Comments on: The US Constitution as a Centrist Manifesto

By: nicrivera

nicrivera — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:41:20 +0000

The thing is, both Democrats and Republicans have drifted further and further from the Constitution over the last–what–40–60–80 years. If the Constitution is truly to be the platform of the Centrist Movement, that would require centrists to make some changes to some of our current policies and laws–changes that might even seem . . . radical.

There are some issue in which Democrats and Republicans are so far from the Constitution and basic common sense, that simply chosing the policy midway between the two simply won’t do (should we give nonviolent drug offenders 10 years of prison time or 20? Ah, let’s just give them 15).

For us to truly get back on track, it’s going to require some of those “Radical Moderates” that I’ve heard so much about. Because being a centrist/moderate should be about suggesting policies not being promoted by either of the two major parties.

By: Paul in Austin

Paul in Austin — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 19:22:33 +0000

It seems to me that the Constitution and our laws have adapted pretty well over 200 years.

Which was my point. To collaborate on solutions that adapt and endure while promoting their central purpose.

By: SurgeJack

SurgeJack — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:10:39 +0000

Manifestos are not moderate things. They represent sticking to a specific spirit and model. They hold to, in spite of a changing world, many convictions radically, so that even when conditions change, the binding elements of the manifesto do not.

By: C.Prez

C.Prez — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:53:34 +0000

I agree with C on this one. It is the ability to compromise and show moderation. I doubt I need to expand more. A side note, it seems Andrew got offended w/ the use of “centrism”…that made me laugh a little bit.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:00:48 +0000

Andrew,
Agreed, but I was using “moderation” in the sense of the most common definition that I see by commenters and bloggers here, in effect, the ability to compromise.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:54:00 +0000

I think you are mostly right, CS. But I think “moderation” is as wrong as “centrism” with regard to the Constitution. “Compromise” is the correct word, indeed, but I think it has very little to do with the other two.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:44:25 +0000

I thought you did a good job of expressing your thoughts on this, Paul, but maybe “moderation” would have been more accurate than “centrism”. I do think that the framers used the principle of moderate politics to forge a compromise between extremes and in many cases they attempted to give equal weight to both sides of the argument. But that isn’t the same thing as centrism; they weren’t trying to ensure that the middle ground was the one that would be taken in governance, they were just creating a system that would allow each side to stake out their positions. In fact the federalist model that they chose was meant to allow extremists to have their way according to the will of the people within each state, so that views of other regions wouldn’t usurp or water down the extremes. Much of that has been lost though because there is now much more centralized power in the federal government (to some degree this is inevitable due to our superpower status in global affairs, and to some degree it is a result of the FDR legacy of using federal power to solve problems of equity in society.) And, in some cases (slavery being the obvious example), it was good that there were checks placed on state’s rights.

By: Jon H

Jon H — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:34:43 +0000

I’m sorry, but as much as we would like to think that the Constitution was created for the benefit of everyone, it was not. The Constitution was created by the powerful for the powerful. The only reason that they gave the vote to the common people was that they knew that in order for the Constitution to be ratified, it would have to have the support of the people. There would be no chance of it passing if the people didn’t support it. And as it was, it almost was not ratified. It wasn’t until a compromise was made that they virtually promised to add the Bill of Rights upon ratification. 12 Ammendments made it to the states, and 10 of those became the Bill of Rights.

In the Constitution, the people were given direct election of the House of Representatives. Thats it. The Constitution still reads this way. The Senate was appointed by the state governments, the President was made to be elected by the electoral college, which it still is, and judges are appointed. Since members of the House are up for election every two years, and that the Senate must agree to any legislation passed in the House, just how powerful do you think those early Houses were? Especially considering that in almost no places were the voting records secret. In some cases people voted via voice at a town meeting.

In addition to that, the Constitution made slavery legal and garaunteed that it would remain legal in the US for 20 years. Yes, those words still appear in the Constitution.

The Constitution was hardly a shining poster child for the ideals of “all men are created equal.” It was made to keep those who were already powerful, more powerful, while giving the common man just enough to make them happy.

By: Paul in Austin

Paul in Austin — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:50:38 +0000

So Andrew, educate us.
How was the Constitution written if not a grueling process of compromise, collaboration, ingenuity, to reconcile opposing views?

It is only moderate in that it was a compromise among radicals with different views, and on the whole, it is an extremely radical document.

Doesn’t this describe what would be involved in resolving Social Security, Tax reform, Energy, Foreign Affairs…

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 05:50:30 +0000

It is only moderate in that it was a compromise among radicals with different views, and on the whole, it is an extremely radical document.

There is nothing “centrist” or “moderate” about it.

Calling the Constitution a centrist document shows a complete lack of understanding of its history.