Part of what I see with 50501/Hands Off protests is that they have a theme of “defending the Constitution” from Trump. This is really a somewhat conservative position and doesn’t have much historical rigor to it.
Prof. Aziz Rana of Boston College Law School is having a moment on Jacobin Radio right now. His basic thesis is that the Constitutional order is so deeply antidemocratic that the left argued with itself and the liberals over whether to focus efforts on challenging it in the early 20th Century. In the broad sweep of history since then, Americans have come to view the Constitution as a sacred text, but in fact, that order is part of what gives the Republicans and the far right their advantages despite losing the popular vote.
The shorter interview: https://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S250424 (April 24, 2025)
The 4-part long interview: https://thedigradio.com/archive/ (see the Aziz Rana episodes starting in April 2025) - Part 4 isn’t up yet.
So why should we venerate the Constitution, when it holds us back from real, direct democracy? I think part of what our liberal friends and family hold onto is a trust in the Constitution and the framers. They weren’t geniuses, they were landowners worried about kings taking their property. Use these interviews, or Prof. Rana’s book, to handle those arguments.
Uhhhh, I don’t think a document that outlines the basis for a type of democracy is anti democratic. There are plenty of things wrong with it though, maybe talk about those parts instead to build a stronger case against the constitution
The supreme court is 9 ppl appointed for life, so that’s antidemocratic. The Senate is 2 ppl per state regardless of population, that’s antidemocratic. Amendments need 3/4 of the States, not people, to go through, that’s antidemocratic. The federalist papers specifically discuss the desire to prevent the people (“the mob” they called us) from having much power.
Why are these things anti democratic? If you want to go down this path you first need to establish a clear definition for what is and isn’t anti democratic. Is a doctor anti democratic because he wasn’t elected by popular vote? The supreme court is appointed by the current sitting (democratically elected) president. Should every government position require a nation wide popular vote? Is that really the only way to have a democracy?
You and I can disagree about our minimum level of democracy, but how will we actually change society if we don’t change how the decisions are made in society?
For me, the most possible democracy is when the people affected by a given decision (and only those people) are the ones who make the decision in a way they consider fair (however fair is defined) and are empowered to do what they decided on.
If the same group of people instead choose, via 1 person = 1 vote, one or more among them to make the decision, it’s less democratic in my view, but at least they each had an equal vote.
If the same group of people instead choose, via any voting system that changes 1 person = 1 vote (e.g. x amount of votes for each parcel of land), one or more among them to make the decision, it is even less democratic, because they did not all have an equal vote due to variations in how many people live in each parcel of land.
The current US Constitutional system has us here, between the above example and the below one, because land parcels in large part determine relative voting power and then the electeds make appointments of further decision makers, such as the Supreme Court.
Zero democracy is when the person/people making the decisions are not chosen by the people affected by the decision and the people affected by it have zero say in the decision.
I’ll preface by stating that I’m not an American.
I think society is too interconnected and any decision in any area could be argued to have an effect on the entire population. I also think it’s good to have competent people in positions of leadership. I don’t think that most people are capable of choosing who is well suited for a given task. In that sense I somewhat agree with what you said here “people affected by a given decision (and only those people) are the ones who make the decision” though I believe I’m arriving at this conclusion from a different perspective than you. I would also point out that in both cases it is inherently less democratic than the current us government (as in less people are given more power) though I think this is partially desirable since a true perfect democracy won’t select who is most capable, but who is more popular.
I don’t think that most people are capable of choosing who is well suited for a given task.
Just to clarify, do you mean that you just don’t think most people are informed enough as to every person who is an expert in something, or are you meaning that people are not intelligent enough?
What is the difference
Pretty damn big.
Not being able to name every expert in every field doesn’t make you unintelligent.
“[in]capable of choosing” could either mean “at this time, without full facts”, or it could mean “intrinsically”. The former is fine, but any rhetoric that only our “betters” should be voting, whether that be measured by wealth, intelligence, ethnicity, gender, or anything else, is at best elitist, and at worst bigoted and authoritarian.
