You Can't Hate Government and Love the Constitution
It's probably a fool's errand to make attempts at parsing the paranoid, hysterical rhetoric that's been flying around in the healthcare debate, but that's never stopped me before. So, I'm watching the fun on C-SPAN this afternoon. Listening to some of the "against" calls, I noticed something that I probably should have noticed before, which is this: The bizarre dichotomy of professing your undying love for the Constitution, while breathlessly spewing venom at the fundamental evil of the government.
Folks, I have to tell you that I love you very much for your dogged support of the Constitution. I'm with you. I believe that it's been a net positive for humanity despite its flaws, which in many cases have been adjusted over the years in a manner that, I would contend, has been largely for the better. Through our history, we've righted some serious wrongs by broadening and deepening our commitment to the ideas that are embedded in that oft referred to document. And we may yet have some way to go in that respect.
However, it should be noted that the one thing the Constitution does, first and foremost, is establish a government. I must say that the people who cling tenaciously to the Constitution while hurling invective at the very institution that the document creates have perhaps missed the point.
Don't get me wrong. It's perfectly valid to criticize that institution and its operations. Not only is it valid, but it's necessary for the health of the system in my opinion. However, that's a debate that acknowledges the question of whether or not to have a government at all as settled. We can disagree with specific things that the government does, but that's different than attacking the very notion of government itself.
Now, you could be a bona fide anti-statist. Hey, that's fine. You're entitled to that point of view. However, you can't be an anti-statist and claim allegiance to the Constitution at the same time. It's fundamentally nonsenscial. The Constitution establishes a state government. If you really believe that the state is fundamentally evil, then the Constitution is the bane of your existence.
And this goes for people who make silly claims like it's un-Constitutional to pass a healthcare reform bill. If you're referring to the Constitution that I know and love, then you know that Article I gets the party started by establishing a legislative body and describing how that body will be selected and proceed. Well, that body is using the power vested in it by Article I to pass law. Again, you could be somebody who fundamentally disagrees with this scenario or the power of legislators to legislate, but their doing so is anything but un-Constitutional.
And lest we think that the people who make this argument are just random callers into C-SPAN, I listened to a Republican member of the House again invoke the notion that a healthcare reform bill is un-Constitutional as I typed that last paragraph.
In closing, I would go one further and put it that fundamental hatred of the government is un-American. America is nothing if not a state. Again, you're perfectly entitled to hold the idea of state in question, but debating how that state should function and whether or not there should even be a state are different things. I'm fine with having both debates, but it's either terribly erroneous or perhaps even disingenuous to confuse the two. And that confusion seems to underline a sense of alienation from government rather than ownership of it.
---
Cross-posted @ dagblog.com, where the snozzberries taste like snozzberries
Hello, DF! Well done! :-)
November 7, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I might add that all our reps have taken OATHS TO THE CONSTITUTION! That kinda rules out "anti-statists" right there!
Which truly asks a horrible question: Do these folks really realize what they've sworn allegiance to?
November 7, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I recall from an old show called Miller's Court, the main feature of our government that is not in the constitution is the predominance of the two-party system, and the existence of parties at all.
November 7, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could argue that it is in that it's a consequence of the election system that the Constitution implements, though this isn't the same as an explicit mandate for two parties.
November 7, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be trying to tell ME what I can and cannot hate.
I got the FREEDOMS, buddy.
And I'm a world-class hater. Hate government? EASY. I'm into, through and done with that by breakfast.
You gonna REASON me out of hating?
November 7, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hate away. It's a free country, right? But if you wanna smash the state while you wave the Constitution, I'm probably just gonna scratch my head and move along.
November 7, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks DF, you have brought an oxymoron to justice.
This cognitive dissonance was the essential element of the Reagan meme that we should be terrified when the Government comes to your door and says: "We are here to help."
Reagan wasn't selling the idea of a purely Libertarian playing field where government is excluded as much as possible from the affairs of men; He was saying that that the benefits and services we have become accustomed to as a result of government efforts to improve the life of the public can be replaced by permitting the invisible hand of free enterprise to be released from bondage. As M. Antoinette could have said, "you can have your cake and eat it too."
What strikes me most sharply about this development on the right is that the logic becomes a politic of declaring the end of politics. No wonder that the agenda can only generate forms of resistance. The Republic can only survive if the public is forever unable to provide for the public.
November 7, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arguments that it is not the function of government to provide a system for medical care went out the window in '65 or so.
But I have learned something since then.
Just because a question seems to be settled, does not mean that its settled.
Warren Burger used to travel all over the country and state unequivocally that there were no Second Amendment rights. None...
It was settled law, and stated so clearly in the Constitution that once a treaty is ratified with the Advice & Consent of the Senate, it is the law of the land.
Yoo and Bybee and others have assaulted that very clear sentence in our Constitution.
