As Americans have become more fractionated in their political and cultural thinking, to the point that not even the existing political parties can hold them together in governing coalitions for a sustained period of time, and as the resulting inability to solve our nation's problems becomes more pervasive, it has become easier for a lot of people to consider the idea of calling a convention, under Article V of our current Constitution, for the purpose of proposing amendments that might allow our national government to function better--or, for that matter, to function at all.
Since most of the calls for such a convention have come from the more conservative voices in our country, I frankly have not been a very big fan of this approach. The cliche about "opening Pandora's box" comes to mind, when one thinks about the potential proposed amendments that might come out of the mouths of Trump supporters. A total ban on immigration (except for white males)! A loyalty oath to Fearless Orange Leader, punishable by death if violated! The licensing of all media to present "fair and balanced" news (but only if it's pro-conservative)! And on and on. Better, I think to myself, to muddle along as we are, and hope that, once in a long while, the planets align in such a way that we get lucky enough to get a few good things done, as we did during Barack Obama's first two years in office.
Lately, however, I've not been so sure. Two recent New York Times Op-Ed pieces have played a major role in re-shaping my thinking on the subject.
The first one discusses the philosophy that drove the writing of our existing Constitution. In older societies, the existence of sustained economic inequality drove the development of institutions that attempted to balance competing economic interests in the shaping of public policy. The author specifically mentions the examples of the Roman Republic, where a Senate that represented moneyed interests were forced to deal with the Tribunes representing the interests of working people, as well as the British Empire, with a Parliament that attempted to strike the same balance between its Houses of Commons and Lords. America, on the other hand, was a frontier society, in which new opportunities seemed to simply be a matter of "going West," and therefore not likely to accept a class-based system of government, even though (as noted by the author) James Madison anticipated a day where such a system might be needed, even inevitable.
The second one discusses the current "tyranny of the majority," in which a majority of Americans voted against the current President and House members, and yet the Republican Party controls the both the Presidency and the House. This is, as the author points out, largely due to the fact that a majority of Americans are now clusters in a minority of the states, which has led that minority to generate most of the nation's prosperity, while nearly half of the populace lives in states gripped by economic and social despair. This problem, of course, has become greater because of the GOP's ability to manipulate it for the benefit of conservative control, through gerrymandering as well as dark money and voter suppression.
But, even without that ability to take advantage of a bad situation, frustration would still be the order of the day when it comes to addressing America's greatest needs. Even without gerrymandering, and a resulting Democratic White House and House of Representatives, a majority of red states means an almost permanent majority of Republicans in the Senate. Senate elections are statewide, and cannot be touched by gerrymandering--and each state gets exactly two Senators. The result is a recipe for permanent government gridlock.
Why do red states suffer economically, while blue states prosper and effectively provide the tax dollars to bail the red states out of their misery to some degree? I don't know how to say this, other than the way in which I have said it before: liberal policies benefit everyone, while conservative policies only benefit the people who don't need the benefit. I can't help that; it's reality. And there's no law against pointing reality out. Yet. But here's the tricky part: people are reluctant to admit they are wrong and, as a consequence, are more prone to make the same mistakes over and over again. That's why some states have turned almost completely red: the blue voters have fled them for places that work. And they're not going back. Why should they?
Frankly, there's a greater argument for secession by the blue states than there is for a constitutional convention. A convention would, as I said previously, put many cherished aspects of American life, including freedom of expression and the right to vote, at serious risk. But there's a no-less-equally powerful argument against succession: we are stronger together than we are divided (Hillary was right about that, at least). And a convention would at least force us to talk about our differences, rather than silently ranting to the true believers on each side of our current divide.
It's clear, in any case, that we need to make fundamental changes in our system of government, one that acknowledges the reality of economic class differences in contemporary life, and one than ensures governing coalitions that actually and accurately reflect the will of a majority of the American people, not a vocal, potentially tyrannical majority. If a constitutional convention is the only way to get there, then bring it on. To stay stuck where we are today is no guarantee of anything except corruption and chaos. The American people, and the world, deserve better than that.
No comments:
Post a Comment