Essentially Contested America

Credit for Image

In the aftermath of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination last week in Rawalpini, one complex solution emerges to the problems endemic to Pakistani political and social organization. Without reform of the military, intelligence, and security forces in Pakistan, the democratization of Pakistani is unlikely to take root. What does this mean? First, these agencies, especially the military, must be brought completely under civilian control. If the military maintains its veto power over Pakistani politicians, its corrupt control of Pakistani politics will persist. Second, a national purge of the terrorist sympathizers within these agencies must begin in earnest. Military and intelligence services remaining independent of civilian control will prevent democratic institutions from playing their appropriate role in a society aspiring to democracy. While there’s still time for change in Pakistan, the doomsday clock is ticking inexorably. International assistance is essential to the transformation of a quiet (and not so quiet) dictatorship into a republican democracy or any kind of democracy at all for that matter. South Asia, the United States, and the rest of the world are depending on the stability of Pakistan. Should these poisonous institutions persist, permitting and even advocating political assassination, Pakistan’s on the road to becoming terror central. True, civil society has taken route in Pakistan. But that is not an antidote for terrorism. A major error in this calamity was invading Iraq diverting troops and money from one required war to a discretionary war. Coming to terms militarily with the virtually independent tribes in Northwest Pakistan that provide safe-haven to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban must be the critical priority for both the Pakistani and American governments. And that means ending any significant presence in Iraq. Perhaps, the next president can remedy a catastrophic mistake that need not have happened.

Credit for Image

Don’t think the Republicans have corned the political market on fear mongering. Although President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are expert in appealing to the possibility of terrorism–”World War III” andtelling voters a vote against his wife is a vote for tragedy during the first eighteen months of the next president’s tenure. Although the former president is smoother than the current administration– he’s not as crass or obvious in playing the fear-card–his intent is just the same: frighten grandma and grandpa into voting for his wife just in case Al-Qaeda plans to blow up the Lincoln and Tad monument in Des Moines or a tsunami suddenly hits the landlocked Iowan corn fields. Democratic voters should keep in mind that when “the good guys”–in this case, Democrats–adopt the methods of the bad guys, then they become the bad guys.

Credit for the Image
“nuclear holocaust” fighting them there and not here–to squeeze the last few remaining votes from the undecided in a trembling electorate–the Democrats are no minor leaguers in playing the fear-card. With campaign minutes counting down until the Iowa caucuses, Bill Clinton, the Manipulator-in-Chief, is now

Media Matters reports that neocon, Bill Kristol, has joined the NY Times editorial page. So much for the NY Times being a bastion of liberal opinion. The report is worth reading in full. I also reprised a July 15, 2007 ECA post on Mr. Kristol’s integrity.

. . . . . . . . . . . .

As ECA as written before the movement called “Neo-conservatism” is perhaps the most disruptive, dishonest, and dangerous political movement in the history of the nation with the exception perhaps of Joe McCarthy and his cohorts. Of this group, William Kristol, of the Weekly Standard and Fox-News, poses the greatest threat to American democracy. Consider the following example of his calculated duplicity, an examplethat reveals the tenor of his character as well as his political strategies of choice. Iran in his view “feels free to use nuclear weapons if they had them.” What’s Kristol’s justification for this claim? Iran’s chief nuclear envoy, Ali Larijani, has said “We oppose obtaining nuclear weapons and we will peacefully use nuclear technology under the framework of the Nonproliferation Treaty, but if we are threatened, the situation may change.” Is this the same as saying that Iran “feels free to use nuclear weapons if they had them”? Hardly! It is simply a statement of the right to self-defense. Is Kristol’s position that Iran has no right to defend itself if attacked by the United States? If so, he should explain why Israel has such a right, as it surely does, if threatened by extinction by Arab armies. The hypocrisy is inexplicable unless we regard Kristol’s rhetoric as just one more neoconservative example of the big lie. Kristol will say anything, true or false, accurate or distorted, in support of the perfidious neoconservative fantasy of militarily imposing his values on the rest of humanity. Where have we heard similar rhetoric?

