My Constitution Day Essay

[Pangloss]

This is a little essay I wrote for my school's humble literary journal which is publishing a special issue on Constitution Day next week. (As many of you know if you're working or attending a US learning institution, the government passed a special law mandating recognition of Constitution Day in all schools.)

 

I'd appreciate any feedback. I have to turn this thing in over the weekend. You're helping me with my homework, you might say.

 

-------------

 

Finding Middle Ground

 

On this Constitution Day we will hear about all of the amazing powers of the Constitution. We’ll be told about the separation of powers and establishment of the three branches, the checks and balances, and the importance of the Bill of Rights. Pundits will explain about the protection of minorities from the will of the majority. Experts will talk about the difficult amendment process. Historians will reveal how our Constitution has served as a model for the birth of many other new democracies over the years. They’re all right. But the most amazing thing about the Constitution is the simple fact that it exists at all.

 

Most people who lived through those turbulent years must have seen the Constitution as a failure. Those who believed that the most populous states should have the greatest say in how things should be done were thwarted by the creation of the Senate. Those who believed that all states should be represented equally were devastated by the configuration of the House of Representatives.

 

And that was just the beginning – a list of the Constitution’s failures could go on and on. Those who wanted to end slavery certainly found little comfort in the Three-Fifths Compromise. And yet those who wanted their right to own slaves were no more comforted by the decision to prohibit slave trading. War powers, the exclusion of a “religious test” for political office, the presidential veto, due process, equal protection, copyright and contract protections, authority to restrict interstate commerce – all of these issues were only included as the direct result of vast compromises that left Americans on both sides feeling disappointed and betrayed.

 

And yet, somehow, it worked. For 219 years the basic fabric of the Constitution has remained in place. It’s worked so well that today we take most of the structure of our government for granted. There have been changes (amendments) over the years, but if you look at how few they are, and how far between they came, it’s hard – no, impossible – to imagine a more successful plan for such a diverse group of people.

 

If ever there was a time when we needed to remember this most important lesson of the Constitution, it is today. We live in a world where we are bombarded with extreme opinions, day and night, from pundit-laden 24-hour news channels to extremist radio talk show hosts, telling us what to think, what to feel, and what to do. As long as we’re buying, they’re selling. And what they’re selling is how to be uncompromising. It’s not hard to guess what the founding fathers would have thought of that.

 

We are surrounded by examples of the ongoing importance of compromise. Airport security, federal spending on education and disaster relief, abortion, the death penalty, immigration – the list goes on and on. And of course the mother of all needs for compromise – Iraq – in which we find multiple highly opinionated groups of people who have little more in common than the territory they happen to reside in. (Sound familiar?)

 

If there is a most blatant, glaring example of how the Constitution impacts our daily lives, it is in the way it employs compromise as a means to an end. No other aspect of it is more important. Were the founding fathers alive today, this is the one thing that would be foremost in their thoughts to remind us about.

[Bettina]

I liked it a lot and I had some comments how you can't compromise on those that wish to destroy it... but I went back and read it again and got what you were saying so I deleted it.

 

Good job

 

Bee

[ParanoiA]

Nice...I wouldn't change a thing.

[Aardvark]

From your essay and from my general observations, it appears that Americans put quite a high value on 'Non Partisanship' and finding consensus and have a dislike of confrontational politics.

 

Would that be a fair observation?

 

Personally, i think a problem with this cultural attitude is that it tends to impose conformity and stifle dissent, which, ironically, strengths extremism as various strands of opinion are not accomodated in the political settlement. This can lead to disaffection and alienation, whereas a more confrontational approach would allow disperate opinions to be engaged and so make society more rather than less stable.

 

A desire to impose compromise and moderation could result in greater division and divide. A healthy democracy thrives on disagreement, argument and confrontation. The dynamic instability of politics is what keeps society stable, not imposed, soggy consensus and compromise.

 

And thinking of compromise. How would you feel about the idea of your 'Founding Fathers' having made a compromise with King George, rather than fanatically standing by their extremist principles as they did?

[ParanoiA]

From your essay and from my general observations' date=' it appears that Americans put quite a high value on 'Non Partisanship' and finding consensus and have a dislike of confrontational politics.

 

Would that be a fair observation?

