This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/04/mark-levin-originalist-fantasy
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| 1776 and all that: the mysterious appeal of Mark Levin's originalist fantasy | 1776 and all that: the mysterious appeal of Mark Levin's originalist fantasy |
| (7 days later) | |
| Mark Levin's bestselling book, The Liberty Amendments, contains some radical notions about a complete overhaul of the US constitution, but to debate the specifics of their merits is to ignore the larger insanity of the project. | |
| He proposes 11 amendments, intended to be affixed more or less immediately (well, as soon as can be achieved), and the number alone is – ahem – audaciously hopeful. Remember, since 1789, the constitution has only been amended 27 times; ten of those amendments were accomplished when passed as a group with the adoption of the bill of rights. There have been over 11,000 proposed amendments. A simple assessment of odds puts any one amendment at about a 0.2% chance of getting passed. The chances of all 11 getting passed is beyond my limited recall of high school mathematics. Then again, in the fantasy world where one of Levin's amendments gets ratified, all of them have 100% chance. | |
| In the real world, almost no one believes conservatives could accomplish what Levin has put forward. He begins the book with a blustery denouncement of the current administration familiar to anyone who's surfed over the AM radio spectrum in recent years. And give Levin credit: his rhetorical style has the ornate filigree of a 19th century lawyer – all embedded clauses and rat-a-tat 50-cent words: | In the real world, almost no one believes conservatives could accomplish what Levin has put forward. He begins the book with a blustery denouncement of the current administration familiar to anyone who's surfed over the AM radio spectrum in recent years. And give Levin credit: his rhetorical style has the ornate filigree of a 19th century lawyer – all embedded clauses and rat-a-tat 50-cent words: |
| Social engineering and central planning are imposed without end, since the governing masterminds, drunk with their own conceit and pomposity, have wild imaginations and infinite ideas for reshaping society and molding man's nature in search of the ever-elusive utopian paradise. | Social engineering and central planning are imposed without end, since the governing masterminds, drunk with their own conceit and pomposity, have wild imaginations and infinite ideas for reshaping society and molding man's nature in search of the ever-elusive utopian paradise. |
| Levin channels his silken outrage into a generous read of the constitution's article V, which he describes as a mechanism for "restoring self-government and averting societal catastrophe (or, in the case of societal collapse, resurrecting the civil society)". The parenthetical aside is telling: he means to impress upon readers – ahem, again – "the fierce urgency of now". With the alarm bells ringing so loudly, we hardly notice the improbability of actually using article V, which theoretically allows state legislatures to directly propose constitutional amendments – amendments that would not be filtered through Congress. (Congress is part of the problem, of course: it "operates not as the framers intended, but in the shadows.") | Levin channels his silken outrage into a generous read of the constitution's article V, which he describes as a mechanism for "restoring self-government and averting societal catastrophe (or, in the case of societal collapse, resurrecting the civil society)". The parenthetical aside is telling: he means to impress upon readers – ahem, again – "the fierce urgency of now". With the alarm bells ringing so loudly, we hardly notice the improbability of actually using article V, which theoretically allows state legislatures to directly propose constitutional amendments – amendments that would not be filtered through Congress. (Congress is part of the problem, of course: it "operates not as the framers intended, but in the shadows.") |
| State legislatures, as Levin fully knows, have become increasingly conservative over recent years – due to the older, whiter, smaller electorate that turns out in off-year contests. If any layer of our government is likely to approve of the amendments Levin puts forward, it's them. Indeed, as he points out, many states already have adopted, for instance, terms limits and balanced budget provisions in their constitutions. | State legislatures, as Levin fully knows, have become increasingly conservative over recent years – due to the older, whiter, smaller electorate that turns out in off-year contests. If any layer of our government is likely to approve of the amendments Levin puts forward, it's them. Indeed, as he points out, many states already have adopted, for instance, terms limits and balanced budget provisions in their constitutions. |
| Levin's complaints and his ideas about how to solve them have the perfect structure of a luminous Mobius strip: if you believe his indictments, then you'll believe his solutions. But once you leave his twilit logic, the structure crumbles. Phyllis Schlafly, who plays on the same ideological team as Levin, wrote a response to his article V plan that could be summed up as "LOL": Levin and his supporters are "fooling themselves" if they believe an article V convention can achieve their goals. They can "hope and predict, but they cannot assure us that any of their plans will come true …The whole process is a prescription for political chaos, controversy and confrontation." | Levin's complaints and his ideas about how to solve them have the perfect structure of a luminous Mobius strip: if you believe his indictments, then you'll believe his solutions. But once you leave his twilit logic, the structure crumbles. Phyllis Schlafly, who plays on the same ideological team as Levin, wrote a response to his article V plan that could be summed up as "LOL": Levin and his supporters are "fooling themselves" if they believe an article V convention can achieve their goals. They can "hope and predict, but they cannot assure us that any of their plans will come true …The whole process is a prescription for political chaos, controversy and confrontation." |
| It's no wonder that many conservatives have chosen to believe anyway. Levin's fantasy world is elaborate and specific: he presents his amendments as necessary to recapture the intent of the founders, even as the very proposal of so many "reforms" goes against the founders' explicit design of a constitution that is very difficult change. The meat of his proposals would be, I think, just as unpalatable to their view of the constitution as a broad outline for governance, one more inclined to negative than positive prescriptions. One fellow conservative noted that Levin seems less interested in reforming a corroded document than "tinkering" with it. | It's no wonder that many conservatives have chosen to believe anyway. Levin's fantasy world is elaborate and specific: he presents his amendments as necessary to recapture the intent of the founders, even as the very proposal of so many "reforms" goes against the founders' explicit design of a constitution that is very difficult change. The meat of his proposals would be, I think, just as unpalatable to their view of the constitution as a broad outline for governance, one more inclined to negative than positive prescriptions. One fellow conservative noted that Levin seems less interested in reforming a corroded document than "tinkering" with it. |
