We already know where the Democrats stand. Let’s engage in a little introspection. Is the Republican Party any longer the constitutional party? Are “we the people” still a constitutional people? I have my doubts about the former but an increasing faith in the latter.
When you read American political debates from 1789 to 1912, you find that generally the central point of dispute was whether a policy was constitutional or not. Democrats cared about the Constitution and some lost elections because they adhered to the Constitution in a time of an economic slump. Perhaps I am missing something, but the Constitution seems to be the elephant in the room that most everyone (even Republicans) ignores in modern political debate. Sure, there are occasional drive-by references. But in general, candidates and policies are supported or attacked according to whether they will or will not provide jobs, will or will not help the environment, will or will not provide this or that benefit to this or that sector of the population.
Debating in those terms—strictly on policy—is to give the Democrats half the field before the game has even started. Policy is always a bit murky. The Constitution is, or ought to be, clear. Shouldn’t supporting the Constitution be the chief aim of the Right and therefore the chief strategy in taking on the unconstitutional Left? At the moment, I do not hear or see debates (and I could be missing something) in the media about which Republican presidential candidate is the most constitutional in his or her outlook and record. And if 2012 is anything like 2008, Barack Obama will be given a pass on his constitutional propriety.
Consider this: when does President Obama, onetime lecturer in constitutional law, ever, ever mention the Constitution? The few references of his we have to the document (the most revealing one being in a radio interview in which he unfolded the standard progressive language about the insufficiency of the Constitution) are wholly unsatisfying. And yet, where is the outcry against Obama as being the Unconstitutional President?
Perhaps I am Quixotic. But I believe there is a huge disconnect here between political strategists and candidates on the one hand and the fed-up voting public on the other. A good deal (particularly in the mainstream media) has been said about what the Tea Party movement is against (or supposedly against). Less has been said about what it is for. In the Tea Party events I have either attended or observed from afar, one principal aim has been to relearn what it means to live in a Constitutional Republic.
Allow me to be clearer. I think Republicans ought to go after the president and the Democrats in Congress primarily on Constitutional grounds, though policy is important. I think they ought to show how this administration has been an affront to federalism, to the separation of powers, to the idea of limited and accountable government (beginning with a reading of Article I, section 8). I think that the last 100 years of progressive liberalism is better understood as the anti-Constitution movement. I think the political Right is and will remain on the defensive until it makes the Constitution central to every campaign. I think that if Republicans did start talking about the Constitution again it would expose the Left better than any muddled debates about who started this recession or that—or whether we are coming out of a recession—or what the appropriate “fair share” that the rich should be paying is or how much or little help people need with health care, social security, and so on. In other words, the Democrats are most vulnerable on what ought to be the central aim of American politics: upholding and defending the Constitution—the thing they talk least about and the frame of government they ride roughshod over. Remember former Speaker Pelosi on the Constitution: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Please let me know if there is a candidate in the race who is really doing this. Or am I simply dreaming?
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Re: Shouldn't Republicans Make the Constitution the Centerpiece of the Campaign?
You are, of course, right. Most of the Republicans have opposed Obamacare on constitutional as well as policy grounds, however. But more could be said -- much more.
Jun '10
Re: Shouldn't Republicans Make the Constitution the Centerpiece of the Campaign?
The reason Perry has a good chance to be the nominee is that he's going to talk job climate, job climate, and more job climate. People will be suspicious of politicians, like Obama, who got elected and then lost their focus on jobs. Obama probably won't make that mistake again. Obama is going to be talking about jobs, jobs, and more jobs. In his case, just talking. Republicans need to have the same focus. The Constitution is certainly related to job climate, but it's too long an explanation (for campaigning) about why it is.
Edited on Aug 17, 2011 at 6:26amNov '10
Re: Shouldn't Republicans Make the Constitution the Centerpiece of the Campaign?
I quite agree, it's the fundamental issue of our time. FWIW, back in late winter C4P was running a contest to guess when Gov. Palin would announce her candidacy, I put Sept 17th, Constitution Day. That guess is looking better :)
Jan '11
Re: Shouldn't Republicans Make the Constitution the Centerpiece of the Campaign?
The target of any campaign is the American public. Is the American public so well versed on the Constitution that they'll appreciate our arguments?
The reason why so much political campaigning bypasses constitutional arguments is that the advocates don't think that will persuade a public who wouldn't know (or much care) about the differences.
