A snarky question in return: why was I able to join the military when I was 17 but considered to young to vote or have a (legal) beer?
I'm all for age limits: 21 to drive. 33 to vote. 46 to sit under a college professor. 19 to get married (Mrs. Perspective). 13 own a .22 (the age of my kids). 25 to work on the electricity of your house. 17 to have a beer. 48 to have booze. 51 to comment on blogs. 37 to have a social media account. 24 for sex. 39 to take on debt.
In the 1960s a BBC radio comedy show called 'Beyond Our Ken' (later 'Round the Horne') featured a rural character who answered every question with 'Oi think the answer loies in the soil'. Maybe the answer to the question here, and others in contemporary US politics, lies primarily in the US Constitution and the hold it has on the American imagination.
I suppose most Americans figure they are operating within societal norms if they abide by the Constitution and are offended by those who flaunt the Constitution. Sometimes I think of it as sort of like a game with rules. Cheaters are reviled whether they think the rules are bad or not. Proper conduct demands that if you don't like the rules, you must convince most of the players to change the rules.
Victor says the second amendment is not a religion but I imagine that for many conservative Americans the constitution has a near sacred status. Loving America and loving the constitution are one and the same. Hence the opprobium heaped on Obama with his 'fundamental transformation' remark. I can see this intellectually in so far as the constitution enshrines the very freedoms that have helped America become the prosperous place it is (a near empty land with generous natural resources helped of course, as did the natural grit of the people who risked thousands of miles of ocean to get there). It holds up a mirror to the conservative American psyche: we are the kind of ruggedly individual people who want to live under these rules.
But from this corner of Western Europe it does seem absurd that political solutions to the abortion and gun issues, say, are held back by 18th century documents. The founders had no idea what problems scientific medicine would produce two centuries later, or indeed the mass production of hand guns. The rules of life seem to be set by meta rules about what kinds of rules are to be allowed. I can see that it can be argued that the constitution has kept tyranny at bay where that has failed in some European states in the last century. But we Brits get along without such restrictions, trusting to a natural sense of decency backed up by a determination to fight if we have to. We are fellow Anglos.
I doubt scientific advancements have changed the calculus of whether or not abortion is morally acceptable or whether citizens in good standing should be allowed to own a gun. And it's not as if it were impossible to change the Constitution although there would have to be a broad consensus to do so. If broad consensus existed on these issues, then it could and would be changed.
Brits may trust the Queen having a natural sense of decency, but America started out with the perceived injustice of King George and the Enlightenment conviction of rule by consent and accordingly the right to dissolve existing political associations. Most of the Bill of Rights reflect safeguards of the people against a tyrannical government.
I don't think most Americans trust their government as much as Brits trust theirs (unless of course their party is in power). We have at least been able to agree we have the Constitution as fair rules. It seems the left has grown impatient with that and simply wants to implement their agenda regardless of what the Constitution says.
I agree that advances in science don't change the moral arguments. It's just that they have contributed to a moral problem that was hardly there before and certainly one the founders did not consider. Yet it seems that, so far, their words can be seen as favouring one particular side. Debate over. This leaves no room for ordinary politics to aim for a compromise that finds democratic assent. Politics diverts into finding ways of gerrymandering the supreme court. This is what we Brits find painfully absurd. We get no joy from watching America tear itself in two.
No one agreed to having the Constitution. It's just there, part of the nation's history, just as we have the Monarchy. US armed forces swear loyalty to the Constitution and ours to the Crown. I can understand one political faction becoming frustrated by another's use of the Constitution as a way of blocking what they see as needed reforms. Here the Crown is above politics and can't be used in this way. There is a joke, an exaggeration really, to the effect that the Queen has been on the throne for decades and nobody knows her political views. It was seen as somewhat scandalous that a remark she made in private to the then PM David Cameron regarding Brexit became public knowledge.
I suspect Americans don't understand this. In his contribution to the recent Jubilee celebrations Barack Obama spoke of the Queen's 'coming to power'. US presidents come to power but the Queen does not. She has no power. She merely ascended to the throne, as we say.
It's just that they have contributed to a moral problem that was hardly there before and certainly one the founders did not consider.
Let's de-confound a bit. The Constitution is silent on abortion (murder also for that matter) so there was never a Constitutional right for or against abortion. The Second Amendment does mention the "right" to keep and bear arms so that is considered a Constitutional right whether you're for or against it. If the founders wanted citizens to be able to own guns to prevent tyranny, then I doubt they'd quibble that only muskets should be allowed for that purpose. Regardless, as I've said, if enough people are convinced to get rid of the Second Amendment it can be done without bloodshed.
Monarchy has been the most stable form of government over the course of history. The American experiment, although the oldest of the Enlightenment republics is relatively new. Looks like plenty of people want it to be over, by things like trying to stack the courts, suing to keep candidates off the ballet, fooling with elections and so on.
8 comments:
It is the responsibility of all Christins to educate the culture to where people do not wish to own guns.