| Indeed, the specificity of his recommendations – he includes an amendment that would set an upper limit to government spending as "17.5% of the nation's gross domestic product for the previous calendar year" (the number seems to be drawn out of thin air) – suggests that Levin is working less to save the constitution from "Statists" (capital S, always) than just backwards-engineering his personal ideal. | Indeed, the specificity of his recommendations – he includes an amendment that would set an upper limit to government spending as "17.5% of the nation's gross domestic product for the previous calendar year" (the number seems to be drawn out of thin air) – suggests that Levin is working less to save the constitution from "Statists" (capital S, always) than just backwards-engineering his personal ideal. |
| Indeed, there's no arguing that his recommendations are not largely (if not solely) designed to reshape the country as conservatives desire and to disenfranchise or otherwise disempower anyone who might disagree with those objectives. Levin may be able to muster Federalist Paper-footnoted arguments for term limits for supreme court justices, a national voter ID law, and the strengthening of states' ability to override federal law and supreme court decisions, but the real-world impact of such amendments would be to turn America back toward the Federalist era in terms of civil rights as well. | Indeed, there's no arguing that his recommendations are not largely (if not solely) designed to reshape the country as conservatives desire and to disenfranchise or otherwise disempower anyone who might disagree with those objectives. Levin may be able to muster Federalist Paper-footnoted arguments for term limits for supreme court justices, a national voter ID law, and the strengthening of states' ability to override federal law and supreme court decisions, but the real-world impact of such amendments would be to turn America back toward the Federalist era in terms of civil rights as well. |
| Levin's ideas are not conservative in political philosophy at all, at least in the sense of "standing athwart history and yelling 'stop'". He is liberal to the extreme when it comes to using the tools of the founders beyond what they intended. He seems to confuse his admiration for the logic and writing of our early leaders with ahistorical alignment with them. The Liberty Amendments is heavily larded with passages lifted from their correspondence as well as the Federalist Papers. And by "heavily larded", I mean give-Paula-Deen-pause "larded". Heart attack-inducing larded. You could fry Levin's book and serve it at a state fair. | Levin's ideas are not conservative in political philosophy at all, at least in the sense of "standing athwart history and yelling 'stop'". He is liberal to the extreme when it comes to using the tools of the founders beyond what they intended. He seems to confuse his admiration for the logic and writing of our early leaders with ahistorical alignment with them. The Liberty Amendments is heavily larded with passages lifted from their correspondence as well as the Federalist Papers. And by "heavily larded", I mean give-Paula-Deen-pause "larded". Heart attack-inducing larded. You could fry Levin's book and serve it at a state fair. |
| But it does not come fried, only half-baked. The passages from the founders are not invigorating (or tasty), but dry coughs of rationalization. Yet, it is their frequency that makes Levin's book curiously impressive: it debuted at the top of the New York Times bestseller list. And it is as boring as a phone book – or a recitation of the Affordable Care Act. | But it does not come fried, only half-baked. The passages from the founders are not invigorating (or tasty), but dry coughs of rationalization. Yet, it is their frequency that makes Levin's book curiously impressive: it debuted at the top of the New York Times bestseller list. And it is as boring as a phone book – or a recitation of the Affordable Care Act. |
| Though sprinkled throughout with the ranty denouncement of "soft tyranny" that energizes likeminded listeners to his radio show, the odd genius of The Liberty Amendments isn't that he has riled up his base with fiery rhetoric, but that he seems to have riled it up without it. Given the ludicrousness of his specific "fixes" and the near-impossibility of achieving them, Levin has produced something I have to concede I admire – as a literary trope, if nothing else – speculative fiction disguised as documentary. I admit I liked it better in World War Z. | Though sprinkled throughout with the ranty denouncement of "soft tyranny" that energizes likeminded listeners to his radio show, the odd genius of The Liberty Amendments isn't that he has riled up his base with fiery rhetoric, but that he seems to have riled it up without it. Given the ludicrousness of his specific "fixes" and the near-impossibility of achieving them, Levin has produced something I have to concede I admire – as a literary trope, if nothing else – speculative fiction disguised as documentary. I admit I liked it better in World War Z. |
| It is true that Levin's amendments are dead on arrival, but his are zombie ideas that may yet attack. Levin has been mentioned as a possible moderator for the Republican national committee's 2016 primary debates. The committee intends them to be more substantive and less theatrical than the clown-car contests of 2012. | It is true that Levin's amendments are dead on arrival, but his are zombie ideas that may yet attack. Levin has been mentioned as a possible moderator for the Republican national committee's 2016 primary debates. The committee intends them to be more substantive and less theatrical than the clown-car contests of 2012. |
| The notion that Levin would lend gravitas, via his originalist fixations, to the events has understandable appeal. But gravitas only comes from plans that are grounded, and Levin's are just wishes, conjured out of thin air. | The notion that Levin would lend gravitas, via his originalist fixations, to the events has understandable appeal. But gravitas only comes from plans that are grounded, and Levin's are just wishes, conjured out of thin air. |
| • This article originally stated that Mark Levin proposes ten new amendments; this was amended to 11 at 4.30pm (ET) on 10 September 2013 |