Now Mr. Kristol, this craven duplicitous autocrat, is bullying those Republicans fleeing the Bush position on Iraq. He calls them “pre-911 Republicans” denigrating them for withdrawing support for the neocon-orchestrated and calamitous occupation of Iraq. The “pre-911 Republicans” crack mocks these Republicans for allegedly learning nothing from the catastrophic and brutal attack on 911 against innocent Americans. Hmm, they’ve learned nothing? With Mr. Bush’s war spiraling out of control, Mr. Kristol cannot bring himself to appreciate the folly of a war for which his support was instrumental. Mr. Kristol will say anything to serve his nefarious strategy of creating a neoconservative “caliphate” having dominion over the rest of humankind.
Credit for First Image
Credit for Second Image

Former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, the first democratically elected woman of a Muslim nation, was gunned down today at a rally in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. A suicide bomber shot Mrs. Bhutto then blew himself up killing 20 other people. Click here for further details. Then watch the following encapsulated story of her life prior to today’s assassination.

This tragedy will prove as devastating to peace in the region as the assassination of Yitzak Rabin was to the Middle East. It is not known yet who is responsible, but the cast of possibilities include Prime Minister Musharraf, members of the military and the intelligence services, Islamists, indigenous terrorist groups, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban. One conspicuous absence from this list is President Bush and his foreign policy or lack of one. Had Mr. Bush finished the war against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan instead of embarking on his imprudent and immoral invasion of Iraq, the Northwester Territories of Pakistan might never have become a safe-haven for terrorists. As a result, if the murderers turn out to be terrorists or radical Islamists who find refuge in the Territories, Mr. Bush owns some of the responsibility for her death and the destabilization of Pakistan. In the final analysis Mrs. Bhutto may have been the last hope of democracy flourishing in Pakistan, something Mr. Bush has claimed to be his goal throughout the area. An unstable Pakistan, a nation that clearly possesses nuclear weapons, might just turn out to be the first major Sunni Islamic nation to be captured by the Al-Qaeda and other Jihadists and Islamists. Mr. Bush’s reckless invasion of Iraq based on little or no evidence that Iraq then possessed weapons of mass destruction will be seen as one of the major causes of enabling a terrorist-controlled Pakistan to come into existence. Nice work Mr. Bush.

Credit for Image

The Rapid City Journal reports that “[p]olitical activist Russell Means, a founder of the American Indian Movement, says he and other members of Lakota tribes have renounced treaties and are withdrawing from the United States. . . . ‘We are now a free country and independent of the United States of America,” Means said in a telephone interview. “This is all completely legal.’ . . . Means said a Lakota delegation on Monday delivered a statement of ‘unilateral withdrawal’ from the United States to the U.S. State Department in Washington. . . . The State Department did not respond. ‘That’ll take some time,’ Means said. . . . Meanwhile, the delegation has delivered copies of the letter to the embassies of Bolivia, Venezuela, Chile and South Africa. ‘We’re asking for recognition,” Means said, adding that Ireland and East Timor are “very interested’ in the declaration.” Click here for more.

America’s treatment of the indigenous peoples has been nothing less than scandalous. Henry Knox, Washington’s Secretary of War, recognized that the native peoples east of the Mississippi had rights to their land, especially the Creek nation. He insisted that “[t]he Indians being the prior occupants, possess the right of the soil. It cannot be taken from them unless by their free consent, or by the right of conquest in case of a just war. To dispossess them on any other principle, would be a gross violation of the fundamental laws of nature, and of that distributive justice which is the glory of a nation. . . . The time has arrived, when it is highly expedient that a liberal system of justice should be adopted for the various Indian tribes within the limits of the United States.” Washington and Jefferson agreed, and all three sensed the incompatibility of republican ideals and stealing land from the Indians. Yet the dynamics of western expansion saw hordes of American pouring onto Indian lands ignoring the federal government’s policy, while the states watched, but did nothing. So ran the course of American pernicious expansion at the expense of the native peoples and such inequity continues today. Have Americans ever seriously reckoned with the malevolent assault on the prior occupants of this nation? Our mistreatment of Native Americans began our imperial republic and is as integral part of its very foundation. What does this say about American republican democracy? Is it too late for justice for these peoples? Is it too late for us to redeem ourselves and the republican ideals to which we are supposed to be dedicated?