 

Personally, i think a problem with this cultural attitude is that it tends to impose conformity and stifle dissent, which, ironically, strengths extremism as various strands of opinion are not accomodated in the political settlement. This can lead to disaffection and alienation, whereas a more confrontational approach would allow disperate opinions to be engaged and so make society more rather than less stable.

 

A desire to impose compromise and moderation could result in greater division and divide. A healthy democracy thrives on disagreement, argument and confrontation. The dynamic instability of politics is what keeps society stable, not imposed, soggy consensus and compromise.

 

And thinking of compromise. How would you feel about the idea of your 'Founding Fathers' having made a compromise with King George, rather than fanatically standing by their extremist principles as they did?[/quote']

 

I was actually going to say something to that effect, but I think the point she makes in the essay is that this constitution acts as the machine of compromise, while the rest of us are busy arguing.

 

Believe me, I get where you're coming from. I think debate is healthy and should be promoted. All of this "let's just get along" attitude being hyped rather than realizing the superior benefit in passionate debate and conflict.

 

Maybe that could be edited a little more in the essay?

[Jim]

Well said, Pangloss.

[Pangloss]

(cough) Ooof, that hurt!

 

Okay, I asked for it, I guess I can take it. Increase the morphine drip, doctor!

 

 

From your essay and from my general observations' date=' it appears that Americans put quite a high value on 'Non Partisanship' and finding consensus and have a dislike of confrontational politics.

 

Would that be a fair observation?[/quote']

 

Hey, I can hardly speak for all Americans!

 

Speaking for myself, though, no, that's not my view. We've talked about this here before, and I remember a time when I made that argument on these boards and deserved that response when I got it. It's one of the lessons I count myself lucky as having learned from you all here at SFN, and I value it very highly.

 

What I think is that you need the debate in order to find the compromise. If you don't have an argument, then you don't have anything to compromise on, and moving forward is just a matter of unilateral action. That's fine if everyone actually does agree, but if it's happening because (as you say) the minority is afraid to speak or cowed into submission, for example, then you haven't actually achieved the consensus that you think you have. Compromise is more valuable than a false sense of unity. Therefore it has to be real.

 

I also get your point about times when compromise is not possible. But I think you have to look at the fact that the alternatives are limited to victory (bludgeoning your opponent into submission) or defeat (your oppponent gets to do the bludgeoning).

 

If compromise has become impossible, then sure, you have to settle for victory or defeat. I guess that's one of those Great Decision points over the course of human events, isn't it? Trying to figure out when that time has been reached. Not exactly easy! ("Never Chain Berlin!")

 

And even worse, as we've so often seen, once that battle has been fought, the outcome is worthless without a subsequent effort to find common ground. I think the Middle East is a daily demonstration of how fire-and-forget doesn't work when it comes to the long-term success of a human society. I shudder to think where Japan and Germany would be today if not for the willingness of the rest of the world to forgive and, if not forget, at least assist.

 

Your point is still absolutely valid here -- Japan and Germany were certainly not allowed to keep their previous types of government. Our will was imposed upon them, no question about it. But we didn't abandon and ignore them just because we won -- we made the effort to see their point of view on many different issues, even though we didn't have to. In a sense, we compromised after the fact.

 

It's a lesson I wouldn't mind uncompromisingly bludgeoning a few modern politicians over the head with. (grin)

 

 

Incidentally, did you know that George Washington and George Bush have something in common? They've both been referred to in the course of routine political character assassination as "George the Fourth"!

 

 

Anyway, what I am getting from your feedback is that I should have included these points in my essay. I wonder if there might be a way to work that in somewhere before my deadline (and still stay somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 words!). Possibly a hopeless task at this point, but I will give it some thought.

 

All kidding and friendly jousting aside, Aardvark, I do appreciate the reply.

[Aardvark]

All kidding and friendly jousting aside' date=' Aardvark, I do appreciate the reply. [/quote']

 

Glad you took it in good heart, i meant it more in terms of elaboration to the theme rather than criticism.

 

Very briefly: sometimes compromises simply can't be worked out, people have such different opinions that there is no common ground. Rather than imposing a false conformity a robust democratic system allows a decision to be made which a group will disagree with but, as they have a stake in the system, are prepared to accept.

 

That is the strength of a functioning democracy, people can openly and bitterly disagree on matters of principle but be prepared to accept decisions that go against them. That aspect of the US constitution is its strength, that someone can bitterly oppose a decision, but accept it as being made by a fair, open and legitimate process.