I think what people cling to regarding the Constitution, is not that it protects democracy, but that it’s intended to protect the public from authoritarian rule. It was written explicitly in response to the dictatorial behavior of King George lll.
The whole “democracy” part was always intended to be flawed, in favor of the wealthy landowners that wrote it…but the protections provided by it, were meant to prevent any future leader from ever threatening their personal freedoms.
It’s really too bad they never hard-coded the steps necessary to actually prevent a dictator from taking power, though. That sure would have been useful right about now.
The problem with your interpretation is that the constitution was not intended to protect the public from authoritarian rule. It was designed to empower the landowning merchant class above that of feudal nobility and organized religion while protecting their position of power from the “tyranny of the masses” (the working class). I would say it is accomplishing that quite well. That merchant class is quite free.
The Overton window is anchored by a series of landmarks. The most effective way to lose one of them, like the Constitution, is to start discussing whether it has merit.
Right now, the country is in the sad state that the absolute minimum, adherence to a Constitution to which government official swear an oath of allegiance, is in question. You gain absolutely nothing, right now, by questioning the Constitution. You wait until the constitutional order is re-established and actors that routinely violate it are punished, and when the Overton window moves back … it’s not really to the left, it’s more towards democracy itself, then you discuss the flaws of the Constitution.
The Overton window is anchored by a series of landmarks. The most effective way to lose one of them, like the Constitution, is to start discussing whether it has merit.
In any kind of public, widespread platform/ venue, I agree with you 100%. Discussing whether the US is a moral entity at its root is not something you do on CNN or even Facebook, because it is going to be weaponized by the Right to paint you as anti-US to the politically-disengaged Center, and also to justify their unconstitutional actions as being less harmful via whataboutism.
I don’t think Beehaw- a small, intentionally Leftist space- is equivalent. No one here is going to say, “hmm, maybe Trump ignoring the constitution is the same as people discussing whether a document that first enshrined slavery and then sustained it in a carceral system, is capable of reformation. Makes sense.” Nor is anyone outside this space reading or broadcasting it. And there does have to be space for free political discussion somewhere, or you’ve just abdicated free speech out of fear of politicization.
You wait until the constitutional order is re-established and actors that routinely violate it are punished, and when the Overton window moves back … it’s not really to the left, it’s more towards democracy itself, then you discuss the flaws of the Constitution.
This presupposes that the form of democracy it will move “back” towards will be the same as where it was before all this. There is no reason to think that will be the case, and certainly major political events of the past in the US (Civil War, Civil Rights movement, WW2, 9/11, etc) have often included large constitutional shifts either through amendment or interpretation. This is certainly a major political event.
We could go on a tangent about whether political capital is real, and whether (if it is) we are capable of returning to where we were before even if we wanted, but suffice it to say that many people would likely disagree with the premise that we can ever perfectly revert to pre-2024 Election America. A lot of people (even in the Center) believed that our checks and balances under the Constitution would prevent a dictator. Now that we’re seeing otherwise, I highly doubt most Democrat voters will ever again fully trust the Constitution to protect them, without serious amendment.
So discussing what those amendments might be, how that reform could work, or whether those protections are even possible to regain via the Constitution without e.g. giving congress or the judiciary enforcement abilities (or via some other means entirely), seems like a pretty important discussion for people to be having.
All very fair points, I agree.
The Overton window is anchored by a series of landmarks. The most effective way to lose one of them, like the Constitution, is to start discussing whether it has merit.
Yeah. Why do you think that Lemmy, a markedly leftist platform, is so inundated with people talking about how useless all our imperfect tools for making the world slightly less authoritarian are? Why do you think they’re trying to get us to abandon them rather than bolstering their support?
I’ve been saying this for months. The people who are trying to get the left to abandon the effective means we have for shifting the overton window to the left are right-wingers or being manipulated by right-wingers.