Credit for First Image
Credit for Second Image

Last Friday evening, Bill Moyers interviewed Sanford Levinson, one of the most creative, provocative, and influential constitutional scholars of his generation. The topic of the interview was Professor Levinson’s 2006 book entitled Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We the People Can Begin Correcting It) [hereinafter cited as "OUC"] which ECA discussed earlier this year. The book is an irreverent tour de force depicting how the Constitution prevents American government from consistently expressing the voice of the people. Levinson draws his bow and takes aim at the Senate, the Electoral College, the presidential veto, life tenure for federal judges, and a host of other undesirables hitting the bull’s-eye in every case. Unlike most other critics of the Constitution, however, Levinson is not content in merely presenting a litany of democratic complaints and leaving the matter there. Instead, Levinson calls on We the People to petition Congress to permit Americans to vote on the following proposal:

Shall Congress call a constitutional convention empowered to consider the adequacy of the Constitution, and, if thought necessary, to draft a new constitution that, upon completions, will be submitted to the electorate for its approval or disapproval by majority vote? Unless and until a new constitution gains popular approval, the current Constitution will continue in place. OUC, p. 11.

In the Moyers’ interview, Levinson amplifies on how the participants of this second constitutional convention will be selected.

Well, since this is the most often asked question, especially by friends and members of my family, I have an answer to it. And I’m not so fearful, for a number of different reasons. First of all, how would I choose members of the convention? My answer is to go back to ancient Greece, or to look at the way we choose juries. And I would have 700 or so of our fellow citizens chosen at random. Meet for two years, pay them the salary for those two years of a Justice of Supreme Court, United States Senator, because they would be fulfilling the highest possible function of citizenship. Give them time to reflect and learn about these issues.

Levinson wants to highlight the Constitution’s Preamble which says: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, [sic] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The Preamble, for Levinson, is the core sustaining value and end toward which the other Articles of “the single most important part of the Constitution” (OUC, p. 13) because:

It announces the point of the entire enterprise. The 4,500 or so words that followed the Preamble in the original, unamended Constitution were all in effect merely means that were thought to be useful in achieving the great aims set out above. It is intended the ends articulated in the Preamble that justify the meaning of our political institutions. And to the extent that the means turn out to be counterproductive, then we should revise them. Id.

The Preamble represents, in the words of the ordinary language philosopher J. L. Austin, a performative utterance. The Preamble doesn’t merely convey information. Rather, it brings into existence the very document for which it is an integral part. Alternatively stated, the Constitution is born with the collective speech act which is the Preamble. In Levinson’s view, the Preamble is “magnificent. And [he thinks] we ought to think about it almost literally every day, and then ask, ‘Well, to what extent is government organized to realize the noble visions of the preamble?’ That the preamble begins, ‘We the people.’ It’s a notion of a people that can engage in self-determination.” Levinson’s commitment to the Preamble reveals that any attempt to paint him as some naive, wide-eyed utopian willing to scrap the 200 plus year document without any idea of what to replace it with is decidedly erroneous. Levinson’s faith in the underlying normative core of the Constitution–the Preamble–is deep and pervasive.[1]

In defense of Levinson’s important project, one might say that the 1787 document together with the 27 amendments constitute a first draft of how Americans have chosen to express the Preamble’s ideals. Understood in this manner, Levinson’s proposal is far less of an intemperate and irresponsible rejection of the Constitution than a call for the redeployment of the Preamble’s ideals in contemporary America. Levinson’s proposal, then, is to initiate a conversation to consider whether to replace the 1787 document which may have been satisfactory for the founding generation with one which is more suitable to our current democratic needs.

