Mark Turns 30 and Rambles About Constitutional Democracy

So, this post, my first in several months, was supposed to be about the ravages of old age, since I turned 30 (duhn-duhn- DUHN) on Sunday. I have entered my fourth decade, as it were. Do I feel older? A little. But of the two goals I set for myself by this age, I have achieved one (Hi, Scott) and the other, that fabulous Hollywood career, well that’s going to take a little more time.

But instead of reflecting about the passing of time, describing what it’s like to wake up and find myself in a new demographic or raging at the storm of my own impending middle age, I’ve decided to re-enter the blogosphere with a few disjointed comments on anything and everything.

I just finished John Adams by David McCullough and I have to say it really changed the way I think of our founding fathers. I always knew Washington was aloof and a bit of a dandy, but I had no idea what a complicated and really psychologically unsound person Jefferson was. He went to great lengths to discredit Adams in the press, though still treated him as a great friend in public. His views on slavery were the definition of hypocrisy. And the guy had the fiscal responsibility of Tom Delay’s Congress. And Alexander Hamilton? Fascist. Completely militaristic and not a democrat in any way.

I had always heard the difference between Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian philosophy boiled down to and Urban vision of the country and an Agrarian one. Since I have always associated rural values with anti-gay issues and white supremacy (which is what happens when you meet some of the crazy Republicans from the eastern Whatcom County in Washington) I always assumed I was more of a Hamiltonian. I do believe in a strong federal government and that the strength of a republic lies in its cities. I think Jefferson’s idea of a wholly agrarian society is hopelessly out-dated and not practical. I guess where I differ with Hamilton (aside from his whole "let’s get ourselves a real big army and squash them French" thing) is the idea of a strong Executive. The Executive Branch was designed to be the weakest of the three branches, so that the power would be concentrated in Congress and the Judiciary. And as much as that might have been a reaction against the absolute monarchy of the 18th Century, it’s still a good idea. Congress is the branch most directly connected to the people, and thus it should be the strongest. We have strengthened the Presidency by great measures since 1789, and many of those were necessary. The veto and its use is very important. Our Commander in Chief should have broad military powers, especially in this day when things happen far too quickly for Congressional debate. But Congress ultimately should have the most power and should be able to check the President. And the judiciary should check them both.

As someone who is 30 (duhn-duhn- DUHN), I’ve lived through several administrations, many Congresses and many crises. I’ve seen the Executive over-step (Iran-Contra), I’ve seen the Congress go apoplectic for no good reason (can anyone say "Impeachment") and I’ve seen the Judiciary disregard the rights of citizens for political motive (Bush v. Gore).

But in recent weeks, the Judiciary (and the Democrats) have been the voices of reason in this country. The Terry Schiavo case should never have been national news. Her family should be able to grieve and argue in private and the poor woman should be allowed to have her wishes fulfilled in peace. But Tom Delay and his band of corrupt, cynical whack-jobs decided that Congress had the right to meddle in one family’s affairs. And our President saw fit to sign their ridiculous law. Can you remember a single time a piece of legislation was written for the sake of any one person? This was not a law setting policy; it was an exertion of power. It was not, in fact, a law, not really. Laws are broad; they are interpreted. They are about behaviors. They affect an anonymous person or persons. They do not specifically mention people’s names. This bill was an act of pure politics. It was cynical and anti-American and un-Constitutional. And for a party who is so tied to the notion of traditional marriage, they sure were quick to shove Michael Schiavo's rights out the window.

And all for naught. Because our system worked. The Judiciary took one look at the bill and recognized it for what it was and continued ruling the same way they have for the 15 years this case has been going on. Terry Schiavo’s wishes were never to be kept alive by artificial means. She is in a persistent vegetative state. Therefore the artificial means should be removed. That her life is ending is tragic and horrifically sad. That her husband and family are being denied their privacy at this hour of trial is alarming. That nut-job anti-American activists think it’s fine to kill Michael Schiavo if it keeps Terry alive is deeply disturbing.

But you know what’s not disturbing? What’s not sad? What has finally given the majority of Americans who believe in our Constitution and the Declaration hope? The fact that at the end of the day, what Congress did meant nothing. It affected nothing. Bush had no reason to cut his vacation short (and I’m sure Delay has heard as much from our Leisurer-In-Chief). And Jeb. Poor, poor, ineffectual Jeb. The majority of the country thinks he’s an idiot for trying to overstep his role. And the tiny minority who don’t think Terry Schiavo has a right to have her wishes fulfilled now feel that Jeb betrayed them. And Bill "Tears give you the AIDS" Frist has finally been revealed that we always knew he was. So, the far right wing of the GOP has finally done something that infuriated nearly everyone in the country. Huzzah! We finally have some real hope.

How does all of this relate to John Adams? In a lot of ways, really. BushCo, with their militarism and underhanded tactics are really very Hamiltonian. But they have won in large part by appealing to rural voters, those in a more Agrarian way of life, often very libertarian and against a strong federal government -- Jeffersonian. And they’ve played both of these sides off the middle, where I am. So I think it’s time for those of us who have considered themselves liberals, who have thought of ourselves as on the left, to realize that where we are really is the middle. We are not Hamiltonian or Jeffersonian, but some combination of both. We are, in effect, Adamsian. We believe in a separate church and state. We believe in a broad, but not unilateral, executive. We believe that peace is always the goal, but a strong military is not the enemy of peace but a thing of industry and innovation. (Hell, most of us went along with the Patriot Act, our very own Alien and Sedition Acts, and have come to regret it, just like Adams).

I'm tired of being labeled as being far out anywhere politically. My views make sense, with far fewer of the great contradictions that the current GOP has. How can the party of State's Rights also amend the Constitution to deny states the right to determine marriage for themselves? How can the party of Chuck Heston's "cold dead hand" advocate the dangerous and invasive new reaches of law enforcement, which have no effect on terrorism?

Is it about religion? Of course it's not. John Adams was a deeply religious man of warm faith, yet he also believed that the church and state should always remain separate. It's the only way to best serve both of them. The churches that are camped out, disrupting Terri Schiavo's last days are not acting of kindness to her family, or to her. They are not respecting her or her wishes. These are not acts of faith, they do not heal, they do not bring us together, they do not respect our society or its laws. They are acting out of political motive because somehow, if Jeb rides in with the state police and whisks this poor woman to a hospital, abortion will suddenly be outlawed.

Religion is great. Religion is something huge that brings many people together. I am not anti-religious. But I am sick of people trying to foist their faith on me. And I am really sick of people driving around with bumper stickers that basically scream, "I'm going to Heaven and you're not, HEATHEN!" Dude, it's called the Sin of Pride. Look it up. Each faith is strongest when all are respected, just like all people. We are narrowly avoiding a steep lurch into theocracy here. The GOP over-played their hand and may, hopefully, be finally free of the zealots who see nothing but fetuses and sinners. They are a minority, a small one. And while they certainly have their place in the marketplace of ideas, theirs is a niche market. Most of us keep our faith to ourselves and don't need everyone to agree with us in order to feel superior.

We deserve a strong Republican party. As Democrats, we need it to strengthen our own. Politics should be place of debate, not ridicule. It should be a conversation, not an insult contest. And every one of us should take a moment now and then to think about the nature of Democracy, to remember how special our Constitution is, so perfect in its imperfection. To stop thinking in terms of liberal or conservative or moderate. We should watch a documentary on the Bill of Rights one Saturday afternoon or read a biography of a founding father. Or at least watch a really good West Wing re-run on Bravo.

Or Project Runway, really. Because that show was fecking brilliant. And sometimes you need to kick back with some "Please do not defend the shoe to me." Otherwise you end up turning 30 (duhn-duhn-DUHN) and writing interminable blog entries about, say, strict versus loose constructionism to stave off the gout you just know is right around the corner, and that pain you get in your knuckles when it rains, that's just arthritis because you've been alive since the 70's and that was, like, The Age of Pong. And this birthday means you're just one Travolta comeback away from 40. And that shit is cold.