The Framers’ View
I just saw Eric Holder, the ex-Attorney General under Barack Obama, responding to a question about all of the Donald Trump indictments and pending legal actions. That is the sort of question that is being asked of many many people these days, whether they are ex-government officials or just cable news pundits. One of the things that we have all been thinking about for the past six or seven years is the manner in which we are all interpreting the US Constitution. This comes up in the context of these legal issues facing Donald Trump. They come up in the impeachment process whether of Donald Trump or potentially Joe Biden. And they even come up on an almost daily basis regarding issues before the Supreme Court. A couple of years ago, Kim and I went to go see a Broadway show called What the Constitution Means to Me by Heidi Schreck. The show was based on Schrek’s young life competing in VFW and Rotary Club oratory contests while she was trying to gather up enough money to go to college. She created a formula about thinking through what the Constitution means to her as an individual and turned it into a one woman show that made it all the way to Broadway. It was an interesting show, made all the more interesting by the fact that sitting directly behind me was Senator Chuck Schumer, who I had met on several occasions, and with whom I shared a few witticisms during the intermission of the show. But the fact remains that a lot of the issues revolving around the current state of our democracy in America rests squarely on our interpretation of the US Constitution, and specifically on what the framers of the constitution had in mind when they drafted this famous document. One of the things that Eric Holder said in this interview that I was watching was that he thought such and such about what the framers would have thought if they were alive today to see how Donald Trump was comporting himself as an ex-president.
That got me thinking. It is very interesting to conjecture about how the framers of the constitution would perceive Donald Trump, and his various shenanigans in this day and age. But, I think it is far more interesting to wonder about what those same forefathers of this country would think if they saw where the United States has come after 250 years since they helped found the nation. in fact, it would be pretty mind-blowing to imagine what those forefathers would think about the size, the importance, and indeed the historical path taken by our country. It actually makes me wonder what they would be most amazed by. Would they be amazed at how powerful we had become as a nation? Would they be interested to see how their own words were being interpreted, and the impact that those words had on the course of history? And in the grand scheme of things would they be more surprised that we had lasted this long and prospered so much versus any disappointment that they might have in any of our missteps or the current state of our democratic process. I think the fullness of that thought process and conjecture would lead to a very different sense than perhaps Eric Holder was getting at when he suggested that the framers would be so surprised at the actions of Donald Trump. My guess is that they might find that they were surprised by how long it took for a Donald Trump to the surface and rise to the position of president of the United States, given what I suspect was there fairly comprehensive view of human nature.
I understand that that line of thinking sounds cynical, and perhaps even denigrates the human spirit, but everything I see in the world today makes me believe that our limitations are far more about what defines us in our human condition than they are about any physical or celestial limitations we may have. At its core, the human race is pretty damn venal and petty, or at least half of it is. I do not intend that to mean that half of the people on earth are all bad and half are all good. I am much more prone to think that, as both testaments noted quite often, we are all sinners to some degree. But the degree certainly seems to matter.
Conservatives always like to point out the flaws of the liberal elite, as they like to \call us. I saw today an article in the Atlantic that talks about wealthy suburbs like Scarsdale, New York, which is one of the bastions of liberal suburban ideology. What the article noted was that Scarsdale’s zoning laws make it so that a more heterogenous and economically diverse population simply cannot get a foothold in Scarsdale and therefore likely congregates in places like the nearby and far less posh town of Portchester. It is this sort of phenomenon that causes the Governors of Texas and Florida to pull stunts like shipping recently arrived and generally impoverished immigrants off to places like Martha’s Vineyard. The rhetorical question being posed to those liberal residents beset by busloads of immigrants is “how do you like it when they are in YOUR backyard?” And even when the townsfolk come to the aid of the immigrants and give them shelter and assistance, the rejoinder is about whether that is one-off kindness or for-show kindness, and not reflective of a true willingness to have real side-by-side equality.
I think about my own choices in that regard quite a bit. I live in the Garden of Eden on a hilltop that, by definition, is somewhat isolated. I can do so because I am a product of privilege and got my liberal education and worked successfully at a remote distance from the grit of life. But wait a minute, that is not entirely true. I may have had a spoon in my mouth, but it was by no means silver. I am a second-generation American who’s mother bootstrapped her education and spent her life in service to the world’s poor. It gave her a middle class living and it gave me a subsidized education, but it was far less privileged than many lives I encounter. I could live in a far wealthier suburb or behind a gated wall, but very specifically choose not to on philosophical grounds. I have found and made my own Garden of Eden and live in a home that , while above average nationally in value, is not so different in value from those of my siblings or Kim’s siblings and generally much less valuable than my professional peers. Those are not matters of pride, but they are matters of conscience. I also share my good fortune because I know that is what it is and that too defines my liberal mentality, not thinking that I earned or deserve what I have.
In my friend Bob Frank’s book, The Darwin Economy, he talks of his friend who he worked with during his Peace Corps stint in Nepal. He points out that the biggest privilege that he, Bob, enjoyed versus his Nepali counterpart, was where he was born and under what circumstance he was raised. To him, all other bases for privilege pale by comparison to that seminal reality. In 1787, one might suggest that the framers of our Constitution were white men of privilege who grew up with aristocratic roots from England. But they were so much more. They were men who were displaced from their privileged life by circumstance or choice. They were starting anew and abandoning the old. That especially sets them apart. They were embracing their new reality and trying to improve on the old systems. “We the People” was not a natural outgrowth of privilege, but a choice to improve upon their perceived unjust situation. The framers were rightfully unique interpreters of justice and enlightened men deserving of respect for their foresight. That humility would make them proud to see where we have come and it would make them well aware of the need to continue the evolution which made them act as they did to set a course for a better place. There is no doubt in my mind that they would take the Trump phenomena in stride, but say that it must be quashed and punished. And as they looked around to see how far we the people have come, they would have been encouraged that we could raise our sights and move on to an even better place.