Understanding the Constitution #7: It is Not Designed to Unify Us
The current flare-up between President Trump and four liberal Democratic Congresswomen is the latest example of a divided America. For a nation already wearied by arguments over immigration, race, health care, abortion, and other issues, most Americans wish for calmer times.
Candidates for high office routinely promise just that - to unify America. We recall, wistfully, a more peaceful political environment of earlier days. We hearken back to the founding period, where our historical memory tells us the Constitution brought thirteen states into a "more perfect union."
While a comforting past, it's a myth. The end of the eighteenth century was arguably more tumultuous than today. Factions battled over whether to go to war with England (again) or France. Newspapers run by politicians ran scurrilous screeds with little concern for factual accuracy. Congress passed laws to deport non-citizens considered a threat and jail anyone who criticized the government. Greater unity is a laudable goal, but divisions in America have always existed. They always will. The framers of the Constitution knew this. Their goal was not a perfect union but a "more perfect" one. The Constitution's contribution was not unity but a mechanism to manage our divisions.
The founders understood human nature. James Madison, in Federalist #10, said people in a free society will always form groups to serve self-interests: "A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points . . . an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power . . . have . . . divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good."
The Constitution deals with this not by squelching freedom (the totalitarian way to "unify") but by providing a way to disagree without violence. It contains anger by channeling it into the political process. By dividing power between the federal and state governments and within the former among three branches, it prevents the concentration of authority that historically has led to despotism. By electing Congress from hundreds of districts, it makes domination by a few impossible. Ideas of the four Congresswomen that concern some would have to gain widespread support before they lead anywhere. The Constitution's amendments process provides a "relief valve" for social tensions, enabling changes that recognize evolving notions of justice. The Constitution thus substitutes political weapons for real ones with its rules for our organized game of social conflict.
President Trump's call for these members of Congress "who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe" to "go back" is as unnecessary as it is repugnant. All are citizens. All were elected to represent their constituents. Expressing their views is their Constitutional duty. The president's version of "love it or leave it" misunderstands American history and the Constitution. The solution for those who disagree with these Congresswomen is to engage them on the substance of their ideas not to demean their right to offer them - and certainly not to chant "send her back." The Constitution values differences, even if the president does not. The Constitution trusts that its mechanism for managing disagreement will work. We should trust it too. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once put it, "America has believed that in differentiation, not in uniformity, lies the path of progress. It acted on this belief; it has advanced human happiness, and it has prospered."
Understandably, the president wants people to be confident in his leadership. That is not the goal of America. Jefferson reminded us of this: "It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights; that confidence is every where the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected the president's "comments meant to divide our nation." "Our diversity is our strength and our unity is our power," she added. Such calls for unity may comfort, but she should ask for more. She should speak not only to the president but to all Americans, reminding them of their responsibility to engage each other with argument not invective, with grace not just grit. She should recall for them that the Constitution was not meant to create political harmony but to manage political disharmony. She might also remind us what John Adams said:“A constitution is a standard, a pillar, and a bond when it is understood, approved, and beloved. But without this intelligence and attachment, it might as well be a kite or balloon flying in the air.”
Photo Credit: Halvorsong
