Reconnecting with the Constitution

A review of American Covenant.

The Roman Republican constitution was based on a series of traditions to govern a regional city-state. As Rome increased in scope and power, the unwritten Constitution proved unwieldy for managing a far-flung empire. Instead of altering the Constitution through various provisions, the Roman state became subject to a series of ambitious generals who believed that one-person rule (with themselves as rulers, of course) was the best way to govern, and thus, the Republic became an Empire. Inducement and argumentation gave way to dictate and decree.  

The concept of a monarchical-style rule has been the normal system of government for most of human history, and we see it today in places such as Venezuela, Egypt, Russia, China, and North Korea.  There is a definite attraction for populations as these systems are seemingly better able to “get things done” or unify the nation.  We are even treated to the inanity of a “China for a Day” as if despotism can be worn and discarded like a pair of slacks.  The American Constitution, a written document, and now over 230 years old, represents a wholly different kind of governance.

In his American Covenant, Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise delves deeply into the framework and fabric of our Constitution.  He notes how our Constitution not only created the world’s most prosperous state but has become unbalanced over the past decades and our politics increasingly toxic. The author then prescribes how it can be fixed and how the Constitution itself can provide a common national identity without the need for tyranny.  

Levin provides two critical thoughts that are contrary to how we tend to approach politics today.  The first is that the work of governance begins only after elections.  They provide “a seat at the negotiating table, not the ability to exercise unlimited power,” states Levin.  The concept of we won, popularized by the Obama administration, suggests that whoever prevails in elections has carte blanche authority to impose their agenda.  The second of Levin’s arguments is that the Constitution is not just a series of power centers that serve as a check against the other’s authorities but as points of intersection wherein discussions of action begin.  

The book is broken into chapters covering federalism and the Constitutional provisions regarding the executive, the judiciary, and, most of all, the legislature.  Similar to George Will’s Conservative Sensibility, Levin notes two distinct views of American governance.  The first was articulated by Woodrow Wilson, who believed that the Constitution served as an impediment to prosperity by creating obstacles to the will of the American people. Wilson was the first president to reject the Constitution and valued authoritarian approaches.   The second Madisonian view, favored by Levin, relates not to hindrances but rather a forced consensus that is more representative of all the people, not just those who control the White House or Congressional majorities.  The Constitution places obstacles in the way of such factions so as to encourage even victors to seek durable consensus. “Ultimately, politics in every society exists to deal with differences and so assumes disagreement,” adds Levin. One of the terms in the book that continually arises is negotiation, whether between factions within the Congress or between the legislature with the executive and the federal government with the states.  

In a startling and highly compelling argument, Levin notes that within the federal government, it is the legislature, not the executive, that is to serve as the representative of the people.  Given the construct of our government or even the naming of one of the two houses of Congress, this should not be seen as counter-intuitive. Yet our celebration of presidents is such that we often mistake the executive’s role and too easily dismiss that of Congress.   

This past November 5th, Donald Trump was elected president.  Simultaneously, a new crop of over 30 Senators was elected, and 435 House members represented the vast swathe of the American people.  This does not even touch on the various state and local elections and ballot referendums that were decided.  As of this writing, Trump put forth some highly questionable candidates for places within his cabinet.  His supporters immediately claimed that the Senate, now enjoying a 53-vote GOP majority, should immediately approve of his choices.  The justification was the American people had just spoken.  No. 50% of the American people voted for Trump.  Another 48.5% voted for his opponent.  The fact that a president-elect should expect a rubber stamp completely justifies Levin’s contention that our Constitutional system is currently troubled.  Donald Trump was the preferred choice over Kamala Harris for the presidency. He was not chosen as Emperor. Even Reagan’s incredible 1984 landslide election, as close to a mandate as we have seen in the last 50 years, meant that 40% of Americans still rejected him.  

One of the most misunderstood words in our political language is unity, which Levin takes on later in the book. “The meaning of unity has always been a contentious one in America.” When politicians cite the American people, they suggest they are a unified whole. However, that is almost always wrong.  When Donald Trump or Joe Biden employ the word unity, they are not talking in terms of unification behind the concept of the nation or the constitutional framework but rather unequivocal support of their political agenda.  When such unity is not forthcoming, denigration and punishment follow.  The framers of the Constitution intentionally did not create a system where unification was immediate.  

Levin contends that the Framers feared temporary, narrow majorities imbued with hostility (or indifference) toward the rest of the political community. Whether it be Obama’s certitude around his Pen and Phone programs in which he rejected the will of Congress, or Trump’s ramming through tariffs cabinet appointees, the ethos is the same.  I got barely 50%, so I get whatever I want.  

Rebalancing will have to begin with Congress.  Levin does provide some prescriptions, such as the expansion of the House, a proposal advanced by my Freemen News colleague Jeff Mayhugh.  My concern is whether the House is 435 or 600, leadership would still control the legislation.  Like children with too much idle time, this allows too many intelligent, ambitious types to take to social media or fundraise instead of writing, negotiating, and voting on legislation.  It would be better to devolve power back to the members, including reviving committees.  And can we please get all the cameras out of the deliberating arenas? 

Levin concludes with the following, “We are the first word of the Constitution. It is the first word of the glorious second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Both documents speak in the first person plural because they speak for the people taking joint ownership of their common fate.” One of the keynotes of this book is that Americans who disagree with one another are not enemies, something lost on both the left and the right today.  “Our system of government makes sure that they (those to which we disagree) have to persuade a substantial portion of our society for an extended period of time before they could get their way, just as we do.”  

For nearly 100 years, since the election of Wilson in 1912, the left has replaced the concept of politics with morality and thus negotiating with dictating. They believe that there can be no compromise if they are arguing for moral good. Because the right often ends up mimicking the left, it is now using the same cudgels to achieve their political ends.  A better understanding is that governmental power is borne not through edict but persuasion.  Imbuing this idea back into our politics will be a tough slog, especially as the concept of coercion is now part of our political culture.  Massive issues ranging from debt and deficits to immigration, crime, inflation, and foreign affairs await action.  The politics of the past 30 years are not working, and Levin’s book provides a possible corrective for these ills and a terrific primer on the Constitution itself.

AD Tippet is the founder and Publisher of the Conservative Historian. Aves has conducted extensive research in Political, Religious, Social, and Educational history across all eras and geographies. He has been writing and podcasting for over 12 years. In 2020, he published his first book, The Conservative Historian. He has degrees in history, education, and an MBA. @BelAves