The people who spend their days banging away about how we don’t have democracy, we’ve never had democracy, the constitution is useless, the democrats never accomplish anything, etc, are literally agents of the right whether they know it or not. But many of them probably literally do know it.
Why do we see this more on Lemmy than in real life or on other platforms? Because we’re being targeted.
The people who are trying to get the left to abandon the effective means we have for shifting the overton window to the left are right-wingers or being manipulated by right-wingers.
It’s amazing how often I see someone proclaiming to have a deeply held belief only to turn around and immediately support a political pathway that is objectively detrimental to their cause and crow about how their position is the most moral while ignoring the 100% predictable consequences. Bonus points for them also arguing that picking the obviously better choice is wrong because both sides are the same, or the other person would have done the shit that only one of them was saying they’d do.
Absolutely! I had the same impression with the Gaza protests. The Biden/Harris administration handled the situation absolutely horribly, but anyone who had watched #45 knew that things were going to get a whole universe worse for Gaza if Trump got reelected. And yet, there was that strange bombardment with “I can’t vote for Harris because of Gaza” that seemed astroturfed.
In no material way has the gaza situation become worse. The only change is our president is no longer shaking his finger going ‘oh no, bad isreal please stop’ and is extending the prosecution to Palestinians in the US.
You sound like one of those people who stopped caring about the child cages soon as biden was the one doing it.
All harris had to do was say ‘i will ensure american laws are enforced with respect to weapons sales to isreal’ and her major campaign problem would have disappeared.
Wouldn’t have helped with all her other shitty positions but at least we would have had a candidate who didnt support genocide.
Its not astroturfing when your candidate is so bad most people in her base dont actually support her but are voting against trump. Not a recipe for success.
We’re getting exactly what we deserve atm for running genocidal candidates. Next time tell your candidate to get a fucking clue and not support a fucking genocide and maybe she’ll win. Though i doubt it since shes a gaslighting fuck who doesnt give a shit about the working class. Her and biden cant disappear fast enough from the political sphere as far as im concerned
You sound like one of those people who stopped caring about the child cages soon as biden was the one doing it.
That’s interesting, because unlike so, so many of the people that took on the mantle of the righteous cause of the Palestinians, I’ve been talking about it since last century. The Palestinians have been mistreated since at least the 80s, and in an ongoing fashion for now 40 years.
Did I hear anyone on the American left complain about it until 2023? Not really. It was really lonely in that camp. It somehow feels that if it hadn’t been for TikTok taking up the cause, this would have been another one of those times when Palestine is forgotten.
I am delighted that Palestine has gotten more attention, and I am very hopeful that somehow the situation can be stabilized and improved for a people that has suffered way too much. But not preventing Trump from taking power was honestly a very bad thing to happen for Palestine.
but anyone who had watched #45 knew that things were going to get a whole universe worse for Gaza
In what way exactly? So far it’s just a little more of what they’ve been doing since October 7th. Gaza was not a distinguishing factor between Republicans and Democrats in November unless you consider genocide with rainbows a distinction.
And yet, there was that strange bombardment with “I can’t vote for Harris because of Gaza” that seemed astroturfed.
You do realize that there were multiple large real-life movements about exactly that right? Like it or not that shit was real.
I guess you have never heard of Mahmud Khalil then, or any of the other students arrested simply for speaking out about Palestine.
Nothing prevents an astroturfed movement from attracting real life supporters. I saw the genuine anger and upset at the protests. The problem is that it was all very convenient for Trump and his people. They were absolutely delighted at the self-inflicted vote suppression.
I guess you have never heard of Mahmud Khalil then, or any of the other students arrested simply for speaking out about Palestine.
That’s not a Palestinian problem; that’s an American civil rights problem. It has absolutely zero impact on conditions in Palestine.
The problem is that it was all very convenient for Trump and his people. They were absolutely delighted at the self-inflicted vote suppression.
Not everything you dislike is astroturfing.
