Good question, Dad! (and it’s fitting that you’re posting from Mom’s account, because she got me this book for my birthday, so this post is thanks to her). Just a couple of thoughts that come to mind: 1) Trump’s recklessness regarding the rule of law seems to me to emerge from his experience as real estate developer trying to get through red tape, seeing legal mandates as an annoyance rather than something to be respected (he talks about this some on the Joe Rogan podcast). So while that mindset is dangerous, I don’t see him as having specific, concrete goals about how he is going to undermine the American constitution or the rule of law directly (I suspect that he doesn’t even know what is meant by the phrase, “rule of law”!). Does that make him more or less dangerous? I would guess less, in that he won’t be strategically searching for all the weak spots he could exploit, and will be more easily hemmed in by the Justice Department and the courts and Congress. But what could be more dangerous is if his subordinates exploit his carelessness and ignorance to abuse the rule of law for their own personal benefit in ways that are less obvious. 2) I’m also less worried because I think Trump will largely be hemmed in by the electorate. His margins are razor thin in both the House and the Senate, and we have already seen with Gaetz dropping out some of the limits of Trump’s ability to get his way. I am hopeful that his wish for recess appointments will not gain any serious traction, though if that did happen, that would certainly embolden him, I think. I also think he won with a coalition that is not as “MAGA” as 2016, attracting more younger voters, non-white voters, urban voters that are unlikely to be loyal no matter what—and are not guaranteed to vote Republican in the mid-terms. There are all sorts of tail-end risks regarding Trump, but I can’t help but wonder if his victory and vote share suggests that more Americans have more confidence in our constitutional system to manage a wild card like him than do his critics warning about the end of democracy. Time will tell, I guess.
I'll admit that it is difficult for me to read some of Levin's points with a straight face. I don't see how anyone can look at many of these political institutions and seriously believe that they are functioning in the pollyannish way that they're conceived. In my opinion the electoral college is the worst of these—for whatever its purposes were or once might have been thought to be, its actual effect is to disenfranchise millions of people every four years.
The stuff about "legislating from the bench," which is such a tired and impotent idea, also made me laugh out loud. From what I can tell it's just high-minded code for "judges reaching decisions that I disagree with." No one complains about judges reaching decisions that they agree with, because then "legislating from the bench" just becomes "reaching a reasonable judgment based on relevant law."
Also, "They form that opinion in response to the question put to them at election time and the choice of answers presented to them" sounds like a deepity to me. If the structure of our political system is what presented me with the two ancient, senile, incompetent candidates who were running against each other in spring 2024, then that political system and its structure has failed.
Anyway, you don't need to respond to any of this. I enjoyed the writeup. I think I've just had too much lately of these constitutional paeans whose purpose seems to be to gaslight me into thinking that the cataclysmic train wreck in front of me is really, when you think about it, a good thing.
My post about Levin’s book focused on the parts that I was most interested in, so some of what you are looking for might be there in the book. Levin is not naive about problems facing our political system, nor would he assume that the Constitution is perfect as is, but he would argue—and I would agree—that these problems stem in large part not from the system itself but from the ways we try to make the system work in ways it was not designed for. He has a lot to say, for instance, about how to improve Congress and the selection of presidential nominees that I left out in my recap, much of which focuses on getting the different branches to fulfill their constitutional roles better. And I would say that when you are evaluating a constitution, you have to compare it not to some idealized political system but to some real alternative, and it is not clear to me that other countries have arrived at better approaches, or that their approaches would work better here, given our population and history.
As for judicial review, I am finding that nothing puts me outside of the mainstream of most people around me as my belief that the current Supreme Court is actually working pretty well and is doing a good job.
So wait, Levin’s argument is that the medium dictates the message? Political structure is the will of the people? I find that frustrating and not ideal. That is possibly what Madison wanted, but it can have real problems that was perhaps not foreseen and that Levin is defending on a theoretical level? All questions. I do agree with the reading on partisanship.
