Glenn Reynolds has a review in today's Philadelphia Inquirer of Larry Sabato's new book on revamping the Constitution. Must say, things like that do scare me, and here's why:
Our current political system certainly appears dysfunctional, and it seems to have been captured, to a greater degree than in the past, by special-interest groups that place their own welfare ahead of the public good. As Sabato observes, the framers' "feared corruption has come in many stultifying forms, from extreme partisan gerrymandering to the unresponsiveness of the political system produced by ossification over the centuries."
Yet this raises another difficulty. The framers believed that no Constitution could protect a people who had fallen away from political virtue. If our political class is too lacking in virtue to make the current system work - a proposition I think Sabato would accept - then how likely is it that this same political class would produce a better system than the one we have now?
Nor is the electorate much better, as Sabato demonstrates with a series of damning statistics regarding the public's ignorance of the current Constitution and government. So the question is, given that we have - by Sabato's estimation - a corrupted political class and an ignorant electorate, how likely is it that things will turn out well?
It wouldn't turn out well. For those who are enthusiastic for a new Constitution or even for a few new amendments, as well as those Objectivists urging more political activism and even "our" own party, I have a question: where do you think the members of that corrupt political class come from? How do they get there? Who supports them?
Consider who belongs to that corrupt political class: all public school teachers, for one thing. All government employees, for that matter, at all levels. And they vote. You think these people don't like things just the way they are? Do you think they can be reached via political activism?
You see, I'd take it beyond "corrupt political class" and "ignorant electorate." We have a corrupt electorate as well.
And their ideas -- rather, what is left of them -- are influential. Listen, Objectivists: Try telling twenty people you meet today that you favor private ownership of all roads, and a gold standard, and voluntary taxation at all levels, and no military conscription ever, and abolition of Social Security ...
...and you'll get twenty people looking at you like you've just grown a second head.
I was asked, this past Labor Day, what I thought of Barack Obama. "Scum," I replied. I was pressed to opine on Hillary Clinton, McCain, and Giuliani, and I used the same word three more times. I was then informed by this person -- who was raised and educated in the Soviet Union -- that I was being simplistic and cynical. Even after I pointed out, in terms of principles and political philosophy, why I despised each of these politicians, it made no difference. I had obviously, according to her, not given any serious thought to any of this, nor to any of the candidates.
Holding one's nose and voting Giuliani in order to "stop" Hillary isn't a solution, either. If anything, he's worse than she is, and a Giuliani victory would be a worse result for this country than would a Clinton victory. Do you really think, to take but one example, that any Republican will stand in the way of socialized medicine? If anything, they're the ones delivering us into such a disaster. We need to work on engaging and transforming our culture, not on creating an Objectivist political version of the Reagan Revolution, or the Russian Revolution, or any other damn revolution.
In quite a few ways, the political culture in America is worse than it's ever been.
Her comment was made over forty years ago, but I agree with Ayn Rand's statement: "It is earlier than you think."
"Try telling twenty people you meet today that you favor private ownership of all roads, and a gold standard, and voluntary taxation at all levels, and no military conscription ever, and abolition of Social Security ..."
I actually do this at least once a month. The Gold Standard issue is always a funny one since many people don't know what it is! So I always throw in the abolition of the FED (since most people know what the FED is) as well. Most people cannot conceive of life not being ruled by central bankers, although some may agree that the central bank has too much power.
You can really break this down easily during a discussion and just ask someone what their definition of "rights" is? Or "freedom"? Be sure and keep a barf bag close by...
Sometimes, when I'm feeling very malevolent, depressed, and Dominique-like, I wish for once we did experience full blown statism-- NOW-- not later. Not the creeping statism we're engaged in; but the whole enchilada...famines, war, yada yada; I still don't think many people would see the cause of any of it though...not enough to change their minds. Lucky for me, those moods do not come very often :)
Allen
Posted by: Allen at October 8, 2007 07:20 PMAs John Cleese said, it's people like you what cause unrest!
I don't know that most Americans know what the Fed is: they've heard of it, sure, but can they tell you what it is and what it does? Not so sure about that.
My favorite on the gold standard, though, is that there's not enough gold in the world for a gold standard. Can't tell you how many time I've heard that one.
And I DEFINITELY agree with you about the barf bag: funny how many defenders of liberty are in favor of universal military conscription, isn't it?
Posted by: Craig at October 9, 2007 09:34 AM