Re-establish the system that got us here in the first place? The status quo before Trump… in which Trump got elected twice? I wonder if, once balance is restored, you’ll say “now’s not the time to question things” again because “our people” are in power?
I’m not saying the point is to make questioning the Constitution the most important leftist platform. I’m saying that the protest moment we have here is an opportunity. The Democratic Party wants to use the opportunity to get people to vote Democrat in elections and nothing more. It’s fine to vote that way, but it just creates the opportunity for the next charismatic “outsider” figure to arise after we’ve had a Dem administration again. My point is that the left needs to offer a real alternative to the failing constitutional system and to the dictatorship the right is offering.
I wholeheartedly support David Hogg’s movement to primary away status quo Democrats. I have seen Chuck Schumer’s “negotiating skills” with the continuing resolution, I have seen Newsom’s equivocation on trans rights, I have seen Biden’s handling of Gaza. Believe me, I understand how useless it is to have one party be radically authoritarian and the other wants to play nice and get along.
What I am saying is that I think it makes more sense to get rid of the status quo party now than in 2024.
So… wait for never?
I think of this as an opportunity. The administration seems to be incredibly incompetent in addition to corrupt. The resulting economic calamity will probably taint everything they advanced with the stink of failure - from anti-trans policies to willy-nilly suspension of constitutional rights and declarations of phony emergencies.
It’s never good to have enemies, but it’s almost tolerable when they are incompetent.
Because the democrats work so hard to change things, right? Biden did so much the first time around.
Harder than you.
Got em
You wait until the constitutional order is re-established and actors that routinely violate it are punished, and when the Overton window moves back … it’s not really to the left, it’s more towards democracy itself, then you discuss the flaws of the Constitution.
But then your alleged temporary allies will turn back to enemies and you’ll be back to square one with neoliberals and conservatives playing their farce of a tug of war game.
Yeah, the constitution has a whole bunch of problems with it that are the direct cause of the issues the US has been seeing for decades (weighting a lot of the votes towards empty states, many of which were actually created explicitly in an effort to make sure the political balance remained the same).
At the very least talk about an amendment that fixes those issues, or you’ll just go back to a ratchet towards more inequality, neoliberalism and authoritarianism.
The discussion on this post is a sick joke and parody of the content of the interview and real life. You want to call all the leftists on lemmy right wingers because we believe something that is obvious if you have ever lived on the west? You all are precisely the type of people who hold the constitution to be a sacred document instead of actually understanding the legal framework within or it’s intent. You really think you are going to be protected by a document that describes Black Americans as three-fifths of a person and in the amendment that overrides that language makes room for the carceral state? You really think you’re going to be protected by a document that describes a non functional state? The constitution as a legal framework is fundamentally broken, no amount of bolstering that is going to fix it. It is because of the design of government as described in the constitution is why the US federal state is unable to operate and it is because of the constitution you’ve seen a minority of view points, neo-liberal conservatives, take it over to destroy it. By criticizing the constitution you are not threatening your rights or liberty, a constitutional convention that doesn’t include the right wing is required for anything to change in America or it will dissolve.
The Frozen Republic by Daniel Lazare - https://archive.org/details/frozenrepublicho0000laza/page/n5/mode/2up
Read this book. It is from 1996. I read it the first time in 2002 while I was in law school and it really opened my eyes. The accounts on this thread who immediately go to attacking leftists on lemmy and protecting this document are running on pure vibes and low education. No other modern democracy runs on anything like it for a reason. No other modern democracy is unable to rewrite their document as appropriate, the fact that the US is stuck with this and people like Phillip are why you’re going to descend into fascism while screaming to protect the past. You are the conservative.
I dunno y’all, maybe just listen to the interviews?
They weren’t geniuses …
Actually some of them were Enlightenment polymaths.
almost every comment here reads like an LLM sharting out a light novel in response to a prompt that didn’t tell it to format it as a comment…
Welcome to leftist sm
