Usually Constitution Week passes mostly unnoticed. This year it seems that many more people are observing it. This makes my little nerdy heart happy. However, I find that, in observing constitution week, many are not celebrating the constitution. I see post after post using Constitution Week to celebrate a specific political party. (hint:political parties are not in the constitution) I assume that most people who affiliate with a specific party do so because they agree with a majority of that party's tenants, or at the very least, find their party of choice to align more closely with their priorities than the opposing party. I would expect someone who belongs to a party to passionately defend the ideas put forth by said party. I don't find anything problematic about that dynamic. I find the idea that one political party is the sole defender of the constitution while the opposing party is the Enemy of America to be shallow, intellectually dishonest, and in direct conflict with the ideas upon which this country was founded. I do not find promoting a single party as the sole owner of patriotism an appropriate way to observe Constitution Week.
In many a political discussion, the intentions of the founding fathers are invoked. Certainly discussing the men who created the country makes sense. What does not make sense is talking about "the founding fathers" as a monlith. The reason one political party cannot claim to be the sole defenders of the constitution is because the constitution was not created by a single political ideology.
The collective memory of the founding of America often looks like this:
Sometimes it's nice to imagine that the delegates arrived in Philadelphia and almost instantly began politely dictating the constitution. Someone said, "I think we ought to have three coequal branches of government." To which someone else said, "A fine idea, good sir. I'd like to also divide the legislative branch into two chambers." Whereupon founding father the third chimed in, "Quite so, my good man. In addition, let us add a provision that all tax legislation must originate in the lower chamber." All the while, Jacob Shallus sat quietly in the corner carefully transcribing the conversation in calligraphy. The balance of the summer was then spent proofreading the first draft. While that would be a lovely story, that's not how it happened. The founding fathers certainly approached the task with admiration and respect for the strengths of their colleagues, but they did not all agree on what America should be.
It is instructive to remember that the early days of the republic also looked like this:
The constitutional convention included heated disagreements, juvenile insults, intense divisions, and near failure. The founders were all talented and well studied. They were each patriotic and wanted to see the new country succeed. They were passionate about their goals. And they did not agree on the best course of action. They were willing to include things they disagreed with while also ardently insisting on the things that were most important to them. The result of their actions was not the canonization of The One True America. Rather it is a wonderfully resilient collection of ideological inconsistencies and contradictions that could evolve to become one of the most powerful nations on earth.
At the end of the convention, the constitution included something for everyone to be upset about. But they also seemed to be incredibly proud and protective of their accomplishment. The founding of the United States was not just an experiment in representative government, but also an exercise in pluralism.
*please don't leave comments about how this is an example of a failed public education system. Students receive adequate education in all levels of government from municipal to national. The instructional calendar just doesn't allow for the allotted time on the constitution to coincide with the anniversary of its creation.