It’s terribly important not to scrap this project by insisting upon a distinction between a democracy and a republic. While it may be true that some of the founders saw democracy as the enemy of republicanism, today these political ideals are far less distinguishable. The idea of a representative democracy, constrained by various filters designed to create a government capable of expressing the reflective will of the people, is a good bridge between narrower and ancient conceptions of democracy and republicanism. Few Americans embrace direct democracy whatever that would look like in contemporary America.[1] And even fewer democrats embrace unconstrained majority rule. Moreover, America’s constitutional culture looks askance at a republicanism which merely pays lip service to the reflective will of the people. Accordingly, the notion that the democratic defects of the Constitution can be papered over simply by insisting that the Founders sought a republic not a democracy is not especially illuminating; indeed, it’s downright misleading. Whatever we call the political philosophy underlying the Constitution, consent must be an ineliminable feature. And objections to the Constitution in contemporary society, along the lines of Levinson’s critique, are replete with obstacles for realizing systematically and consistently the consent of the governed. Of course, one can force a distinction between democracy and republicanism by transmogrifying one or the other conception into a distorted replica of itself–for example by defining democracy as simply majority rule–but other than scoring a polemical point such a transformation isn’t conceptually or practically significant.

No one need agree with Levinson regarding all, or even any, of his arguments. But everyone–constitutional scholars, and more important, reflective American citizens–should confront the arguments in his book. We are all indebted to Sandy Levinson, not only for his wonderful book on fixing American constitutionalism, but also for his extraordinary career as a public intellectual and as a patriot who always gives his best to America.
__________________________________________
[1] It’s not clear whether Levinson believes the Preamble to be an entrenched feature of the Constitution, one that the second constitutional convention cannot amend. If so, the entrenched Preamble seems to have its own democratic deficits. If not, then Levinson must be willing to endure the new constitutional convention jettisoning the Preamble entirely, or amending it to say, “We the States” or some other reactionary change in its text, for example, adding “Under God” or “life begins at conception,” or “‘marriage is a union of one man and one woman.” Indeed, it is virtually guaranteed that some anti-democratic provisions will be included in the new constitution. Upon realizing this, one can reject Levinson’s entire project or acknowledge ruefully that a republican democrat must be prepared to lose some important battles even over the basic structure of the society.

[2] An exception might be Mike Gravel’s Philadelphia II project.

Credit for Photo of Levinson

Credit for Third Image

Music & Lyrics by Gene Scheer
Performed by Norah Jones

All we’ve been given by those who came before,
The dream of a nation where freedom would endure.
The work and prayers of centuries have brought us to this day.
What shall be our legacy, what will our children say?

Let them say of me I was one who believed
In sharing the blessings I received.
Let me know in my heart when my days are through,
America, America, I gave my best to you.

Each generation from the plains to distant shore,
With the gifts they were given were determined to leave more.
Battles fought together, acts of conscience fought alone.
These are the seeds from which America has grown.

Let them say of me I was one who believed
In sharing the blessings that I received.
Let me know in my heart when my days are through,
America, America, I gave my best to you.

For those who think they have nothing to share.
Who feel in their hearts there is no hero there,
Though each quiet act of dignity is that which fortifies,
The soul of a nation that will never die.

Let them say of me I was one who believed
In sharing the blessings I received.
Let me know in my heart when my days are through,
America, America, I gave my best to you.
America, [America] I gave my best to you.

