Can the Constitution elect a new People?

What happens when the very document that once set a people free, increasingly is waved in the faces of the population as an argument for new ideas to gain foothold in society, and a sizeable minority simply cannot grasp these new strains? “Does the constitution really say all that?”, they wonder and start to look around for wiser voices that can if possible argue against the deluge.

Under these searing fires lurks a much darker debate:

Will the next president put the People over the Constitution or the Constitution over the People?

The question becomes pertinent when you take on a historical perspective. The American Revolution culminated in words that expressed life under conditions that erupted in resistance (“Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies …”).

It was an act of human necessity that grew into bloodshed (limited, by modern standards). This makes the Declaration of Independence rooted in reality. Looking forward, the Constitution - another document grown out of reality - was struggling to create a union without unifying too tightly, lest the union would break down before it was even born.

None of the founding fathers viewed these documents as anything but words echoing the difficulties of the preceding years.

A century later the Fathers, the Documents and the wars had grown into an “American civil religion”. Politics quickly turned factional, and election became speeches and versions of reality attempting to engulf each others.

What does the Constitution say? It says: “I’ll be damned if I should live another day under British rule!”.

But apart from that? A patchwork of fine political ideas stringed together from renowned French and British authors and various other sources. Those ideas have moral appeal, and they reflect the English struggles as well centuries earlier, but around the time when the constitution was drafted, the ideas were loftier than the knee-jerk “I’ll be damned”-reaction.

The Constitution has always had a degree of idealism to it. It grew in people’s minds as the years went by.

Much energy has gone into the debate over idealism versus materialism. While this essay is unlikely to bring an end to that conflict, I shy away from those exact notions. What is materialism in the context of a discussion on ideas? “I’ll be damned if…” is as close to material as we get. Let’s use the word necessity instead. Anger necessitates. Hunger necessitates. Yearning necessitates. Think of those instances when I use the word. A simple substitution - one word for a list of very relatable human conditions.

The subtext is this:

You cannot eat ideals for supper.

But idealism then? It has almost taken a derogative turn lately. You accuse someone of having ideals rather than living in reality. So idealism is no longer synonymous with steadfastness? With being principled?

The “it’s who we are, our essence as a nation!”-crowd seems to imply a secret ingredient that defies definition but hails a promise of inherent greatness, as long as the connection to the great beyond is not severed by apostasy. This interpretation is dangerously close to a belief that we are glorified, as long as we believe in gospel. Faith shall redeem you.

The “our values makes us better people”-people maintain that the constitution awakens our better natures. We read it, rise up and driven by a force unknown, we stand up proud and take our newfound strength into the world for its benefit.

An ideal is not disconnected from reality. The ideal has its roots in a very real struggle for something material.

Then why are we disagreeing? Somehow it would appear that we ought to agree!

Perhaps the answer entails a dire warning that there is a historical force acting on the wretched of the earth.

For every subdued people it will eventually come to a point where strong individuals rise up to lead them and makes them think about their situation, and invent a solution, an idea that could show the way of out their collective misery. But that invention will by these same forces be doomed to become their law and if all goes wrong, develop into a totalitarianism knowing no boundaries between the private and public sphere.

Rhetoric - Kamala Harris

Of course, not a single candidate in the history of US presidential election would ever have dared to suggest that perhaps the needs of the people should take precedence over the “needs” of the Constitution. It just isn’t done.

The Constitution is the very blood, meaning and faith of the American people.

And of course, Democrats interprets it to mean freedom to choose what happens with the women’s body. Republicans interprets it to mean freedom to practice your religion (without any provision for killing God’s infants). This is just one example demonstrating sharply opposing views derived from the same little document.

Even Supreme Court justices will lengthily argue the proper interpretation of specific paragraphs. Then imagine the shear breadth of interpretation ordinary people can come up with.

Let the main characters enter the stage and speak frankly.

KAMALA HARRIS

Because at stake in this race are the Democratic ideals that our founders and generations of Americans before us have fought for. At stake in this election is the Constitution of the United States, it very self. We are here today because we share a core belief. That we must put country before. We are here because we share a core belief.

Appeal to a hypothetical shared ideal. “Belief” is generally difficult to handle, but here she hands it out full throttle: The core belief binds the citizens of USA together. Appeal to the US religion.

And at some point in the career of the folks who joined me on stage, one of the other things that we have in common is in our careers we have each sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Commitment to an oath is a different animal. We are bound by our words. We don’t have to like it, exalt it, sing praises to it. We have to do it. It is a necessity, but one that annuls the believer in the process. We are word keepers, and may die in the process, and the reward may be non-existing.

