Saving the Constitution Is Not Enough

The integrity of the U.S. Constitution must be protected; there can be no doubt of that.  Without it as the bedrock of our democracy, political vicissitudes would have torn our nation apart long ago.  We would never have survived as the world’s oldest continuous democracy if it did not provide the checks and balances needed to suppress violent conflicts.

Many liberals have forgotten this.  In their quest for political dominance, they want to interpret our founding charter any way that benefits their agenda.  This is why they call it a living document.  It is why they favor Supreme Court justices with this philosophy.

It is also why it is essential that conservatives and fair-minded liberals support Brett Cavanaugh’s nomination to the court.  His sterling record of interpreting the law, rather than making it, bodes well for defending our birthright.  The delaying tactics of congressional Democrats are, for that reason, scandalous.

Nevertheless, safeguarding the constitution is not enough.  Some conservatives believe that doing so will, in itself, make our nation great.  This is wishful thinking, not confirmed by history.  The document may be critical in maintaining our liberties, yet it says little about what we should do with our freedom.

I have been calling for “forward-looking conservatism” to fill the gap in our ideological heritage.  Progressives assume that Marxist prescriptions will enhance our future. They are tragically wrong.  The emergence of a popular socialist movement is a terrifying development.

Socialism, as informed persons know, has never worked.  Despite its promises of self-determination and prosperity, by concentrating power in the hands of the state, it accomplishes the opposite.  An equally attractive program must therefore oppose and defeat it.

The key to understanding what must be done can be found in the successes of our democracy and market economy.  Although many folks complain about the lack of justice in our society, a more grievous problem has been the proliferation of choice.  We have become so rich and free that we have more options than our ancestors.

This has produced indecision and lassitude.  Instead of knowing where to turn, people seek diversions.  Rather than make mistakes, they postpone having to decide.  By burying themselves in the Internet or second-rate amusements, they are able to convince themselves they are living the good life.

Nonetheless, Sigmund Freud was right.  The secret to being sane and happy is to find love and satisfying work. Only these provide the emotional support and self-respect to feel complete.  They also furnish a sense of direction, without which we are rudderless.

Many religious persons praise the purpose-drivenlife.  They too are correct.  We all need goals to make our way through a frequently trackless universe.  These supply a map that enables us to select the appropriate turns at moments of confusion.

Unfortunately many secular folks have not learned this lesson.  They assume that dedicated purposes can only come from the spiritual sources—which they reject.  This is wrong.  Committed love and nourishing work are open to all of us.  As such, they can make life worthwhile.

Thus, without love most of us are adrift.  Unbridled egotism is essentially empty.  It is in caring about others that we learn to care about ourselves. Meanwhile, it is in their cherishing us that we discover our worth.  This is of no small value.

Similarly, without gratifying work, we lose our personal dignity.  We become useless drones who flit from one meaningless pastime to another.  In fact, our world is sustained by the dependable contributions we make.  Accordingly, it is essential that we do our best and take pride in our accomplishments.

Promoting these objectives must rise to the top of the conservative agenda.  While they are not conservative per se, they provide the stability traditionalists have long sought.

The question is how to achieve them.  Simply repeating the conventional answers will not do.  Our world is not the same as that of our forebears.  The challenges we face are different from theirs. Hence we must be “principled realists” who maintain our moral balance, while pursuing practical solutions.

I know this is a generalized answer.  Indeed, it is impossible to say much more within the confines of a short column.  Nonetheless, we must understand the nature of where we are going.  The constitution helps.  But it is a starting point rather than a detailed plan of action.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University