In order to win a constitutional argument, you'd have to prepare the public through years of civics classes. That's not likely. That's why most campaigns will avoid it. So while I agree with you in principle, I'm inclined to forgive campaigns that don't focus on constitutional theory.
Sep '10
Re: Shouldn't Republicans Make the Constitution the Centerpiece of the Campaign?
It should center around liberty if we can make a clear case that Obama wants gov't control of your life, we would be able to get more of the independents.
Sep '10
Re: Shouldn't Republicans Make the Constitution the Centerpiece of the Campaign?
KC Mulville: The target of any campaign is the American public. Is the American public so well versed on the Constitution that they'll appreciate our arguments?
The reason why so much political campaigning bypasses constitutional arguments is that the advocates don't think that will persuade a public who wouldn't know (or much care) about the differences.
In order to win a constitutional argument, you'd have to prepare the public through years of civics classes. That's not likely. That's why most campaigns will avoid it. So while I agree with you in principle, I'm inclined to forgive campaigns that don't focus on constitutional theory. ·
Explain the case that was made in the depression where a farmer was breaking the law by feeding his cows with his own crops he grew on his farm
Sep '10
Re: Shouldn't Republicans Make the Constitution the Centerpiece of the Campaign?
The theme is good, but I think a better approach would be to bring the issue down to earth by focusing on citizenship: under the U.S. Constitution, what does one citizen, through force of government, owe another? To provide examples of how far everyday life has strayed from federalism and explain why doing so is leading us toward a very bad ending. A good story stirringly told that offers real-world examples of what a return to federalist policies would look like in everyday life might really grab peoples' attention. Directly talking about federalism, I'm afraid, would only induce yawns.
May '11
Re: Shouldn't Republicans Make the Constitution the Centerpiece of the Campaign?
It seems that the arguments posited above are more about timing than ideology.
Why not stress Constitutional ideas during the primaries thereby winnowing "our" candidates to Constitutionalists? Ensure that the candidate knows, understands, reveres and defends the Constitution before he goes on the trail.
The candidate can then fight the opposition as required.
To put this in real terms, what would the budget/debt debates have looked like if we had 3 more Marco Rubios and no McCain, McConnell nor L. Graham?
The fight is not so much in general elections as it is in redirecting the Republican Party. The voters would surely appreciate a "real" choice.
Mar '11
Re: Shouldn't Republicans Make the Constitution the Centerpiece of the Campaign?
It is quite revealing to look over the inaugural addresses of the presidents and see how references to the Constitution are central to their message during the first century after independence, and how the Constitution is rarely mentioned any longer. It is revealing, but not surprising. Americans have discarded the Constitution and have embraced government as the supreme protector and provider.
Re: Shouldn't Republicans Make the Constitution the Centerpiece of the Campaign?
I couldn't agree more. Republicans need to define some broad constitutional issues that resonate -- so far, federalism is the theme we've heard most of on the campaign trail -- the Iowa debate had some good discussion of this. But Republicans also need to hit harder on separation of powers and limited government. One separation of powers theme is judicial activism -- we should constantly remind the public that Obama and his judicial nominees believe in legislating from the bench -- for them it's a virtue. Four more years of Obama and the federal judiciary will be chock full of activists.
The other constitutional theme that I would stress is liberty. Not only in the sense of the 5th/14th amendments, but also the Ninth Amendment and Privileges and Immunities (not that politicians have to recite all the details). Republicans should emphasize that Obamacare and other Nanny State initiatives are not merely an affront to federalism, but also to individual liberty.
Jun '10
Re: Shouldn't Republicans Make the Constitution the Centerpiece of the Campaign?
Terrence, you're a historian so this should be easy for you, list the past presidential elections that turned on "the constitution."
Nice thing about abstract is no one votes abstract, they vote for a chicken in every pot. This is true even for the judges in the U.S. Supreme Court, I'll wager. You want to lose an election, make it about abstract issues such and the constitution or foreign policy.
Do yourself a favour, in the 2012 election knock on some doors in aid of the candidate of your choice and ask the respondent at the door what his issues are. The constitution won't even make the radar screen, and if it does it will be somewhere below putting a traffic light at the end of the street. Oh! and if the foregoing issues sound confused to you, you haven't knocked on enough doors.
