Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Rewriting Our Constitution: Another Slapper for Napper


After a week kicking back with the goodwife and bonnie wee bairn on Spring break, Spartacus plows into the midst of the foray, like an M-1 tank out of the Churchill Downs starting gate. (That would be a sight! "I can't believe it! I have never seen the horses run this fast!" Vrrooomm!!) 

Spartacus is good for reality checks; I can generally count on him to cut through any thickness of BS (including my own) and expose the sick digestion behind it. Thanks to years in the military, his nose is even keener than his eyes, and he almost never gets his boots dirty. He also doesn't BS, himself – usually; sometimes, though, courtesy/culture requires him to squat and produce something particularly redolent… in which case, you'll either swear you're smelling roses, or stand back and marvel at the end product. 

So I sent him a copy of Lewis Napper's suggested "New Preamble to the Constitution" that had served as the pivot-point for last Friday's posting here. I wanted his read, figuring he'd spot more effluvium than I'd caught on my own quick weekend rake-over. 

His response last night doesn't let us down. 

Thanks for sending this "new preamble" along. This is another one of those conservative screeds which cycle and recycle interminably through the netherworld of the of the forwarded e-mail. At first glance, many of the points seem reasonable and desirable, but it doesn't take too much effort to pierce the façade to see the bigoted assumptions which lie underneath--and that, I believe, is where the corrosive insidiousness of this sort of "thought" dwells. You have addressed a number of these issues point by point, and done a great job with it. 

(Thanks for the compliment, Sparks! I wasn't trying to impress you, though you know, or anybody else; I just couldn't sit still and leave that simplistic drivel un- responded-to.)  

I see no point in reiterating your comments, so I'll just limit my critique to a brief look at the most obvious examples of the underlying assumptions which inform the conservative viewpoint contained within. 

The most striking is the willfully ignorant, arrogant mindset of those accustomed to a position of power and privilege, a mindset which places the holder both apart from and above the rest of the world. Unreflective, smugly self-congratulatory and vindictive, this mindset finds "its own" blamelessly perfect and places all the ills of the world in the hands of those "less worthy". 

"Article X" is typical of this sort of thinking, promulgating the myth of the English speaking nation, and simultaneously denying at least 14,000 years of history. Before the white man there was the "native" American, then the Spaniards, the Dutch, the French, the English, and many other ethnic and national groups. English rose to predominance as a consequence of war and cultural domination, and its preeminence has endured as a result of those particular historical forces--it was neither first, nor God-given, nor preordained to dominate forever. Just because our nation's founders were better at slaughtering the competition doesn't mean we are now somehow immune to the forces of change. 

"Article XI" promulgates another myth--that this nation was founded on a belief in God. Actually, the founding fathers were far more influenced by Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke. Yes, belief in God permeated the culture of the time, yet if one looks at the personal beliefs of many of the key founding fathers, one will discover their conception of God was closer to the Enlightenment's Deism--a viewpoint which was quite different from our contemporary conservative right's fundamentalist Christian god. 

"Article VI and VII", yes, you are absolutely not allowed to rob or commit crimes of violence upon other people, unless you are a member of the dominant culture and inflict those crimes upon the politically, socially and culturally disenfranchised members of "inferior" races, cultures or creeds. Phrases such as "manifest destiny" and "national interest" sanction the abandonment of all that is considered moral and just. 

If we are to live up to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; if we are to realize the true potential of America; if we are to endure as a vibrant nation; we need to take a painfully honest, objective look at ourselves, free from mindless, flag-waving hooplah and jingoistic self righteousness. Until we fully understand, accept and atone for the fallacies and flaws of this nation and our culture, we will never be able to attain true morality and justice. 

We have already endured almost 2 terms of the most ignominious yahoo to ever occupy the Oval Office. Electing the originator of this "preamble" to the office might well be the final straw...  

Preach on, brother! Speaking of rewriting the constitution, that's exactly what we've been sitting entirely too still throughout, these last six-plus insane years. Enough! Stand by for a further tirade, this one from none other than Lee Iacocca. I ran into it earlier today, and would like to put it up here a bit later today or tomorrow if possible. 

(And lest my other two readers think Sparklous and I are lock-steppers, I hope to post soon (with his permission) one of our debates on art. I mentioned this in passing, several paragraphs into my comments on Jesus-as-confection.)

 

No comments:

Post a Comment