Posted by
Albino Moose on Saturday, April 18, 2009 12:00:00 AM
I know, it's the weekend, but I wanted to post this while I was thinking about it. A friend of mine just told me that it is the debate about original intent that has led to the writings of Jacques Derrida being required study for law students. For those of you who don't know him, or would prefer not to revisit college philosophy, Derrida was a political philosopher who developed a school of thought called "deconstruction." Decontruction basically involves taking another philosophy, breaking it down to its basic beliefs, studying the underlying influences, and coming to the conclusion that the belief itself has so many contradictions and inconsistencies that there may be no validity to it at all. I know, the brain throbs, doesn't it? Derrida was a Marxist, but I'm not familiar enough with his writings to know whether he tried to deconstruct his own philosophy.
As far as I am concerned, Derrida's deconstructionist philosophy was only able to convince me of what I already knew...human reason and thought can never be perfect, but we do the best we can with what we have.
In any event, if one wishes to deconstruct, or ultimately reject, Enlightenment thought, that's fine, but it's impossible to take that thought and make it something it is not. I may not agree with Voltaire, Bacon, or Locke, but I can't say that they didn't believe or mean what they said. I could argue that their reasoning was faulty, but I can't deny them the right to believe it and to base their lives upon those beliefs.
If some people in this country choose to reject Enlightenment philosophy, they are free to do so. However, they cannot take the Declaration and the Constitution, both eloquent examples of Enlightenment thought, and say that those documents are actually examples of Theocracy, Marxism or any philosophy, other than Enlightenment. The Constitution is what it is.
When the founders rejected the British system of government, with a strong central government, they didn't just change a few words in the British Constitution, they wrote a new one defining their own beliefs. When the French revolted, they didn't simply choose a new monarch, but rewrote their governing principles. When the Russian Revolution succeeded, they didn't adapt monarchy, they developed their own new system. If there comes a time when the US decides that the Constitution, as written, no longer reflects how we wish to live or the proper role of govt, it is our responsibility to reject the document and write a new one. It is particularly insidious to argue that when I say, "My teenager can't have a new car," I actually mean, "My teenager should have a new car, so please take the money from me and buy it." If the majority of Americans can openly and honestly say that they feel that government's role is to be the caretaker of its citizenry, and that this is the best philosophy for government, then write that new "constitution." Don't lie about the one we have and co-opt it for other purposes.