How To Mis-read the Constitution, and Pretend to Patriotically Support Democracy (Tea-Party-style in Wisconsin)

First, let us define "democracy"--that is, the democracy that our revolutionary founders had in mind and that our Constitution represents and enables. Once we establish this defining tool, we can then look at the Constitution’s clearly stated words to discover the trick often used to misread it.

Simply put, democracy proclaims: The people rule. Who are the people? That would be us. That is all of us, meaning all not part. We are all in it together, a unit. This includes the fat ones, thin ones, the tall and short, the socially and mentally challenged along with the genius geeks, those with funny accents, and those with birth defects and modern day leprosies like cancer and aids. It even includes the lazy and public-offending relatives we all have.

Why are there so many of these misfits and ne’er-do-wells burdening our society? Well, because the high energy, multi-talented folk like you and I who rightly deserve our privileges are a minority--that‘s why. That is just the way it is. Put the minority, the right people, in charge or we will all drown as our nation sinks beneath the waves; and then where is all our talk of inalienable rights and happy pursuits. It is not right that the unfit should be put on an equal footing with the rest of us (the minority), is it? But there is that pesky word--minority. If our country is going to continue to prosper and become a beacon to the world, of morality, political advancement, and high living standards, the smaller, better lot of us need to call the shots, because our experience and talents are what brought our country to its height among nations.

Wait! What came over me? That last paragraph is precisely where “democracy” as set forth in the Constitution goes off track. How can we say that one particular party is the (exclusive) voice of the American people when the two major parties historically have traded electoral victories back and forth almost equally over time. (Check the record. Even today neither of the two major parties controls both national legislative Houses.) Democracy is the form of government our Founders incorporated to secure inalienable rights for all the people. How can this mean anything other than that we all are in this together, each on equal footing, including those out of office and out of favor. Certainly those with more energy, ambition, and marketable talents (combined with some unadmitted good luck) will advance themselves personally to enviable stations in life. But this only secures them membership in a minority elite, and democracy is not about minority rule. (Nor was born-in-a-barn Jesus enamored with the rich and powerful few of his time.)

As the people in the streets of Cairo, Bahrain, Tehran , and Wisconsin are displaying, “here is what democracy looks like.” It appears that the key issue in Wisconsin is at heart a contest between laboring unions and private (elite) enterprise. I heard a Wisconsin resident reporting the mood of the people cheering the unusual legislature-rebellion. He said there is much talk about, and expectation of, “recalling” legislators who are supporting the Tea Party Republican Governor. (Under a peculiar Wisconsin rule the Governor, who has been in office only a few weeks, can not be recalled during his first year.) My point is that Democracy is not politicians, it is the people standing up for the rights of all.

Now let’s look at the Constitutional rails that lay out the track for our democracy and see where the sleight of hand is introduced. The first seven Articles provide the schemata, and the Amendments set forth special assurances and details of protocol to verify the intent of the document. The first amendment deals with a list of daily activities (religion, press, assembly and petition), and diagrams the floor, ceiling and walls of the room the people occupy. Or a better metaphor than a room would be the “public square” where people interact, or march, or swarm. This amendment guarantees anyone and everyone’s right to talk, gather, and pressure without the restriction of laws and decrees of the powers that be. If it turns out that the Democrat legislators in Wisconsin, who “walked out,” represent the “voice of the people” (a “voice” other than that of “interested” spokespersons), then we have an exciting, graphic, all-American display of “democracy” in action--not unlike what is seeming to sweep across the screen of Africa and the Middle East. The lantern of democracy that our Founders hung as a “beacon on a hill” may appear at times to flicker, but whether it’s beams can reach far enough to dispel the shadows in distant lands, or whether the Arab “people” are responding to the same inner light that warmed the American colonialists, is an open question. But if the colonial Committees of Correspondence and horse-riding messengers played a starring role in our democratic uprising, today’s internet technology certainly has the capacity for stirring a common feeling of human (people) rights across wider geographic territory. It will be interesting to watch. Wisconsin, show us again how it is done.

Having given my definition of “democracy,” I will try to more briefly explain the “trick” used by some for derailing the Constitution’s diction. It has to do with taking words out of context. The “context” is the lodestar.

For example, Amendment 2 speaks of the un-“infringed” right of the people “to keep and bear arms.” Note that this phrase alone holds no context. So what is the first part of the sentence? A “militia being necessary to the security of a free State,” is the reason for individual gun possession. Owning a gun was necessary because the freedom of the State depended on the existence of the militia. That was the reality of the time. Without the militia we would not have beaten the British military invasion. (Read the story.) We don’t need the militia now to protect our nation. We have the most powerful national army in the world. And we don’t need militia groups to protect ourselves against our own government. It could degenerate to that, but to think that it will is to distrust the strength of democracy. To think that guns are more powerful than the energy of a finely functioning democracy is nothing more than shivering paranoia. Often our elected officials surprise us once in office, but as we have repeatedly demonstrated in our history, we take care of that with impeachment, recalls, marches, civil disobedience, media events, and now Facebook. Play it out for us Wisconsin (and Cairo).

I am not arguing against individual gun ownership. I am only saying that the reason usually offered for unrestricted gun access is without context in the Constitution. The second Amendment is time-relative and out-dated, just as the Electoral College is. If our own national government turns into a tyranny and becomes a “threat” to the people, we could again amend the Constitution to reembrace militias and reinstate uninfringed gun ownership, just as we could amend to end the Electoral College. The Constitution was written by and for the “people,” who always hold more power than any imposed tyranny, as per India's ousting of Britain, the USSR’s deposing of Gorbachev, or Egypt's ousting of Mubarack --- and stay tuned.

I have made my point, but I will close with two additional quick examples of how debaters “trick” us by de-contexting their argument. The church and state “separators” use the first amendment as their mantra, but “separation” is nowhere to be found in the amendment. It only prohibits Congress from being a religious puppet master.

My other example comes from my history class where one of my students thought the textbook said the Bible supports slavery. He quoted, “Slavery, after all, was sanctioned in the Bible.” Yes, that is what the textbook says. But, looking more closely, the preceding sentence said, “English people had few moral qualms about enslaving other humans. [So for this reason, as they thought,] Slavery, after all, was sanctioned in the Bible.” The bracketed words I added are clearly implied and make the context of the statement plainly the obverse of what the undiscerning student thought. A few sentences later the text makes it clear that the English settlers “had not yet fully developed the meaning of race and slave.”

Ignoring context (dismissing nuances) is what makes the arguing game fun, darn it. But when our Constitution begins with the words, “We the People . . . , in order to form a more perfect union . . . , establish this Constitution,” who are “the people”? The Wisconsin citizens swarming in the streets in support of the en masse walkout of opposition party legislators are an integral part of “we the people.” The Constitutional context with its democratic scaffolding assures the inclusion of critics as "people" who may remain unbowed when the “system” breaks down.

Bring it on, Wisconsin rebels, and show us the distortion of context the Tea Partiers paint as they pose as the sum of the real “people.” And we people “don’t need no guns” to demonstrate our power. Guns are the crutch of the weak and frightened.

Doug Good