And this is a profound difference between Donald Trump and me. He who violated the oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and make no mistake, he who, if given the chance, will violate it again.

But did he violate his real oath, the one to the people depending on him? An oath to the constitution doesn’t trump an oath to a loved one, a family, a tribe or even a country. It is the OATH that is the binding necessity, not object of the oath.

And he refused to accept the will of the people and the results of a free and fair election. He sent a mob, an armed mob, to the United States Capitol

If anything, Trump’s problem lies here: He did accept the will of the people. His people. Those that need him, those he therefore cares about. The rest? Harder to say. He is probably rather neutral, as long as they don’t get in the way of what he wants done for the primary group.

Honestly, let that sink in. Use of the American military to go after American citizens? And we know who he would target first. Because he has targeted them and attacked them before. Journalists whose stories he doesn’t like. Nonpartisan election officials who refuse to cheat by finding extra votes for him. Judges who insist on following the law instead of following him. It is clear: Donald Trump is increasingly unstable and unhinged.

Most people know the quote referred to. It matches Trump’s earlier call for the national guard during riots in various cities to quell the disturbances. Harris extends this to a suspicion that he would employ military assistance against people for doing their job. That is uncouth.

Those riots do represent an enigma. Trump has an emotional bond with the little, hard-working American (although he is rather a megalomaniac, his devotion is usually sincere enough). In his mind those people are law abiding and well behaved. They don’t waste their precious time going to riots (but they do go to rallies). In his mind, those rioters are no-good trouble makers. The very notion that the streets could be full of working people is beyond him.

Harris refuses to understand Trump’s sentiments on the matter. Shame, since she misses out on the opportunity to understand that Trump appreciates the (his) people more than the Constitution. Which is not a bad character trait in itself.

Harris fears that he can put the constitutional checks and balances out of force.

Because anyone who tramples on our democratic values as Donald Trump has, anyone who has called for the, quote, “termination of the Constitution of the United States”, as Donald Trump has, must never again stand behind the seal of the President of the United States. Never again. Never again. Never again.

Assuming most readers are familiar with Trump’s burps. The quote (from Truth Social post, 2022) is »A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution, […] Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”«. Typical Trump thinking. But the opposition grabbed the opportunity to overlay overtones of heresy.

Trump doesn’t know when to call it quits.

Would he disable the inherent checks and balances? It’s difficult to say, I maintain. The suggestions so far entails reintroducing the spoil system, allowing the president to replace many more civil servants than what is allowed now (Committee on Oversight and Reform publishes the Plum Book detailing which positions the president is allowed to fill) opening up for the possibility of firing someone at will.

Where does Harris stand? She promises to work in a bipartisan way, gathering ideas from both Democrats and Republicans. Those ideas will be about …

[…] strengthening the middle class, securing our border, defending defending our freedoms, and maintaining our leadership in the world.

The Constitution needs a very big amendment to encompass anything about American primacy and world leadership. This is Kamala talking foreign policy to strangers.

Then she details how she experienced well-functioning bipartisan cooperation when she was on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

There we would talk about hotspots around the world and what we needed to do to focus on keeping America safe and secure. There we would talk about hotspots around the world and what we needed to do to focus on keeping America safe and secure. And to do that, we would review classified information, which required us to meet in a secure room. Adam, you know, it’ s called a skiff. Okay. When we would go in that room, with all due respect, no cameras were allowed, no press, and we would roll up our sleeves and get to work. I' m telling you. Senators. Senators of both parties would walk in that room, take off their suit jackets, roll up their sleeves, have a cup of coffee on the table, and we would have real conversations.

Reader, pay attention. Being in that room, the natural law of factional politics seemed to be suspended. It stuck with her. At the same time, she also reveals a different side of herself: She was impressed. Closed rooms are dangerous. Inadvertently we can allow ourselves to forget our consciousness outside. Did the people enter the room? Or was it only the American leadership that was allowed? How proactively was she keeping the country safe? Or was she seduced by the dark side of American hegemony?

Principles will ultimately fail to protect a good man or woman. They fall prey to skilled argument.

Devotion is harder to browbeat. It is irrational from the outset, rendering its host immune to reason.

Trump is rumoured to be unintelligent. Perhaps that was his saving grace in a country where power corrupts.

