I can't remember what I was reading—some sort of political commentary—that recommended this book. It has been sitting on my nightstand for several months, and I finally made it a priority. This, as with previous book reviews I have posted on this blog, is less a book review than a disorganized and arbitrary expression of thoughts that have occurred to me as a result of reading the book.
The political climate of today, as in most previous days, is turbulent. Most people I know are uncomfortable and/or unwilling to discuss political issues. I don't necessarily fault them for that, but I do find it lamentable. I wish we could engage in open and friendly discussion of what is best for our nation, and that the dialogue could be based on reason rather than juvenile name-calling and finger-pointing. It seems to me that too many people are confused by the words tolerance and agreement and can't really seem to emotionally distinguish the two.
I myself am not exactly sure where I fall in the mess of political opinion. There are several people whose opinions and judgment in general I trust implicitly but whose political views I find myself continually reluctant to espouse. I've made a concerted effort over the past several years to become informed, and to avoid jumping to ignorant and simplistic conclusions based on brief and shoddy news coverage. I attended a political rally just to see what it was all about.
After reading Skousen's work, I decided that my loyalty is to the Constitution. I was under the impression that the validity of the Constitution is under attack. Then I began my daily reading one of the online newspapers I subscribe to, and the very first article I came across rendered my decision obsolete, because everyone has his/her own definition of what the Constitution actually says, and I am not really seeing the proponents of either sides of controversial issues claiming that the Constitution has lost its value and authority. Just about everyone would, if asked, claim loyalty to the Constitution. Or maybe they wouldn't.
Regardless of all that, I do know that if we are ignorant of the political issues that surround us (and it seems to me we are generally heading in a direction to become less so), we are destined to be ruled by a less than savory government.
By examining the thinkers and writers who influenced the Founding Fathers, Skousen attempts to re-clarify many misunderstood or misrepresented ideas and principles set forth in the Constitution. I wouldn't say, like Glenn Beck has (by the way, I have neutral thoughts about Glenn Beck; I neither like nor dislike him), that every American citizen should read this particular book, but every American citizen should, somehow, become knowledgeable about the creation and history of the American government.
One person's take, no matter how well-researched and unmotivated by political agenda, is not enough to be content with. Therefore, I will be reading more. Me, read? What a novel concept.
And finally, I firmly believe that a nation of people who do not, individually and collectively, take responsibility for themselves and their families is never going to have a healthy political scene.
So let's all be responsible, okay?
I've only read a few chapters of this book, but I really liked what I read. One day I plan on finishing it.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, people generally support the constitution. Constitutional dissension usually comes in how it is interpreted: strictly or loosely. Conservatives generally prefer a strict interpretation and liberals a loose one. What does the term "living document" mean to you?
Living document? Well, that's a can of worms ....
ReplyDeleteIf I understand correctly, most people who refer to the Constitution as a "living document" mean that it is subject to change and evolution. I disagree heartily with that concept.
Here's why: the entire reason the Constitution was written the way it was was to provide stability in the most universal and enduring way. It is not open to interpretation in any sense other than the intent for which it was originally written. Technology and the economy have changed, but people haven't. People never change, and I think that if more people understood that people as a whole don't change, we wouldn't be in a lot of the mess we're in.
The Founders did not have a limited, old-fashioned world-view. They were flawed, of course, but they were also educated, progressive, intelligent, moral, and compassionate. That said, I'm pretty sure I disagree with you on the issue of education, which I know we've discussed in the past, and in regards to which formerly I was undecided. There is no provision that I know of in the Constitution that advises that the state should take care of the poor. However, it was intended that basic education should be funded by the state. (On a side note, it was also intended that religion and morality be as heavily emphasized in public education as knowledge—our current "interpretation" of separation of church and state is erroneous). Providing the basics is the only way to ensure that there is an informed body of citizens to choose their representatives.
Skousen claims that the 17th Amendment effectually took the power away from the states and gave it to the feds. This is the problem with allowing the Constitution to evolve, or be a "living document." The government doesn't need more power, it needs less. At this point, it is behaving much more like a monarchy than a democratic republic, all because the politicians, who have forgotten that they are servants of the people, are claiming the right to re-interpret the Constitution.
In short, I'm not really sure I answered your question. :)