 

It is a symptom of a totalitarian mind set when 'unity' and consensus come to be seen as good in their own right. The very fact that the US system can contain many people who disagree and will not compromise their ideas and yet still accept decisions they hate as legitimate is an indicator or its strength.

 

Ultimately because the US constitution is seen as legitimate it allows people with opposing views to live together peacefully without compromise. That's the beautiful paradox of democracy, disagreement and instability are what keep it stable.

 

(It's when i hear of 'bipartisan' resolve, and 'cross party' cooperation, that i start to feel the voters being squeezed out, choices being cut off and cosy deals being done, that's when i think people start getting alienated from the democratic process:-( )

 

If i was you i probably wouldn't put any of that in your essay, it'll just confuse things;)

 

By the way, what on earth is 'constitution day'?

[Pangloss]

The very fact that the US system can contain many people who disagree and will not compromise their ideas and yet still accept decisions they hate as legitimate is an indicator or its strength.

 

Ultimately because the US constitution is seen as legitimate it allows people with opposing views to live together peacefully without compromise. That's the beautiful paradox of democracy' date=' disagreement and instability are what keep it stable.

[/quote']

 

Well put.

 

By the way, what on earth is 'constitution day'?

 

It's a new thing that just started a couple of years ago to recognize the importance of the Constitution. They have their own web site and everything, but it's pretty much an ignored holiday by most of the general public because it's not one that people get off from work.

 

A few years ago, we began to (belatedly) celebrate the bicentenial of the Constitution, due mainly to the instigation of several Supreme Court justices and other recognized legal scholars. It's one of the few times I can remember the leadership of the judicial branch becoming actively involved in a socio-political issue, but of course it's not hard to see why. I believe this was one of the eventual outcomes of that raised awareness, although the official recognition of the holiday didn't start until 2004 or 2005.

 

Federal law requires all schools that receive financial aid from the federal government (which is to say, all colleges and universities) are required to observe the day. I'm not really sure exactly what that entails.

[Pangloss]

Thanks for all the comments on this.

[-Demosthenes-]

But we didn't abandon and ignore them just because we won [Japan and Germany]

 

We ignored Germany after WWI (except when asking for more reporations) and it led to WWII.

 

Partisanship isn't important to democrasy, it only hurts it. It's unhealthy. It creates groups of people who believe something merely because someone else says it's a good idea. Havens for those who want to feel politically important, but do not have opinions themselves. Extremists and radicals might at least have their own opinion, but this is not so for those addicted to partisanship.

 

Disagreement, sure, is important. And so are groups of poeple who fight for something. Without them there would be no way for me, a single person, could affect government. But partisan groups are a corrupted form, where the members don't know why something is important, only that their partisan group thinks it's important. This is dangerous, as anything is that takes "thinking" out of the proccess of government.

[gcol]

But partisan groups are a corrupted form, where the members don't know why[/i'] something is important, only that their partisan group thinks it's important. This is dangerous, as anything is that takes "thinking" out of the proccess of government.

 

Grovelling apologies for veering off-topic (possibly), but following this argument leads me to an uncomfortable train of thought: By supporting a partisan group, or a political party, we are in fact signing away our rights by a sort of power of attorney. Puts a new, for me, spin on the real world meaning of democracy. Perhaps this is the real purpose of the constitution then, to claw back some of those signed away rights?

 

Perhaps all Americans know this, but for me a little light has switched on.

 

Right or wrong?

[Pangloss]

I tend to agree. But I don't think that's what most people do -- I think they make up their own minds. The question really is how good a job they do of that.

 

It's been my experience that people start out more or less ignorant of socio-political issues, then something sparks their interest. It may be a particular event, or the influence of someone they respect, but suddenly they're very interested in the subject, and begin to learn more about it.

 

At some point they may set aside the partisan influences that sparked their initial interest, and move to a more objective, open-minded position. Or they may not. But whether they do or not depends largely on the availability of alternate influences. If the only fertilized ground available is partisan in nature, then they won't hear logical arguments. (They're the "red states", after all, not the "well-read states".) (Now there's a joke that only works in print....)

 

That's why it's incumbent upon those of us experienced in debate to spread those influences far and wide, as well as remaining open-minded and attentive to alternate points of view.