Just to follow up what I talked with you about: what I like about Levin’s approach is that it pushes back against an idea like “the will of the people” or “the voice of the people.” That gets invoked often to justify political positions as being “the voice of the people,” but there actually is no such thing. For one, each individual—all of us—are a combination of political values and principles that are not unified and often contradictory. It is hard for us to even speak with a single “voice” about what we believe. Second, there is no “the people,” only a majority of the people who can assert their influence through a first-past-the-post democratic structure. Presuming unity among the people is sounds nice—who doesn’t want to feel unified—but it often oppresses minority positions (think of how unified America was post-9/11–looking back, it’s clear that was not healthy for our political culture). So “the will of the people,” if it exists at all, can only be made manifest through the electoral process. I think this happens to be a good thing, because I think representatives can do better to reason through positives and negatives than individuals can in more direct forms of democracy. But you do always run the risk of the legislature not responding to the people, so you have to make sure that power resides most centrally with the legislature so that the people can actually affect change through the electoral process.
Dallin, You’re quite amazing! I wish I were a Constitutional scholar, but have always felt it the product of genius and divinely inspired Founders. While I must admit that some of yours and Levin’s writings whizzed overhead, I appreciated that the authors of the Constitution understood human nature so well and that’s why they gave us a republic and not a pure democracy. Based on what you’ve learned, how do you see the Trump and MAGA takeover, especially where Trump will have no constraint of seeking re-election (though I suppose he’ll want to be known by history as the greatest president of all time, which may give him some pause in his decision making), is this so-called “mandate” an aberration in our political history that will go away in time or do you think it will further erode the rule of law and cause irreparable damage to the Constitution? I know you don’t have a crystal ball anymore than anyone else, but just curious if you feel like this is a wide swing of the political pendulum that will get corrected by the electorate (thanks to the Constitution) or if we’re moving into new and uncharted territory that will likely have dire Constitutional consequences down the road?
Good question, Dad! (and it’s fitting that you’re posting from Mom’s account, because she got me this book for my birthday, so this post is thanks to her). Just a couple of thoughts that come to mind: 1) Trump’s recklessness regarding the rule of law seems to me to emerge from his experience as real estate developer trying to get through red tape, seeing legal mandates as an annoyance rather than something to be respected (he talks about this some on the Joe Rogan podcast). So while that mindset is dangerous, I don’t see him as having specific, concrete goals about how he is going to undermine the American constitution or the rule of law directly (I suspect that he doesn’t even know what is meant by the phrase, “rule of law”!). Does that make him more or less dangerous? I would guess less, in that he won’t be strategically searching for all the weak spots he could exploit, and will be more easily hemmed in by the Justice Department and the courts and Congress. But what could be more dangerous is if his subordinates exploit his carelessness and ignorance to abuse the rule of law for their own personal benefit in ways that are less obvious. 2) I’m also less worried because I think Trump will largely be hemmed in by the electorate. His margins are razor thin in both the House and the Senate, and we have already seen with Gaetz dropping out some of the limits of Trump’s ability to get his way. I am hopeful that his wish for recess appointments will not gain any serious traction, though if that did happen, that would certainly embolden him, I think. I also think he won with a coalition that is not as “MAGA” as 2016, attracting more younger voters, non-white voters, urban voters that are unlikely to be loyal no matter what—and are not guaranteed to vote Republican in the mid-terms. There are all sorts of tail-end risks regarding Trump, but I can’t help but wonder if his victory and vote share suggests that more Americans have more confidence in our constitutional system to manage a wild card like him than do his critics warning about the end of democracy. Time will tell, I guess.
I'll admit that it is difficult for me to read some of Levin's points with a straight face. I don't see how anyone can look at many of these political institutions and seriously believe that they are functioning in the pollyannish way that they're conceived. In my opinion the electoral college is the worst of these—for whatever its purposes were or once might have been thought to be, its actual effect is to disenfranchise millions of people every four years.
