It’s harder than one might think to break with the past, to begin anew, on a new footing. But that’s what we tried to do in the United States of America 232 years ago, and we are still struggling to make a go of it. It’s a never-ending revolution.
But a revolution it is, a great turning of the wheel, vastly altering the landscape. Consider this, written a century and a half ago, by the great French economist, Frederic Bastiat – it is from the introduction to the then current French constitution:
France has constituted itself a republic for the purpose of raising all the citizens to an ever-increasing degree of morality, enlightenment, and well-being.”
On the face of it, it sounds pretty good, even elevating. But on closer examination it suggests some questions: Who, precisely, is France? What, exactly, is the morality and enlightenment they aim for.? And, more importantly, who gets to decide what those mean?
If the relevance seems doubtful today, consider the current condition of the vastly important European Union experiment. It was racing to verification of its own constitution, with aims just as grand as those just cited, a few years ago. Parliaments in country after country approved it, but it was stopped cold where it was submitted to a popular vote in a referendum – including in France.
This caused great dismay among the intellectual and political elite. Some even recommended either ignoring the results and plowing ahead, or not-so-gently compelling the offending publics to revote until they got it right. But cooler heads prevailed, and the cumbersome constitution was reconfigured.
But now, the new Lisbon Agreement – intended to bypass the national sovereignty concerns of the previous effort by not quite rising to the level of a constitution itself, and thus requiring no or at least fewer national referendums – has just succumbed to the same fate. The drafters and supporters of the constitution are livid. They fault the voters bitterly, and ridicule the misinformation and sloppy thinking that they believe caused them to reject the new EU charter.
Again, the intellectual and political elite debate how they might either redo the vote with the “proper” result or somehow bypass it. There are even suggestions that those who vote “no” could be invited out of the EU.
But now consider this, also quoted from Bastiat’s Essay on Government, from the preamble to the American Constitution:
We, the people of the United States, for the purpose of forming a more perfect union, of establishing justice, of securing interior tranquility, of providing for our common defence, of increasing the general well-being, and of securing the benefits of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, decree . . .”
Note that the aims have a similar cast to them, although the only one that pairs up in the two documents is “well being.” But the other significant difference is that the other three questions are either answered directly, or the source of their answers is identified precisely: Who is the United States, what are the meanings of those aims, and who defines them? The answer to these is unmistakable – it is the people of the United States.
Now, it is argued that select elites in Europe are striving to deny, or at least sorely attenuate, the direct say by the people of Europe in the expressed purpose, aim, design, and even functioning of their own government. But it must be said that the same is argued to be true in the United States.
Indeed, a great part of the political debate in the US is precisely whether we should be more decentralized – as we are now relative to the rest of the world’s societies – or more centralized and guided by principles formulated by expert elites, as is argued is the direction being taken by the Europeans.
But doesn’t that sound like what Bastiat decried so long ago? Might he not have the same concerns about governments in Europe today? Mind you, he expressed those concerns quite strongly, describing so vaguely formed governments, surrounding themselves with such narcotic promises, as the fictitious medium through which parties with power legitimize their continued exploitation – even oppression – of those without it.
He criticizes governments constituted on grand abstractions, designed to be wielded by elites to whom they are uniquely suited. He contrasts this with the Americans who, he says, “formed another idea of the relations of the citizens with the Government . . .” Referring to the citation just above, he goes on:
Here there is no chimerical creation, no abstraction, from which the citizens may demand everything. They expect nothing except from themselves and their own energy.”
It is fascinating to see the shape this debate continues to take in the United States today – and even in Europe; indeed in France itself under President Sarkozy.
Where does sovereignty – in all reality – reside? Who defines it? Who deploys it? To what purpose and in whose interests?
It is just to the extent that we can keep such questions meaningfully debated and can subject the resulting ideas to practical experiment and expression, that we can keep independence itself alive. This is so vital a debate that when one side wins, both sides lose.
So, two hundred thirty two years of blissfully fractious, contentious, even sometimes divisive dialogue about who we are, why, and how. May we maintain its blessings for many generations to come.
Happy Independence Day to my co-citizens around the world!
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of who’s trying to put what over on who, please see this interesting and timely piece from the NYT – sometimes we’re just fooling ourselves.
Please also stop over to the WSJ to see this brief Independence Day essay by Professor Thomas Madden.
It is a pleasure to offer my appreciation to Cam Beck of ChaosScenario for making a reference to Frederic Bastiat recently that caused me to read him more carefully. Please do read him, yourselves. His work is in the public domain and is widely available and inexpensive. But you may easily find his writing more valuable – even more accessible and relevant – than the last book you read.
Technorati Tags: United States, America, revolution, French, economist, Frederic Bastiat, republic, France, morality, enlightenment, European Union, intellectual, elite, Lisbon, Agreement, EU, American Constitution, Europe, government, US, expert, NYT, WSJ, Thomas Madden, Cam Beck
Sphere: Related Content
One of the big differences I see between the EU Charter and the U.S. Constitution is the focus.
Without its amendments (particularly the Bill of Rights), the bulk of the U.S. Constitution deals with the limits and scope of government. The EU Charter spends the bulk of its energy focusing on the boundaries of rights the people retain, which is, on its own, inherently dangerous.
Second, the size of the two documents is vastly different. The U.S. Constitution was written to be read and understood by common people, not only lawyers. This is not only preferred, but necessary if the people, not the lawyers, are to remain sovereign over the government. In fact, esoteric interpretations by the courts of allegedly hidden meanings of the text represents possibly at least as great a threat to our sovereignty (though probably greater) than any foreign power ever did. For if the people cannot read and interpret the Constitution on their own (and elect representatives who are at least coequal to the judiciary), then it is not a government of, by, and for the people, but rather a government of and by the judges and lawyers.
Perhaps that’s why France rejected it. I don’t know.
It’s clear that the intent of the charter is to institute a sort of shared sovereignty between each of the independent governments and the collective whole to reap the benefits of shared resources and streamlined trade.
However, in any case, to share sovereignty that was previously wholly owned by a single entity requires giving up a portion of that sovereignty to an outside party. The history of European relations (not to mention the decrees of the EU as it exists now) provides plenty of examples of why the different people would be suspicious of any such attempts.
Based on this analysis, I think the EU should be defined by its limited powers only and should not attempt to calculate the litany of rights that are too numerous to define anyway.
Hello Cam,
I recall the irony of an anti-EU UK minister carrying around in his pocket a copy of the US Constitution to make precisely the point that you do – short, concise, readable, understandable.
I love your note about the ultimate guardian of the Constitution being the people’s confidence that they understand it – and can use that understanding to select and control their politicians. The EU’s refusal to take the points made by such as the UK minister may speak to concerns about that. On the one hand, Lisbon Agreement supporters complain about critics distorting its contents and misleading Irish voters. But on the other hand, they never launched a serious campaign to debate and explain it.
There were plenty of critics of our Constitution, and the Federalists papers were a vigorous and effective counter by key authors of the document. Where were the champions of the agreement?
I agree with your assessment of what would be best for the success of the EU project – at least, from the perspective of the sovereignty of its several peoples/nations. Its the progressive agenda of the project – and the way that plays out in the political process of expanding and deepening the experiment – that fascinates me.
Thanks so much for your visit and, as always, for your incisive commentary!