During a recent guest lecture on my campus, Alex Hindman, a professor at Holy Cross, made a striking argument about the force of our Constitution. First, he argued that in the age of political polarization and the seeming impossibility of bipartisan agreement, it is imperative, more now than ever, to fall back into the founding ideals. Heads, including my own, nodded around the lecture hall. Then Hindman went further, arguing that the Constitution, in its intricate construction, may also serve as a soul-crafting document, allowing us to aid our current national tensions and pave the way for a stronger American future. I stopped nodding. I wanted to believe what I had just heard, that the Constitution would hold such a power. However, after the polarization and gridlock seen in my short lifetime, the hope of such a claim was dubious at best. What’s preventing us from this truth, and what needs to be done for it to be so? Why have we failed to be shaped for the better by the document that birthed our country?
Oliver Wendell Holmes once described the American Constitution as a document designed for people with fundamentally different views. Beyond being a document intended to maintain and balance the three branches of government, the Constitution forces the various opinions and beliefs of each branch to come together under one political framework. The Constitution is like a “get-along shirt” to bind the branches together, directing them to debate and push against one another to ultimately draw closer to the agreements necessary for the continuance of the nation.
However, Alexis de Tocqueville explains that while this setup looks good on paper, Americans may be preventing the Constitution from fulfilling its potential. The American character is one that, despite our prosperity, is constantly jumping from one goal to the next. We are discontent amongst our fruits and contain a nearly religious devotion to economic efficiency. This natural proclivity to “getting it done” is helpful in the market, but is detrimental in the political sphere. Ours is a love for the efficient that crosses over into impulsiveness. This trait is detrimental to the political process and actively causes strain and conflict between opposing views. The Constitution curbs this natural impulsivity, however; it actively works against our instincts as Americans, forcing legislators and executive members to bring one another along as they strive for the truth between each other. For example, the Constitution is nebulous on what the ideal form of justice is, leaving specific room for debate on what the good and just is for the nation, while other issues are set in stone.
If such debate is needed of the perennial nature of questions of justice, then, and the Constitution is meant to evoke that debate, where is the disconnect? This question was not answered by Professor Hindman that day; it was instead punted back to us, the students. It is for the next generation of Americans to decide. Creating a culture of civic education is a possible solution, but building a culture takes time; especially when we want answers, and we want them quickly, leaving little room for deliberation We need to overcome this nature and habituate young Americans to give into the shaping forces of the Constitution. Recovering the document and the wisdom it can provide us, letting it shape our souls as citizens, is not an immediate solution. It will have to start at a grassroots level to change the attitude of the nation as a whole. With time, it may ultimately create the change and progress our nation yearns for, in line with the Founders’ vision centuries ago.
Raleigh Adams
Raleigh Adams is a junior at Clemson University's Honors College pursuing a double major in political science and philosophy. Her studies center around political theory, specifically the questions of women’s rights and statesmanship. She hopes to continue her education into graduate work and eventually corrupt the next generation of youth with philosophy as well.
The views expressed in this article are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Lone Conservative staff.
@rals_adams
@rals.adams
