It’s easy to take a little too much umbrage at former congressman Beto O’Rourke’s random musings about whether American constitutional principles are still relevant. O’Rourke should further explain himself, though, and those explanations may merit serious rebuttal.
O’Rourke, the Texas Democrat who made a spirited but unsuccessful run last fall for the Senate, told the Washington Post in the course of a wide-ranging interview that “the question of the moment” in America is, “Does this still work? Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships … and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?”
Modern social media tends to make too much of vaguely philosophical pronouncements politicians make in the spur of the moment, often in response to open-ended questions. It certainly is an overreaction when multiple Twitterers put out variations of the meme that O’Rourke wants to “do away with the Constitution.”
On the other hand, it is pretty standard stuff, but still wrongheaded, for so-called “progressives” to issue rather gassy platitudes belittling the supposedly antiquated and benighted values of this nation’s founding generation.
Their formula is easy: Wrongly elevate a reluctant acquiescence to slavery to a “principle” rather than what obviously was a hard-fought compromise, use it to impugn the motives and judgments of the founders more generally, throw in some tommyrot about how standards evolve to a higher moral plane, and conclude that all of the founding principles are suspect.
This progressive mantra should be challenged. Specifics should be demanded. If O’Rourke is merely saying that modern technology and American power require a recalibration of the limits we place on the commander in chief, or some other targeted reassessments, that’s rather unremarkable and unoriginal stuff. (When former Colorado Democratic Sen. Gary Hart tried to build a whole presidential campaign on those platitudes back in 1984, eventual nominee Walter Mondale effectively skewered him by asking, “Where’s the beef?”)
Yet if O’Rourke is suggesting some grander reimagining, then to which principles, pray tell, does he object? The separated but partly overlapping powers of the three branches of government? The idea that government must be limited in order that tyranny not reign? The Madisonian idea that pluralism allowing for the free rein of a multiplicity of interests is the best safeguard for liberty? Or, Lord forfend, is he doing something broader such as questioning the value of free religious expression or unregulated speech?
The latter is more of an issue on the Left than most Americans appreciate. Progressives frequently take issue with the whole notion of inherent rights that pre-exist any particular government (especially the notion that the rights come from God), rather than that rights are granted through the benevolent wisdom of the state.
This idea should, of course, be anathema. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, the best way to guard against lies and oppression is for truth, via unfettered speech, to be free to combat them.
If O’Rourke were doing more than just musing aloud — if he were actually suggesting a radical critique of founding principles — then he should say so, and be prepared to defend that critique. Many Americans surely will consider the critique to be almost the equivalent of “fighting words,” and he might find himself rather handily beaten down at the ballot box. And deservedly so.