Edited on Aug 17, 2011 at 10:19amRe: Shouldn't Republicans Make the Constitution the Centerpiece of the Campaign?
So we give the president and his anti-constitutional party a "pass" on the Constitution because we think any mention of the embarrassing parchment won't win elections? That's principled!
Obviously, I do not intend candidates to engage in tedious lectures on the commerce clause. What I indend is for them to draw on our founding principles to point out how the executive branch intrudes into our lives without legislative warrant; how the default answer for solving every CRISIS (e.g., education) is to throw federal money at it and thus let the Left control the institution at the federal level for the next century (the education bureaucracy mostly started under Eisenhower and grew under Bush 43); how the federal government violates property rights in the name of the environment, etc. What is the solution to stopping the never-ending growth of Washington if not the Constitution? Republicans--at least Establishment Republicans--do not have a great track record of keeping promises once in office. As for the absence of discussion over the Constitution, you're right. You don't see much of it among candidates. We the People are beginning to talk about it again.
Dec '10
Re: Shouldn't Republicans Make the Constitution the Centerpiece of the Campaign?
I think Perry gets closest with simple comments like making D.C. as inconsequential in our daily lives as possible. Such statements speak to limiting, not expanding, power at the federal level. Bachmann is very constitutional in her views, but she gets into the weeds and loses people. Romney only promises to manage leviathan better.
Aug '10
Re: Shouldn't Republicans Make the Constitution the Centerpiece of the Campaign?
There's a big difference between "jobs climate" and "jobs program". I don't want government to Do Something to create jobs, I want them to stop Doing Something and get out of the way. So far, it seems Perry understands that, perhaps even more than Romney, because Romney is still flogging his business experience as a reason to believe he can better run the economy, rather than as a reason to believe he'll get the government out of the way.
Not that that has much to do with the topic of this conversation.
Jun '10
Re: Shouldn't Republicans Make the Constitution the Centerpiece of the Campaign?
All elections boil down to message. Voters have a nasty habit of being too practical. This is not to say that political debate can't be couched in abstract terms, but the abstract must be translated into political practicality. Small versus big government is abstract, bureaucratic interference with the establishment of a job creating enterprise is not. The principle of capital flight is abstract, high taxes are not. Air line safety is abstract, the TSA groping you crotch is not.
I'm not going out too far on the limb by predicting that the 2012 election will most likely be a fight over the economy. What will be vital to victory will be a clear and shining path out of the morass. In bad times voters elect leaders that show them the way out of despair. Constitutional principle can bolster an economic argument, but it is no substitute for leadership and a clear plan.
Aug '10
Re: Shouldn't Republicans Make the Constitution the Centerpiece of the Campaign?
Nowadays, I don't think schoolchildren are taught much about the Constitution, except perhaps a couple items in the Bill of Rights that liberals find congenial, such as freedom of speech and assembly. The danger of running on a Constitutional platform is that most people haven't a clue what the Constitution says, and if their initial contact with it is discovering why we can't do all the warm fuzzy things liberals like, they may decide they'd prefer to do without the Constitution they've been ignoring all this time.
Aug '10
Re: Shouldn't Republicans Make the Constitution the Centerpiece of the Campaign?
Did you say "Shining Path"? Would you care to rephrase that?
Jun '10
Re: Shouldn't Republicans Make the Constitution the Centerpiece of the Campaign?
Paul DeRocco
Did you say "Shining Path"? Would you care to rephrase that? · Aug 17 at 12:33pm
No way. I used the term purposely, albeit playfully.
Jan '11
Re: Shouldn't Republicans Make the Constitution the Centerpiece of the Campaign?
I don't know if you were responding to my post, but if you were (even in part), let me offer a distinction that's important.
The essence of the liberal approach is the "living constitution." (Pardon me for a moment to let the nausea pass.) Now we both know the whole "living constitution" nonsense is just double-talk to escape the Constitution's restrictions. But though it's double-talk, it plays well. A sizable bloc of America takes it for granted that government is supposed to "take care of us." The government can't be hamstrung by archaic principles imagined by rich white guys from, like, hundreds of years ago. Right? Lawrence Tribe says so!
Before you argue from the Constitution, even on fundamental principles, you have to defeat the notion that the Constitution's principles aren't fluid or "living." A campaign isn't the best time for that, in my opinion. It's not a seminar.