FIGHT THEM EVERY TIME THEY MAKE A STATEMENT LIKE THIS. EVERY FRICKIN TIME. GIVE THEM NO SLACK.
Just do not let the statement go by because it sounds so shallow, so undocumented.
November 7, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've watched show after show Dick and I could never participate in one of them. The very next second after one of these charlatans tosses out another bucket load of manure I would be in their face. This would happen as carelessly as we flick on a light switch when we walk into a darkened room. Except the light would be from the fireworks going off. You know how sometimes we see a physical confrontation? That would be me. And the intent would be to inflict great bodily harm. I do not do defense.
November 8, 2009 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, does this not support republican party efforts to destroy itself? That is, without government a political ideology is of no consequence. Of course, removing one means removing both and logically then, any moral equivalence which flows from either. And is this not perchance where we appear to be headed? That is, a society sans morality.
November 8, 2009 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spot on, DF. Add this one to the list of self-evident truths. And remember, we ARE the government.
-- ARG
November 8, 2009 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's actually somewhat worse than what DF describes, because the most rabid "conservatives" claim to "love America" while simultaneously hating most of the people who live here.
So they "love America" while hating its government and most of its voters? What they profess to "love" is not the actual country that exists today, or that existed in the past, but their idea of that country.
November 8, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant analysis!
November 8, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, the country they love so much is like water under a bridge - only there for a moment in time, never to be seen again.
November 8, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The other anti-government gripe seems to me to revolve around the ubiquitous assertion that 'They' are driving God out of the Public Sphere and other Christianist religious axioms. This is not just seen at the Tea Parties, but on the floors of Congress and constantly in letters-to-the-editor. This is the reason that the Stupack Amendment (which widely restricts abortion nationally) to the House health care reform bill enjoyed such wide support.
I think that they mistrust government that doesn't serve THEIR beliefs, but love it as long as it does.
November 8, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting isn't it that their concept of 'freedom' is only about what they believe in, not what others may believe that counters their beliefs.
November 8, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also started thinking about how Libertarians, et.al. think of Judges, especially at the highest levels. If a decision, ostensibly based on our Constitution, does not agree with their credo or desire, then the Judges are "activist." They don't mind so much when the Scalias and Thomases rule in ways that cause OUR jaws to drop, and our fists clench, yes?
November 8, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have always thought it was odd to have a political party whose main talking point was how horrible government is, "Government IS the problem" to actually be in charge of the government. It is absolutely necessary for government to be a failure for their ideology to succeed.
That's about like having a vegan for your butcher.
Since their viability is dependent on an ignorant electorate, it makes sense that they would oppose a strong education system in this country. Poor, dumb, and disillusioned is the only people they can "govern".
Best quote of the weekend
GOP stands for "Grandstand, Oppose, Pretend"
Rep Miller
November 8, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the Republican platform can be summarized as follows:
Government is incompetent; elect us, and we'll prove it!
-- ARG
November 8, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF, I've seen the argument before where a republican states they're all for 'freedom' but the second you say something that's not framed in conservative values they hold dear, your freedom is curtailed simply because you just infringed on their "freedom'. They missed the lesson where the rest of us learned freedom is in the eye of the beholder and honest debate is the tool to use to come to a compromise and move forward.
November 8, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The philosophy of limited government and strict construction are not anti-government per se. The conservative philosophy can be articulated and defended without being batshit. That doesn't happen anymore, and here is why (IMHO):
Limited government has given way to a new type of big government philosophy that can not be articulated lest it lose its base of adherent. This philosophy is corporate feudalism. Our constiutionally mandated governing bodies are now wholly subservient to a junta of businesses that are the actual de facto government. These businesses are immune to democracy... Their voting bloc is limited to shareholders. The only activities that they have to regularly engage in is voter suppression and lobbying.
So, yes you can be anti-government and pro-constitution. You just have to be anti FEDERAL government and pro corporate management. Then you realize that they are merely courtesans for the new aristocracy whose goal is to manage the unruly behavior of the nation's serfs.
November 8, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just LOVE this post. Thank you, and rec'd.
November 8, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Constitution was written as a "foundation" for the formulation of a nation. It is not nor will it ever be perfect...Our founders realized that and made it amendable, if that necessity arose.
Administration after administration has interpreted (or bent and twisted)the Constitution to suit the political powers and circumstances of a particular era. The interpretations of the Constitution undergo constant metamorphose and litigation. As the judicial system is as politicized as every other branch of our government (while polarization festers)our democracy becomes weaker.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross!"
November 8, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great stuff. The amazing thing about the Right is a total lack of cognitive dissonance. Either they don't notice their contradicting beliefs or they don't care. If they don't notice, then dialogue is the answer. If they don't care, then they probably need therapy.
November 8, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink