A More Perfect Union

California Constantian writes:

With the Occupy Wall Street movement gaining momentum worldwide, one common (and valid) criticism is their lack of common goals, demands, or leadership. What is common (from what I see) is the occasional presence of Ron Paul supporters.

Apparently, this OWS demographic believes that Paul is the true answer to their problems and can give true power to the working class, all because of his absolute adherence to the Constitution. Of course, when asked about his thoughts about OWS, Paul does gives his support, but then begins to insist that the protestors direct their anger at the Federal Reserve.

Funny... whenever I hear Paul talk about the nation's problems he admits the wrongdoings of the private sector plutocrats and yet only proposes an aggressive stance on the Federal Reserve.

That's all that seems to be on his mind... the Fed.

Make no mistake, I'm not exactly a fan of the Fed. But doesn't it seem like he is downplaying the corruption of the plutocracy in the private sector, who are just as responsible if not more so for the financial crisis and the increasing class stratification?

Ron Paul may have popularity and is certainly vocal about government incompetence and corporate greed (rightfully so), but I just don't see how he can be a populist figure; his solution for everything is reducing the size of government and deregulating, the latter of which is a huge cause of increasing class stratification now.

In a nutshell, the Ron Paul logic can be summarized as "Corporations and banks are driving this country down into the ground and hurting the average American. So what will I do about it? Reduce the size of government, abolish the minimum wage, reduce regulations and give corporations and banks MORE freedom to do as they please!"

Of course, when talking to a typical Paul supporter you usually get:

"But he votes by the Constitution! And that's what will make him a good president! The Constitution must be restored and respected so that our problems will be fixed and we can truly be free!"

Yes, Paul is known for his stance against the Patriot Act for its unconstitutional violations. Paul also opposed Obamacare (which is hardly an acceptable standard of healthcare, but certainly better than the status quo) and justified that by citing that there is nothing about healthcare in the Constitution. Okay fine, but the original text said nothing about a lot of things: slavery abolishment, women's suffrage, organized labor, discrimination against minorities and disabled, the list goes on. So... which version do we need to abide by? If the Constitution has been changed so many times in so many ways in so many eras by so many people, how can it really be the "end all be all"? And if basic common sense things such as the abolishment of slavery had to be added after nearly a century of existence and a bloody Civil War, and if the modern political elite can use the document to justify the denial of human services to the lower classes... how is this paper our salvation?

Call me radical, reactionary, flat out unreasonable, or all of the above, but the US Constitution (and constitutions in general) is not a living, breathing document. It is not a great supreme being that is here to defend you when things go wrong and deliver you from hardships. It is a piece of paper written by wealthy white male slave owners who had their own interests at heart at the time of its drafting. This simple piece of paper is just that, a piece of paper, and it can be either adhered to, ignored, or altered by the political class whenever they deem it popular or convenient to do so. This simple piece of paper can be interpreted by the political class any way they wish, and what is constitutional or not is fully dependent on the interpreter's political favors, background, or idealism.

That said, it is a good thing to have a charter to list the basic rights of humans and who is entitled to what for a comfortable life. But relying solely on a piece of paper is counterproductive; what leads to the political elite having its way with the document is that the document itself has no soul. Again, it is a piece of PAPER. It does not have feelings, a sense of justice, or common sense other than what the political elite says. It is a tool, nothing more. The US Constitution in particular was hardly philanthropic; slavery was allowed, Native Americans were demonized, women and non-wealthy men were denied the vote. The intentions behind the text were nowhere near populist; the Founders wrote it to ensure that they could keep their property (and not have to share) and to give political power to those like them (who would thus have similar interests).

Do you want to have a standard to preserve your rights? Use a human being who is not part of the political class. (predictable tangent in 3...2...1...) One that wears a crown can be an excellent example; a monarch is not chosen by any party in the political elite to be an interpreter, nor is he/she bound to please constituents in the elite. What a monarch does have is human feelings. Only a human who is separate from the political class can know what is right and wrong. When the political class uses a piece of paper to justify oppression, you can have your crowned head administer economic and social justice that is truly philanthropic in a way that no document can.

Again, it is a good idea to have basic rights and the philosophy of justice in writing, just make sure that it is written with populist interests and not the political elite. But even so, left all alone the document becomes their tool. When this happens, the "living breathing document" that was supposed to protect you is now being used to exploit you.

Bottom line? Whatever it is you campaign for, drop the Constitution litmus test. Demand economic justice, demand government accountability and an end to corruption, but demanding a by-the-book use of the Constitution will accomplish absolutely nothing. The only sense of justice a document has is from whoever wrote it.