This past Saturday, at our senatorial district convention,
Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick dropped in to say a few words. He used to be
our state senator, so he’s at home here. He’s been on the road, helping with
the Ted Cruz campaign, seeing people around the country. He told us, “There are
lots of people who love the country like we do, and they want it to be
restored.”
My blurry phone photo of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick from the Senatorial District 7 Convention, March 19, 2016 |
I’ve been thinking about that lately. Last week I watched an
Uncommon Knowledge interview with Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, a Constitution lover frequently coming to my attention lately. This was the longest interview I’ve
heard with him. He had more time to give context and background. I recommend
watching the whole thing, but I thought I’d quote a few things here today.
The
overarching question here is, how bad are things, and how can we get back to
the constitution? Peter Robinson is the interviewer:
PR: How recently did Congress work?
Sasse: Well, let’s define what work meant. In the mid-1960s
there was a radical revision of what the federal government’s role was in the
1964, 1963…
PR: Great Society.
Sasse: Right. So we should celebrate the Civil Rights
Movement at the same time. But in the Great Society program, there was a
radical expansion of the federal government’s role in life. And it begged all
sorts of questions about why we have limited government. We have limited
government for a whole bunch of reasons that I hope we talk about some today.
But after the 1960s, promises that were obviously bogus when they were made
were never really revisited. The Medicare expenditure, the Congressional Budget
Office equivalent from the mid-1960s, that projected what will Medicare cost
from 1965 to 1975, was off by 1100%. What Medicare as of 1975 was costing—the
original projections had been that it would be 9% of what it was actually
costing. Where are the adults that have tackled that problem? It was a mess,
obviously. But the mid-1970s—all sorts of things have been on autopilot since
those mid-60s, and big problems are not being addressed.
So the deviation from the Constitution has been going on for
a while, and seriously awry for half a century. Some of it has to do with a
loss of understanding about what philosophy is behind out Constitution:
Sasse: If you sort of tried to think about, let’s teach the
American Revolution to the present day, and create the sort of arc of what it
means to have this really breathtaking experiment in self-governance, this
idea—this big, anthropological claim that humans are created with dignity, and
government doesn’t give us rights, but government is a shared project to secure
those rights—that idea has really been under assault in certain ways since the
middle of industrialization. It’s true that there was lots of complexity as the
economy shifted from mostly agrarian to mostly urban and industrial.
I didn’t know, until this interview, much of Senator Sasse’s
background. He graduated from Harvard, got a doctorate from Yale, worked at the
Boston Consulting Group. He held a job at the Department of Justice, a job that
was once held by Antonin Scalia. Then he taught at the University of Texas, and
if I understood right, he was President of UT.
Then he moved back home to
Nebraska, a small-town suburb of Omaha, to raise his children. And run for the
Senate. He’s still young. Very energetic. Very down-to-earth for someone that
academically qualified. He has the valuable skill of being able to talk about
important, deep, philosophical ideas in simple words that any thinking person
ought to be able to understand.
I am beginning to think that simplifying skill, because it is too rare,
is extremely valuable. Especially in our day, when clarity, and getting the
message through in a few short words, is needed to match how information gets exchanged.
He
even uses Twitter to good effect. He was asked about a recent Twitter exchange
with Donald Trump. Among other things, he connected Trump’s infidelity—and in
fact his bragging about having sex with married women (who brags about
that?)—with a failure to understand and keep his oaths.
There was also a challenge to Trump’s penchant for executive
unilateralism. Here’s the Tweet, followed by Sasse’s explanation:
@realDonaldTrump The
President’s job is NOT 2 “run America.” This is precisely Obama’s error….
Sasse: Yeah. We believe that all three branches are separate
but equal, but the Article 2 branch, the executive—I mean, in some of the
founders’ deliberations, president wasn’t even the term they used some of the
time; they talked about the administrator. And president really just means
presiding officer of the executive branch, and it’s supposed to be somebody who
takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws that were passed by the
Legislature.
PR: Donald Trump displays no evidence that he has any
constitutional understanding?
Sasse: It is really hard to find him ever saying anything
about limits and restraint, and executive restraint, which… I’m not going to have accused him of any of
these particular, you know, ugly analogues, but, man, of the things that he
says about winning and power.…
The Senator tries to understand those who approve of Trump.
Some of that comes because of the feckless president we’ve had on foreign
policy—unfortunately combined with unilateral executive overreach. Sasse is kinder
than I would be about Trump, but he says,
He’d be great to have a beer with, and he’s funny, and he’s
got charisma. I get all that. Where does he ever articulate a constitutional
sense of the limits of the executive branch?
Looking at solutions, he offers this:
Sasse: So, first of all, let’s just recognize that America is
much much much bigger than the federal government. And so let’s not start by
identifying the two. Washington that thinks it can solve every problem caused
far more unintended consequences errors, mistakes, new troubles, than anything
they’ll possibly solve. So first of all, we should have an American vision that
can transcend what we think the federal government can get done.
Then, inside the federal government, we should want all three
of these branches to all be vigorous defenders of a constitutional system of
limited government.
But then, underneath that, policy initiative should ideally
be coming—in the domestic policy space—should ideally be coming from the
Article 1 legislative branch….
We should yearn for more deliberation that can bring us
together as a people. And the supermajoritarian requirements of the Senate, to
go back to your opening questions about the differences between House and
Senate, we should desire solutions that can bring along a lot of the America
people. That happens in dialogue. That happens among people over dinner tables.
And a hundred people who should get to know each other in the Senate trying to
not always put the worst construction on your policy opponent’s
position. You should actually try to understand it before you reject it.
