A Real Constitutional Crisis: A 2001 interview w/ Daniel Lazare

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

Interview by Kent Worcester

http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue30/lazare30.htm

<snip>

KW: But some progressives would say that at least with this Constitution you have the First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, separation of church and state, which has been blurred in recent years, but at least the Constitution does provide some room for progressive views, and for autonomy from an oppressive state.

DL: But what's the point of a First Amendment if no one has an opportunity to translate progressive views into reasonable, realistic political action? It's a completely immovable political structure. It's a perfect prison, one in which you're able to say whatever you want to say, to speak your mind fully, and full knowledge that whatever words you utter will have no political effect whatsoever. So I think that progressives who take this line are pursuing the most defeatist strategy imaginable.

KW: Is part of the argument over the Constitution an argument about different forms of identity? The Constitution encourages Americans to see themselves as members of a particular state, and what's implicit in your argument is that city- dwellers are penalized within the framework of the Constitution while rural interests are favored. Is part of your thinking that Americans who live within the most populous states and regions should begin to see ourselves as urban residents, as city people?

DL: Yes, that is part of my viewpoint. I think the Constitution has to be seen as an anti-urban document, on any number of grounds. First of all, in the most elementary, mechanical way, it exaggerates the clout in the Electoral College and in Congress of the small, underpopulated, mostly Western states. Of the ten smallest states, only two, Rhode Island and Delaware, are urban to any significant degree, so in that very simple, mechanistic way it essentially strengthens rural interests over urban ones. But even more important, the Constitution reflected the agrarian ideas of the great majority of the Founders who were afraid of things like capitalism and urbanization and who wanted to create an essentially agrarian kind of democracy, one which would be slow-moving, deliberative and conservative. This is the essence of the Jeffersonian theory of the republican polity. So the whole theory of checks and balances, of a tripartite government, essentially reflects an agrarian theory of republican politics. An urban theory of democratic politics is one that is by definition majoritarian, it's fast-moving, it's excitable, it's dynamic, as opposed --