Kamala invokes the Constitution (a practical document detailing a political compromise palatable enough to be ratified) as a guiding light. Then she moves on to explain what that actually means (less surprising, if we imagine she pointed instead to the charter of the Second Bank of the United States, or any other document detailing division of powers).

So as I have said, our campaign is not a fight against something. It is a fight for something. It is a fight for the fundamental principles upon which we were founded.

It is a fight for a new generation of leadership that is optimistic about what we can achieve together. Republicans, Democrats, and independents who want to move past the politics of division and blame, naming, and get things done on behalf of the American people.

She definitely means it. I believe she is sincere. But I also believe she can at any moment walk into a room and loose touch of her roots and accept a bipartisan compromise, that in the end probably has only limited relevance to her own people.

She is on the team of people architecting the entire world.

Imperfect though we may be, America is our home. And America is still that shining city upon a hill that inspires people around the world. And I do believe it is one of the highest forms of patriotism to fight for the ideals of our country.

Even Biden at this point in his speeches have focused on unions, raising the minimum wage and other benign peacetime matters.

Rhetoric - Donald Trump

Trump is a lot easier to summarise: He ridicules his opponents, he brags about his accomplishments, he pours on lavishly with scorn for some and praise for others.

The worst areas. We just left one, as you know. And I met some of the greatest people. But they just set a record for votes cast thus far, and their homes are gone. I mean, it’ s — it’ s an amazing — it’ s an amazing thing. I figured maybe you’ d get 50 percent. And these are — they call it Trump countries. And I’ m very honored by that. But these are Trump people. And just think of that. Their homes are gone. They’ve gone through such hell.

He never talks of American primacy. If asked, it would be something utterly unnecessary given that Americans are already the greatest people imaginable. He knows them all, that’s why.

When he looks at Ukraine, he does not see liberal freedoms pounded by a despot. That honour belongs to Democratic elite. He sees good people shattered by bombs on both sides and beautiful buildings crumbling.

They have apartment houses that are really — they’ re like three blocks, city blocks long. Not that tall, but pretty tall. And they are big. And they knock it down with a missile. And they say two people were slightly injured. You know, a lot of people — the number of people dying in the Ukraine-Russia war is a far greater number than anybody knows. And Biden has done nothing about it. He hasn' t even spoken to Putin in over a year. No. No, nothing about it. And this is a war that has to end, and we’ re going to get that war ended. I’ m going to try and I think I can get it ended as president-elect — in other words, before I even take over the White House. Got to stop the people from dying. They said to me, ' Well, whose side are you on?'

[…] I said, ’ It’ s not a question of sides.’ I want people to stop dying. That’ s all. I want people to stop dying. And you know, it was a very interesting thing. Because it was a CNN. […] But they had all people in there from CNN. Within the first five minutes, they were totally on my side because it' s common sense. And we’ re now the party of common sense. I say it.

The problem with Trump is of course his dangerous side, and he plays it fully in a negotiation situation.

The lack of predictability paired with his keen sense of favourable waters mean you can’t know who he will turn on next.

This is what you get with a guy who understands bricks and people, but not ideas. Fewer nukes, more fisticuffs.

Speaking at the 11th Hour Faith Leaders he suddenly accelerates his speech near the end, and the crowd ecstatically cheers on.

On day one, I will sign an executive order banning schools from promoting critical race theory or transgender insanity. I will take historic action to defeat the toxic poison of gender ideology and reaffirm that God created two genders — male and female. I will keep men out of women’ s sports. I will sign a law banning child sexual mutilation in all 50 states. Won’ t happen anymore. And we will proudly say, ’ Merry Christmas’ again.

To non-christians, he certainly is “the antichrist”.

He doesn’t read theory and philosophy. Then again, neither does Harris.

On day one, I will stop the migrant invasion. We will begin the largest deportation operation in the history of our country. I will end inflation, and we will make America affordable again.

The same foreboding feeling of a storm coming. The Democrats tap into that eerie feeling with all their might. What the future in reality holds is harder to say.

Do note that the crowd is cheering. America is ripe with conflict. Trump is the tallest man carrying those mumbling voices to town. But he is far from the only one.

I will end the war in Ukraine, stop the chaos in the Middle East, and prevent World War Three.

America has become dangerous to the world.

I will crush violent crime and give our police the support, protection, resources, and respect they so dearly deserve.

America has become dangerous to itself. And the Constitutional faith is at the core of this conflict. The Constitution IS the United States of America.

If the People cannot understand that, it is time for the Constitution to elect a new People.

•P•A•R•A•D•O•X•