This is from his consultant background. He spent his first
year going around to meet and talk with each of the other senators, to get a
full view of the system, including its culture and problems.
He’s asked to explain this quote from his maiden speech in
the Senate, this past November:
“While I am in favor of more civility, my actual call here is
for more substance. This is not a call for less fighting [in the Senate]—but for
more meaningful fighting.”
It’s the meaning—the understanding of the Constitution, and
the very idea of limited government—that needs to be explained, taught, and
defended. As Reagan said, in his farewell speech, “Freedom is never more than
one generation away from extinction.”
Restoration and preservation are about culture. At the
33-minute mark, Sasse makes this brilliantly simple point:
Sasse: It’ll sound too romantic, but I believe we’re
incredibly blessed. We live in the most exceptional nation in the history of
the world, and it’s based on an anthropological claim about the dignity of
people. I really believe that people are created with dignity—the world is
fallen; we need government to restrain certain kinds of evil, and to create and
maintain a framework for ordered liberty.
But life is lived in neighborhoods, in our cities, and in
small towns across cattle country. The center of the world is the Rotary Club
in my town; the center of the world is your listeners, churches, and
synagogues, in the small businesses that they’re founding, and the little
league, and the PTA, and the fire department.
That is where life is lived, that textured, meaningful life.…
and I want your and my grandkids to grow up in a nation that believes in
limited government, because we believe in the nearly limitless potential of
humans who have dignity.
He answers questions about Justice Scalia—because the
interview was recorded the week after his death—and that he wasn’t
“conservative”; he was about the written law.
Sasse: I read my Constitution; I see no party affiliation in
the Supreme Court justices. And even progressive and conservative is wrong,
because there are progressives and there are people who believe in doing their
job, which is to hide anything about their own policy preferences.
The job of a Supreme Court justice is not to be a
super-legislator. That would be an anti-democratic attack on a constitutional
system where we the people are supposed to be in charge and be able to fire the
legislators. And so if the court is going to be super legislators, they surely
shouldn’t have lifetime appointments.
And so to call Scalia conservative, as the papers have done
all this week, misses the fundamental point. His job was to protect the rights
of the people against bad laws that overreached. He was an originalist. He was
a constitutionalist.
One last section I want to share. Peter Robinson asks the
senator about a quote from conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt:
“We may be seeing the eclipse of the Republic. I’m not an alarmist.
It’s not the end of the world. But even as the ancient republic of Rome became
a more imperial structure, our government has grown so large, its
responsibilities so immense, under the burdens of the modern world, that it
will be impossible to take it back.”
And then Sasse is asked, is it too late?
Sasse: We need a constitutional recovery. And we need to
bring along the republic, which is three hundred and twenty million souls.
This is where he offers the Reagan quote, and reminds us
that Reagan also used to say this while running for governor of California,
teaching these truths to labor movement people along the railroad tracks. Then
Sasse says:
It only goes on if you teach it. And I do think there is an
obsession of the 535 [US legislators] to think their job is small-ball legislating. A huge part
of our job is to be advocates and defenders and teachers and lovers of the
constitutional system.
And we have to teach that system to the next generation. So
I’m with Hugh, in that you can’t talk about the decline of self-governance as
the only thing that possibly matters in a world where the reason we believe in
the American system of government is because of all these other aspects of what
make full lives well lived, what define human flourishing outside of
government.
But I think we would be really naïve to not be having the
kind of conversation that he wants to have about the risk of slipping from
Republic to Empire.
PR: It’s not too late?
Sasse: It’s not too late. But, we need to recognize this
president has repeatedly talked like an emperor. We have a president who says
it isn’t that big of a deal “if the Congress doesn’t pass the laws I want them
to pass—I have a pen, and I have a phone, and I can just make it up as I go
along.”
That sounds like something that you might have heard at a
certain moment in Rome’s decline. And we now have a front-runner in the
Republican Party who says maybe president Obama has paved a new way, as far as
its executive unilateralism goes.
If you talked constantly about power and strength—and, let’s
be clear, our foreign policy needs to be defined more by power and strength,
and when you make political promises you should keep your word with power and
strength—and yet George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison
didn’t believe when they became president that their aspirations should look
like King George III.
They believed they had a servant leadership responsibility
underneath the Constitution…. If you go back and read Washington’s farewell
address at the end of his eight years as president, he worried that the
constitutional system was in peril.
So we’re in uniquely troubled times, but not totally unique,
because, in our system, you always need to teach it to the next generation. And
we’ve not been doing that.
On Sunday I listened to a rebroadcast address on BYUTV, Lawrence C.
Walters spoke on “Citizenship,” April 1, 2014, telling us how to incorporate
being good citizens into the various aspects of our lives. Also worth hearing in full. But we're over our limit for today, so, he says there are five things we can make part of our lives as citizens, rather than as consumers or subjects.
Five Essential Attributes of Active Citizens:
1. Accept responsibility.
2. Do their homework.
3. Engage with others.
4. Take action.
5. Learn from their experiences.
I experienced these things in action the past week,
culminating (so far) in Saturday’s district convention—even more than in past
years, because I was on the resolutions (platform) committee. So, after all the
work last week, we took additional resolutions and testimony, finalized our
recommendations, and presented them before the body (about 375 attendees). I
got to see first-hand how someone’s idea at a grassroots precinct meeting makes
its way into the platform, which will be considered by legislators this coming
session.
What we do really matters. I have hope that there are enough
of us who love our Constitution to do this.
No comments:
Post a Comment