John Edwards is an appealing quasi-progressive Democratic candidate for president. I say “quasi-progressive” because no Democratic candidate can be authentically progressive in a society so viciously hostile to alleviating the plight of the poor, the dispossessed, and the marginalized. The power structure in the United States would never permit authentic progressivism to survive. Edwards’ talk of “two Americas” is precisely the type of criticism our political culture needs. (Of course, it’s probably more accurate to say there are three or four Americas, but two will due for now.) Yet, the closer he comes to winning the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, the sooner one of his closest rivals will adopt the Republicans mantra condemning him for encouraging “class warfare.” It is cruelly ironic that the very same Party, designed to create a society riven with the shackles of class, should condemn someone for raising the issue of class in the first place. There’s logic in their strategy, however. An oligarchical class, dominating the poor and transforming the middle class into ravenous consumers, if shrewd, can hide behind its own pronouncement of innocence. Our political culture is so controlled by a malevolent, anti-constitutional power structure and the media stooges representing and fueled by this power structure that any fair-minded citizen is likely to be incapable of identifying the core problems preventing democratic citizens from flourishing. Instead, we quarrel over such peripheral issues as the so-called “war on Christmas;” we spit out vitriol against undocumented workers and their children; and we celebrate God–and coerce others to do so as well–rather than practice daily His imperative to love one’s neighbor. The continuing accumulation of wealth in the few and the suffering of tens of millions of others is hidden beyond the periphery. John Edwards’ attempt to rouse us from our slumbers and shake away the distractions imposed upon us by those whose interests depend on our being distracted will surely be blocked just as soon as he makes any serious progress toward winning the nomination. But his message is important. Watch his Christmas remarks and judge for yourself:

Of course, any savvy observer knows that these statements, photographs and videos are hype. But they are not necessarily all hype. Concealed within the hype is a core commitment to a particular system of values, at least that’s the hope. Here are what some supporters say about Mr. Edwards: Let’s be clear about one feature of American politics; the odds are stacked against significant progressive change. Yet, occasionally progressive change becomes possible if only temporarily. John Edwards’ may not be the ideal progressive, but he does seem to be the most credible of the top three Democratic contenders. Iowans should give his progressive message a chance.
Credit for the Image

When Benjamin Franklin exited Convention Hall in the summer of 1787, a group of citizens asked him what sort of government the delegates had created. Franklin’s prescient answer was crisp, but pregnant with meaning. “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Indeed, the idea of “keeping” a republic is perhaps the least discussed and examined topic in our political culture; yet, the know-how to keep our republic is essential to the survival of our constitutional democracy. One absolute imperative in keeping a republic requires citizen involvement in continually holding governmental officials feet to the fire, especially when elected (or selected) officials trample on the heart of constitutional government. Now, it is the present generation of constitutional founders’ turn to keep our republic by holding the executive villains accountable for poisoning American constitutionalism.

That’s why Robert Wexler’s (D-FL) effort to initiate impeachment hearings against Vice-President Cheney is so critical to American democracy. Listen to his plea:

Next, consider Wexler’s more detailed argument: “”For the sake of history, and in order to be faithful to our Constitutional obligations, the Judiciary Committee must immediately convene impeachment hearings to determine whether the official actions of Vice President Cheney constitute ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ and require that he be impeached. Each day we fail to act is a validation of the misdeeds of the Vice President and damages the credibility of the Democratic Party. . . . Vice President Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration have demonstrated a consistent pattern of abusing the law and misleading Congress and the American people. We see the consequences of these actions abroad in Iraq and at home through the violations of our civil liberties. The American people are served well with a legitimate and thorough impeachment inquiry. I will urge the Judiciary Committee to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months. . . . Only through hearings can we begin to correct the abuses of Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration; and, if it is determined in these hearings that Vice President Cheney has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors, he should be impeached and removed from office. It is time for Congress to expose the multitude of misdeeds of the Administration, and I am hopeful that the Judiciary Committee will expeditiously begin an investigation of this matter.” For more click here.Without checks on executive power, “[t]he principles of a free constitution are irrevocably lost,”[1]especially when, contrary to the written text of our Constitution, presidents dominate Congress by successfully rebuffing any feeble congressional attempt to defend its constitutional role. More importantly, failure to hold Mr. Cheney accountable sets an extremely dangerous precedent for future tyrannical executives to use to the detriment of the Constitution and to Americans generally. Accountability is, or should be, the name of the game in American constitutionalism. Permitting a soft dictator to leave office unpunished suggests that American citizens and politicians both lack the fortitude or interest necessary to keep our democratic republic.Credit for Image
______________________________________________[1] Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 3.