A snarky question in return: why was I able to join the military when I was 17 but considered to young to vote or have a (legal) beer?
I'm all for age limits: 21 to drive. 33 to vote. 46 to sit under a college professor. 19 to get married (Mrs. Perspective). 13 own a .22 (the age of my kids). 25 to work on the electricity of your house. 17 to have a beer. 48 to have booze. 51 to comment on blogs. 37 to have a social media account. 24 for sex. 39 to take on debt.
In the 1960s a BBC radio comedy show called 'Beyond Our Ken' (later 'Round the Horne') featured a rural character who answered every question with 'Oi think the answer loies in the soil'. Maybe the answer to the question here, and others in contemporary US politics, lies primarily in the US Constitution and the hold it has on the American imagination.
David,
I suppose most Americans figure they are operating within societal norms if they abide by the Constitution and are offended by those who flaunt the Constitution. Sometimes I think of it as sort of like a game with rules. Cheaters are reviled whether they think the rules are bad or not. Proper conduct demands that if you don't like the rules, you must convince most of the players to change the rules.
Hi BM,
Victor says the second amendment is not a religion but I imagine that for many conservative Americans the constitution has a near sacred status. Loving America and loving the constitution are one and the same. Hence the opprobium heaped on Obama with his 'fundamental transformation' remark. I can see this intellectually in so far as the constitution enshrines the very freedoms that have helped America become the prosperous place it is (a near empty land with generous natural resources helped of course, as did the natural grit of the people who risked thousands of miles of ocean to get there). It holds up a mirror to the conservative American psyche: we are the kind of ruggedly individual people who want to live under these rules.
But from this corner of Western Europe it does seem absurd that political solutions to the abortion and gun issues, say, are held back by 18th century documents. The founders had no idea what problems scientific medicine would produce two centuries later, or indeed the mass production of hand guns. The rules of life seem to be set by meta rules about what kinds of rules are to be allowed. I can see that it can be argued that the constitution has kept tyranny at bay where that has failed in some European states in the last century. But we Brits get along without such restrictions, trusting to a natural sense of decency backed up by a determination to fight if we have to. We are fellow Anglos.
Useful piece on the gun issue here.
David,
I doubt scientific advancements have changed the calculus of whether or not abortion is morally acceptable or whether citizens in good standing should be allowed to own a gun. And it's not as if it were impossible to change the Constitution although there would have to be a broad consensus to do so. If broad consensus existed on these issues, then it could and would be changed.
Brits may trust the Queen having a natural sense of decency, but America started out with the perceived injustice of King George and the Enlightenment conviction of rule by consent and accordingly the right to dissolve existing political associations. Most of the Bill of Rights reflect safeguards of the people against a tyrannical government.
I don't think most Americans trust their government as much as Brits trust theirs (unless of course their party is in power). We have at least been able to agree we have the Constitution as fair rules. It seems the left has grown impatient with that and simply wants to implement their agenda regardless of what the Constitution says.
I agree that advances in science don't change the moral arguments. It's just that they have contributed to a moral problem that was hardly there before and certainly one the founders did not consider. Yet it seems that, so far, their words can be seen as favouring one particular side. Debate over. This leaves no room for ordinary politics to aim for a compromise that finds democratic assent. Politics diverts into finding ways of gerrymandering the supreme court. This is what we Brits find painfully absurd. We get no joy from watching America tear itself in two.
No one agreed to having the Constitution. It's just there, part of the nation's history, just as we have the Monarchy. US armed forces swear loyalty to the Constitution and ours to the Crown. I can understand one political faction becoming frustrated by another's use of the Constitution as a way of blocking what they see as needed reforms. Here the Crown is above politics and can't be used in this way. There is a joke, an exaggeration really, to the effect that the Queen has been on the throne for decades and nobody knows her political views. It was seen as somewhat scandalous that a remark she made in private to the then PM David Cameron regarding Brexit became public knowledge.
I suspect Americans don't understand this. In his contribution to the recent Jubilee celebrations Barack Obama spoke of the Queen's 'coming to power'. US presidents come to power but the Queen does not. She has no power. She merely ascended to the throne, as we say.
It's just that they have contributed to a moral problem that was hardly there before and certainly one the founders did not consider.
Let's de-confound a bit. The Constitution is silent on abortion (murder also for that matter) so there was never a Constitutional right for or against abortion. The Second Amendment does mention the "right" to keep and bear arms so that is considered a Constitutional right whether you're for or against it. If the founders wanted citizens to be able to own guns to prevent tyranny, then I doubt they'd quibble that only muskets should be allowed for that purpose. Regardless, as I've said, if enough people are convinced to get rid of the Second Amendment it can be done without bloodshed.
Monarchy has been the most stable form of government over the course of history. The American experiment, although the oldest of the Enlightenment republics is relatively new. Looks like plenty of people want it to be over, by things like trying to stack the courts, suing to keep candidates off the ballet, fooling with elections and so on.
Post a Comment