John, I agree with Jack Altschuler that incremental change is the only way to proceed. I detect less sentiment for a new constitutional convention than for splitting the country into separate red and blue federations, and talk of splitting is just fantasy for pundits.
It has been hard to amend the Constitution item by item. To re-write the whole thing would be exponentially harder.
As you work through the founding documents, you might enjoy Forrest McDonald's Novus Ordo Seclorum, which explores the intellectual background the Founders brought to the task.
I agree it would be difficult but I also believe that incremental change is not possible with the current political process as I will go into more detail in future posts. In some ways I am writing these for my children, grandchildren and anyone under 40. In the hopes that we can keep things together long enough for the next generation to tackle the required transformational change hopefully in a more collaborative way with a longer term vision than we have currently. I suggest you read Andrew Yang's website for his new Forward party to see his suggestions as to how to reform the election process and why. I do not agree with all of them but I do agree with the scale he is proposing
I will read your argument that incremental change is not possible within the current process with interest. If that were the case, and revolutionary change were ridiculous, that would leave only preparing the young to make changes in the future.
Re Yang, I do not see a future for his Forward party, except to play the traditional role of promoting ideas that a major party -- or some faction thereof -- might adopt some day. Those who have been elected (or have based their careers on getting others elected) by major parties will not give up current ideas or ways of doing things until the pain of keeping them becomes unbearable and the alternative promises relief and success.
Whatever the merits of open primaries and ranked-choice voting, they are not the stuff of political movements. Jacobin's "The ABCs of Socialism" is likely to have greater (if more pernicious) effect.
Good primer, John. It is, indeed, clear that the Constitution needs some updating, like eliminating the Electoral College as you implied, and electing the President by popular vote, the same way we conduct every other election in this country. Majority rule. Surely, there is more low hanging fruit, but that Article V Constitutional Convention seems to me like an invitation to disaster. Here's why.
We are suffering mightily from minority rule in the Senate and in the states mandating voting suppression and more. The emotional appeal to fear and anger started by Newt Gingrich, as you indicated, is working to elect radicals who make that happen.
Roughly 20 million Americans think violence is okay to ensure they themselves have power. 38% of Americans believe that the 2020 Presidential election was fraudulent, that Joe Biden is an illegitimate president and that Donald Trump should be restored to office/power. Of course, none of those beliefs is true and returning Trump to power by acclimation isn't possible, but that's where these folks are stuck.
These people are enraged and impassioned people show up to vote. Worse, they're the ones calling for a Constitutional Convention and only 5 more states are needed to make that nightmare happen. They already poison our country with lies, insane conspiracy theories and hatred. Hundreds showed up this week in Dealey Plaza in Dallas expecting JFK and John Kennedy, Jr. to show up at 12:29PM because they believe they aren't dead. And these are some of the people who want to create a new constitution for this nation.
The Constitution needs substantial updating, to be sure, but not that way.
I understand your misgivings on the Constitutional convention and they are well founded. However incremental change in our political structure is no longer an option and that level of change will not come in the current system. So short of revolution or civil war do you have another suggestion as to how we can make the political process and constitutional governance work well for everyone?
You wrote, "incremental change in our political structure is no longer an option and that level of change will not come in the current system." I disagree - incremental change is all we've ever had and a lot has been done, although not recently, entirely to obstructionist Republicans. That's not a partisan statement; it's a statement of fact.
In our current circumstances I think we have to learn from Mitch McConnell and simply do what we want to get done. We'll steam roll the resisters - that's his way. We'll simply muscle through the change that needs to happen.
Example: Immigration reform, tiny though it will be, is included in the reconciliation bill. It will make a world of difference to millions in this country. It just has to get past Joe Manchin and what's-her-name. That it's proposed is a huge thing. Now all we need is enough Ds to get it done, because the Rs have pledged to resist anything the Ds want to do. I think they'd even vote against motherhood and apple pie.
Note that civil war is the preferred solution for millions of Americans. That puts the need for change on the front burner and on its highest setting.
