to power, old documents are discarded, and new ones are written. By contrast, it can be hard for twenty-first-century Americans to conceive of their national project without the original text, which places left activists in an uncomfortable position. Maintaining contact with society seems to require participating, however ambivalently, in the dominant devotional culture.
In conclusion, while there may be some on the left who do fear or even hate the Constitution, this is not a widespread sentiment. Instead, the left values education, reading comprehension, and social consequences rather than lawful ones. They also recognize that constitutions are meant to be instrumental and adaptable to the changing needs of a polity.
Hazelwood v. Ku: A Constitutional Question?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The left is not afraid of the constitution. However, some people on the left have criticised the constitution and the reverence with which it is held. They argue that the constitution has been used to justify American military action and support for regimes that commit mass violations of international law.
Some on the left argue that the constitution is an impediment to social progress and that it gives too much power to unelected bureaucrats. They also argue that the constitution is too difficult to amend, making it harder for them to advance their agenda.
People on the right argue that the left wants to terminate the existence of states and ditch the constitution. They also argue that the left's criticism of the constitution stems from the fact that their strength is unstable and coerced, and that it will collapse like a house of cards.
