Jim Meyer's Borderlands: Constitutional Fundamentalists
Constitutional Fundamentalists
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Elena Kagan formally became a Supreme Court Justice this past week. As is the case with just about any nominee from a Democratic president, Kagan's critics in the Senate tended to voice doubts about her dedication to following the "original intent" of the founding fathers.
Fundamentalism occurs in a number of contexts, and is not only seen among (a minuscule percentage of) Muslims. Christian fundamentalists have been a growing part of American culture for all of my life, and it was a fundamentalist Jew that assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995.
In the United States, a fundamentalist perspective has long since taken hold among many people's attitudes towards the Constitution. Just like the leaders of the Taliban profess to idealize the time of the prophet and seek to recreate the seventh century in the present day, so-called "strict constructionists" and other right-wing types idealize the time of the founding fathers and fetishize our polity's most sacred text, the Constitution.
Any obsession can become unhealthy, even if it feels good
To tea partiers and other Constitutional fundamentalists in the United States, the most perfect political era of this country existed more than 200 years ago. Just about every innovation that has been brought in since then seems to them like a deviation from this perfection. For them, the best way of "protecting the core founding principles " of the US is to insist upon maintaining a political culture that they think is consistent with that of the founding era. This is a fundamentalist approach to governing that would make perfect sense to Taliban figures demanding that Muslim societies return to the "core founding principles" of the time of the prophet Muhammad.
No they're not the dudes from High Times. Tea partiers taking us back to the golden age of funny costumes and fiscally conservative Native Americans
What does the strength of this type of fundamentalism say about our society more generally these days? It's an expression of fear. The conservative ayatollahs in the Senate will do all they can to bring back this brand of fundamentalist fear if they gain a majority in the Senate next month. But meanwhile, the plutocrats who stand to profit from the fetishized fantasies that our tea party fundamentalists advocate will be laughing all the way to the bank.
10/11/2010 9:50 AM
Bulent Murtezaoglu wrote: Well, it could also be argued that the process of adding what people now (as in New Deal onwards) expect the Federal Government to do to the enumerated powers in the constitution would have produced a healthier system and society.
I've been away from the US for a long enough time so I cannot gauge what kind of underlying sentiment the Tea Party movement is representing the extreme end of, but if people truly dislike what they see in those demonstrations it should be noted that having the actual text of the constitution on their side would have given teeth to their disapproval.
I do think actually going through the pain of changing the constitution, especially given how hard it is, would have helped the societycome to grips with the reality of its needs in a way SCOTUS decisions do not.
I do realize you are talking about fundamentalism concerning 'ideas' and not the actual text but the point stands. The use of the term 'fundamentalism' is apt, though, in its full connotations. Much the like way you cannot infer the existing religious practice from the scriptures, you cannot infer anything like the from and function of the present gov't from the constitution. People cannot rewrite scriptures though, while constitutions can be amended. I'd at least like to see some acknowledgment that that path is deliberately not taken. Reply to this
10/11/2010 11:38 AM
Jim wrote: True, good point, Bulent. However, the ways that people can interpret scripture can change, too....
As for constitutions, I'm of course not advocating that we simply start reading whatever we want into them. But there is a fetishization of the document, at least in this country. There is also a widespread belief that it is necessary to follow what some people consider the "original intentions" of the founding fathers. I was trying to get at what I consider the peculiarity of such a position, at this exaltation of the late 18th century at the expense of dealing with issues in a more coherent fashion today.
Mostly, I find various examples of this "fundamentalist" approach to reading (government or religious) texts interesting--and I guess I saw this line of reasoning as a way of shaking things up a bit for students of mine (and other readers of this blog) who might consider "fundamentalist Islam" as something that could have no possible parallel in a "modern" country like the United States. Reply to this
Well, it could also be argued that the process of adding what people now (as in New Deal onwards) expect the Federal Government to do to the enumerated powers in the constitution would have produced a healthier system and society.
I've been away from the US for a long enough time so I cannot gauge what kind of underlying sentiment the Tea Party movement is representing the extreme end of, but if people truly dislike what they see in those demonstrations it should be noted that having the actual text of the constitution on their side would have given teeth to their disapproval.
I do think actually going through the pain of changing the constitution, especially given how hard it is, would have helped the societycome to grips with the reality of its needs in a way SCOTUS decisions do not.
I do realize you are talking about fundamentalism concerning 'ideas' and not the actual text but the point stands. The use of the term 'fundamentalism' is apt, though, in its full connotations. Much the like way you cannot infer the existing religious practice from the scriptures, you cannot infer anything like the from and function of the present gov't from the constitution. People cannot rewrite scriptures though, while constitutions can be amended. I'd at least like to see some acknowledgment that that path is deliberately not taken.
Reply to this
True, good point, Bulent. However, the ways that people can interpret scripture can change, too....
As for constitutions, I'm of course not advocating that we simply start reading whatever we want into them. But there is a fetishization of the document, at least in this country. There is also a widespread belief that it is necessary to follow what some people consider the "original intentions" of the founding fathers. I was trying to get at what I consider the peculiarity of such a position, at this exaltation of the late 18th century at the expense of dealing with issues in a more coherent fashion today.
Mostly, I find various examples of this "fundamentalist" approach to reading (government or religious) texts interesting--and I guess I saw this line of reasoning as a way of shaking things up a bit for students of mine (and other readers of this blog) who might consider "fundamentalist Islam" as something that could have no possible parallel in a "modern" country like the United States.
Reply to this