John, I agree with Jack Altschuler that incremental change is the only way to proceed. I detect less sentiment for a new constitutional convention than for splitting the country into separate red and blue federations, and talk of splitting is just fantasy for pundits.
It has been hard to amend the Constitution item by item. To re-write the whole thing would be exponentially harder.
As you work through the founding documents, you might enjoy Forrest McDonald's Novus Ordo Seclorum, which explores the intellectual background the Founders brought to the task.
I agree it would be difficult but I also believe that incremental change is not possible with the current political process as I will go into more detail in future posts. In some ways I am writing these for my children, grandchildren and anyone under 40. In the hopes that we can keep things together long enough for the next generation to tackle the required transformational change hopefully in a more collaborative way with a longer term vision than we have currently. I suggest you read Andrew Yang's website for his new Forward party to see his suggestions as to how to reform the election process and why. I do not agree with all of them but I do agree with the scale he is proposing
I will read your argument that incremental change is not possible within the current process with interest. If that were the case, and revolutionary change were ridiculous, that would leave only preparing the young to make changes in the future.
Re Yang, I do not see a future for his Forward party, except to play the traditional role of promoting ideas that a major party -- or some faction thereof -- might adopt some day. Those who have been elected (or have based their careers on getting others elected) by major parties will not give up current ideas or ways of doing things until the pain of keeping them becomes unbearable and the alternative promises relief and success.
Whatever the merits of open primaries and ranked-choice voting, they are not the stuff of political movements. Jacobin's "The ABCs of Socialism" is likely to have greater (if more pernicious) effect.
Good primer, John. It is, indeed, clear that the Constitution needs some updating, like eliminating the Electoral College as you implied, and electing the President by popular vote, the same way we conduct every other election in this country. Majority rule. Surely, there is more low hanging fruit, but that Article V Constitutional Convention seems to me like an invitation to disaster. Here's why.
We are suffering mightily from minority rule in the Senate and in the states mandating voting suppression and more. The emotional appeal to fear and anger started by Newt Gingrich, as you indicated, is working to elect radicals who make that happen.
Roughly 20 million Americans think violence is okay to ensure they themselves have power. 38% of Americans believe that the 2020 Presidential election was fraudulent, that Joe Biden is an illegitimate president and that Donald Trump should be restored to office/power. Of course, none of those beliefs is true and returning Trump to power by acclimation isn't possible, but that's where these folks are stuck.
These people are enraged and impassioned people show up to vote. Worse, they're the ones calling for a Constitutional Convention and only 5 more states are needed to make that nightmare happen. They already poison our country with lies, insane conspiracy theories and hatred. Hundreds showed up this week in Dealey Plaza in Dallas expecting JFK and John Kennedy, Jr. to show up at 12:29PM because they believe they aren't dead. And these are some of the people who want to create a new constitution for this nation.
The Constitution needs substantial updating, to be sure, but not that way.
I understand your misgivings on the Constitutional convention and they are well founded. However incremental change in our political structure is no longer an option and that level of change will not come in the current system. So short of revolution or civil war do you have another suggestion as to how we can make the political process and constitutional governance work well for everyone?
You wrote, "incremental change in our political structure is no longer an option and that level of change will not come in the current system." I disagree - incremental change is all we've ever had and a lot has been done, although not recently, entirely to obstructionist Republicans. That's not a partisan statement; it's a statement of fact.
In our current circumstances I think we have to learn from Mitch McConnell and simply do what we want to get done. We'll steam roll the resisters - that's his way. We'll simply muscle through the change that needs to happen.
Example: Immigration reform, tiny though it will be, is included in the reconciliation bill. It will make a world of difference to millions in this country. It just has to get past Joe Manchin and what's-her-name. That it's proposed is a huge thing. Now all we need is enough Ds to get it done, because the Rs have pledged to resist anything the Ds want to do. I think they'd even vote against motherhood and apple pie.
Note that civil war is the preferred solution for millions of Americans. That puts the need for change on the front burner and on its highest setting.
Thanks Jack, Interested in what other readers have to say on this subject.