In a NYTimes Blog, University of Texas Law Professor, Sanford Levinson, argues that "the American political system [is] dysfunctional, even pathological" and the Constitution is, in large part, to blame.
His lesser critiques include "the clauses that helped to entrench chattel slavery," the unpopular Electoral College, which will produce this year "yet another election that 'battleground states' will dominate while the three largest states will be largely ignored," and "our vaunted system of 'separation of powers'" which "means that we rarely have anything that can truly be described as a 'government.'"
His primary critique is that "our Constitution among the most difficult to amend of any in the world" which "prevents needed reforms." We do not recognize that there "is anything to be concerned about" because Americans "have seemingly lost their capacity for thinking seriously about the extent to which the Constitution serves us well." The needed reforms he has in mind include increased use of referendum, "permit[ting] each newly elected president to appoint 50 members of the House and 10 members of the Senate," (or "reducing, if not eliminating, the president’s power to veto legislation."), requiring the votes of "seven of the nine Supreme Court justices... to overturn national legislation" and a judicial appointment process that is "electorally accountable" and by commission "to limit the politicization of the... process."
This primary critique betrays a startling ignorance of the role the constitution plays in our society. As a nation of immigrants without unifying ethnic, religious or historical attachments, we are bound together entirely through an American Bible, of which the constitution is the most important part -- why else would liberal Manhattanites and conservative Texans willingly allow the others votes to hold power over their lives? The constitution serves this function to the degree it is commonly revered. The common reverence for the constitution goes hand-in-hand with the difficulty involved, the social consensus required, in amending it.
In general, its hard to see how his argument translates to any concrete concerns. For example, the only evident impact of having Florida, rather than California and Texas, dominate campaign focus, is that campaigns are less expensive and, therefore, less reliant on large donors they they might otherwise be. More fundamentally, gridlock in Washington reflects a public deeply unsure and divided about how best to meet the challenges facing us. Its hard to see how an intelligent person could believe unquestioningly that empowering government to act more decisively in the absence of social consensus would lead to better political policy. Or rather, one doesn't have to read too deeply between the lines, to see in Professor Levinson (and those like him) a person who has given up on Democracy.
