Is This As Good As It Gets?

It occurs to me that the United States of America originated from a few basic ideas championed and pitched by a handful of white men two-thirds through the Eighteenth Century. Their notions of political philosophy informed their notions of value, which concepts had themselves been shaped by their readings in the fields of philosophy, religion (ethics), and politics. They stood on the intellectual shoulders of Enlightenment thinkers, who stood on the shoulders of their forebears—to whom they were indebted for advancements in philosophy and the world of ideas.

I doubt the framers thought of themselves and their work product, the US Constitution, as the capstone of intellectual achievement — even if restricted to attainments in political philosophy. Some were dissatisfied with Constitutional compromises that eliminated or restricted pet issues and ideals, concessions that nonetheless served the “greater good.” Being pragmatic, they most likely thought they had done as well as possible with the “light” they had, given the social and political realities of their time in history.

It seems reasonable to suspect the framer’s expected knowledge and intelligence would continue to grow and progress. They even baked in mechanisms for amending their work as the need arose. This alone shows their attitude towards the Constitution they created—that it was to be a “work in progress.”

We are one-quarter through the Twenty-First Century, at a remove of nearly 250 years from the framer’s work. What have we learned about that work and ourselves that could benefit from further adjustments?

Maybe the fundamental first question to answer is this: Is this as good as it gets?

Can the framer’s scheme be improved? For some readers, these questions amount to treasonous heresy. Believer’s in American Exceptionalism guided by a Divine Hand of Providence wouldn’t entertain the thought that America and her Constitutional system might be improved.

Let’s consider whether it is reasonable to believe that in 250 years, we have more information on the objective nature of reality and the human experience than the framers. I think we do. With the benefit of hindsight, let’s consider whether we have hit any snags in practical experience with the government they formed that might benefit from a retrofit. The presence of 27 Amendments should be a sufficient answer to the preceding sentence.

Given the changes already enacted, have we now, finally, arrived at perfection? Is the current iteration of the American governmental system the best it can be? Again: Is this as good as it gets?

Conservatives want to glorify and canonize the textual construction of the Constitution as if Divine Authority inspired the words. Yet, even the most ardent, self-identifying conservative Senators have been elected by the “non-textual,” “non-originalist” popular vote since the 1917 passage of the Seventeenth Amendment—which took their appointment away from their respective state legislatures—as prescribed by the framers.

And this example of egregious deviation from originalism is only one example among many departures from the framer’s intentions, as indicated by the language of the Constitutional text. How many of today’s professed conservative Senators see themselves as illegitimate bastard usurpers to their offices with respect to originalism? Probably exactly zero.

Shouldn’t we be willing to revisit the document and re-tool as necessary with these thoughts in mind?

Perhaps we live in an age too polarized to convene a new Constitutional Convention. Maybe we are constrained to the doom of a partisan, dysfunctional feedback loop from which we will never escape.

Just stop for a moment and think—

We cannot even get sixty Senators to agree that keeping children safe from murder in schools is more important than the ability of a consumer to purchase a weapon more quickly and efficiently than they can get a passport or driver’s license.

Maybe this uniquely American hell is as good as it gets.

After all, America does lead the world in mass shooting events and deaths by gun violence. American exceptionalism at its worst.

You may have read this far and want to ask: “If you feel this way, why not leave?”

And if that’s you, you’ve answered the question in my title. The country’s current condition is good enough for you and anyone who thinks similarly.

For me, it’s not. We can and must do better.

Though present-day America isn’t one, can we at least imagine a country where children are safe from gun violence at school? Can’t we picture a country where you need not fear being shot while grocery shopping because of your skin color?

If we can hold these ideas in our minds, how can we excuse ourselves for not taking every possible step to see them manifest in reality?

Are you not willing to remove from office those who won’t unflinchingly take those steps and do all that can be done to protect the innocent from gun violence?

Or will we delude ourselves once again? Lying to ourselves that this is as good as it gets…

We cannot allow Representatives to hide behind a twisted interpretation of the Second Amendment. The framers themselves would not have penned it identically if they were to begin their work anew in our time. The original text of that Amendment preserves the right of the people to keep and bear arms because weapons are fundamental to participation in a well-regulated Militia — which is itself necessary to the preservation of a Free State.

Which well-regulated Militias did the Buffalo and Uvalde murderers belong to such that they needed their semi-automatic weapons? Did they use those weapons for the only lawful reason the right to own them was granted—against the advent of Tyranny to preserve a Free State?

We can be confident the framers would be horrified at the use to which their words have been put so recently. And along with the sane among us, they’d be horrified to think this is as good as it gets.