The stuff about "legislating from the bench," which is such a tired and impotent idea, also made me laugh out loud. From what I can tell it's just high-minded code for "judges reaching decisions that I disagree with." No one complains about judges reaching decisions that they agree with, because then "legislating from the bench" just becomes "reaching a reasonable judgment based on relevant law."
Also, "They form that opinion in response to the question put to them at election time and the choice of answers presented to them" sounds like a deepity to me. If the structure of our political system is what presented me with the two ancient, senile, incompetent candidates who were running against each other in spring 2024, then that political system and its structure has failed.
Anyway, you don't need to respond to any of this. I enjoyed the writeup. I think I've just had too much lately of these constitutional paeans whose purpose seems to be to gaslight me into thinking that the cataclysmic train wreck in front of me is really, when you think about it, a good thing.
My post about Levin’s book focused on the parts that I was most interested in, so some of what you are looking for might be there in the book. Levin is not naive about problems facing our political system, nor would he assume that the Constitution is perfect as is, but he would argue—and I would agree—that these problems stem in large part not from the system itself but from the ways we try to make the system work in ways it was not designed for. He has a lot to say, for instance, about how to improve Congress and the selection of presidential nominees that I left out in my recap, much of which focuses on getting the different branches to fulfill their constitutional roles better. And I would say that when you are evaluating a constitution, you have to compare it not to some idealized political system but to some real alternative, and it is not clear to me that other countries have arrived at better approaches, or that their approaches would work better here, given our population and history.
As for judicial review, I am finding that nothing puts me outside of the mainstream of most people around me as my belief that the current Supreme Court is actually working pretty well and is doing a good job.
This feels like the moderate, measured position that is the right attitude toward things, that nevertheless I have a hard time coming to.
So wait, Levin’s argument is that the medium dictates the message? Political structure is the will of the people? I find that frustrating and not ideal. That is possibly what Madison wanted, but it can have real problems that was perhaps not foreseen and that Levin is defending on a theoretical level? All questions. I do agree with the reading on partisanship.
Just to follow up what I talked with you about: what I like about Levin’s approach is that it pushes back against an idea like “the will of the people” or “the voice of the people.” That gets invoked often to justify political positions as being “the voice of the people,” but there actually is no such thing. For one, each individual—all of us—are a combination of political values and principles that are not unified and often contradictory. It is hard for us to even speak with a single “voice” about what we believe. Second, there is no “the people,” only a majority of the people who can assert their influence through a first-past-the-post democratic structure. Presuming unity among the people is sounds nice—who doesn’t want to feel unified—but it often oppresses minority positions (think of how unified America was post-9/11–looking back, it’s clear that was not healthy for our political culture). So “the will of the people,” if it exists at all, can only be made manifest through the electoral process. I think this happens to be a good thing, because I think representatives can do better to reason through positives and negatives than individuals can in more direct forms of democracy. But you do always run the risk of the legislature not responding to the people, so you have to make sure that power resides most centrally with the legislature so that the people can actually affect change through the electoral process.
Last comment is from your dad using mother’s account.
Dallin, You’re quite amazing! I wish I were a Constitutional scholar, but have always felt it the product of genius and divinely inspired Founders. While I must admit that some of yours and Levin’s writings whizzed overhead, I appreciated that the authors of the Constitution understood human nature so well and that’s why they gave us a republic and not a pure democracy. Based on what you’ve learned, how do you see the Trump and MAGA takeover, especially where Trump will have no constraint of seeking re-election (though I suppose he’ll want to be known by history as the greatest president of all time, which may give him some pause in his decision making), is this so-called “mandate” an aberration in our political history that will go away in time or do you think it will further erode the rule of law and cause irreparable damage to the Constitution? I know you don’t have a crystal ball anymore than anyone else, but just curious if you feel like this is a wide swing of the political pendulum that will get corrected by the electorate (thanks to the Constitution) or if we’re moving into new and uncharted territory that will likely have dire Constitutional consequences down the road?