Constitutional Character as Destiny
December 4, 2024
If it is true, as the Athenian philosopher Heraclitus said, that “character is destiny,” then it may be said that a nation’s constitution is its destiny. Does a nation’s constitution exalt fundamental principles—due process; equal protection and the rule of law; and freedom of speech, press, and religion? Equally revealing of a nation’s character are its laws, policies, and programs. They reveal its values, as Aristotle said, and open a window onto its soul. How does a country treat the poor, the hungry, the downtrodden and dispossessed?
In the aftermath of a bitterly divisive presidential election in which constitutional norms were given short shrift, there is merit in contemplating the character of the U.S. Constitution, particularly as it reflects some of the Framers’ concerns to corral power, their historical reforms and remedies, and the relevance of Enlightenment philosophy to our political discussions.
There was, first, the Framers’ abiding belief that political power, like government itself, is a necessary evil. Power corrupts and it must be limited and controlled, harnessed and brought in line with civic order. The Constitution, with its emphasis on enumeration of powers, separation of powers, checks and balances, and boundaries to fence in legislative, executive, and judicial power, reflects the fundamental distrust of power that animated the American Revolution, and which has remained a legacy. As Jefferson wrote, “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
While European countries concentrated authority in the executive, the Framers dispersed it, an arrangement born of deep distrust of executive power as wielded by King George III and taught in the lessons of history that they absorbed. Presidential power—its possibilities and the challenges it poses to our legal order—permeates our national discussions. The Framers broke from the monarchical model that governed foreign affairs and conferred upon Congress, not the president, the lion’s share of the nation’s foreign policy powers.
The Framers envisioned judicial review as a means of policing legislative and executive power. Constitutional landscaping, in the form of early amendments—the addition of the Bill of Rights—advanced the aims and purposes of constitutional governance, in the spirit of creating a more perfect union, but their scope and application were the subject of dispute then, as they are now.
Undergirding the structure of the system that they created—an overhaul of the Articles of Confederation, a refinement of early state constitutions, and an application of the lessons learned from the 17th Century English Civil Wars, particularly as they illuminated the evolving idea that legitimate governmental power springs from the people and that it should be exercised in conformance with statutes and judicial decisions—was the intellectual process for discussions about government and politics that emerged from the Enlightenment.
The founders, children of the Enlightenment, were men of experience and understanding, and they were familiar with the influential role of “propaganda” in politics—including the American Revolution. They did not mean, by use of this term, to include important state papers and weighty pamphlets, but rather appeals to passion and prejudice. What they hoped for was discourse that reflected sustained arguments, appeals to reason, logic, principles, evidence, facts, and intellectual coherence, befitting a new political order grounded in the higher goal of the politics of persuasion rather than one subject to what today is understood to be disinformation and misinformation. Citizens could be misled and fooled by demagoguery, of course, but the pursuit of republican ideals required truth, for a sovereign people could hardly be said to consent to government if they were fed false information by governmental officials or candidates for office.
The founders believed in the power of ideas, their cogency, and the quality of argumentation as forces to lead the Republic. They believed in something greater than self-interest and self-gain.
In the wake of the election, described by many as overly intense and even unsavory, there are good reasons for American citizens to recall the aspirations of the Enlightenment, the ideals—facts, truths, and evidence—that ought to guide our national discussions. A civic-minded Republic, adequately informed, determined to hold candidates and officials accountable for what they say and what they do, can shape governmental behavior and play a vital role in ensuring loyalty to the Constitution which, when you think about it, is our destiny.
-David Adler