Common Ground

[All very well, Dean, but does that mean Fish means there's no such thing as neutral ground? That there are no symbols, institutions, or procedures that aren't linked intrinsically to the to left or to the right, in one way or another? That Jesse Helms and I have NOTHING in common when it comes to what we dream for the United States?]

[One of the advantages monarchists cite for retaining a Head of State who isn't chosen by political means (e.g., a hereditary sovereign) is that that person can act, in theory and only in the most dire circumstances, as a referee, making sure no other part of a government acquires absolute power, or acts in a way that goes fundamentally against a nation's principles. He or she (sic) also acts as a symbol for all citizens to rally around, because (the theory goes) it's good for a nation divided on every political issue to have at least one common point of reference. (Which is why the U.K. Tories are currently, and forever I hope, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.)]

[This has worked with some degree of success in Britain (notwithstanding that the royal family and especially the aristocracy have, by definition, been tied to the Conservatives) (although there are those rumors of Queen Elizabeth's dislike of Thatcher and subtle influence to temper some of the latter's more egregious programs), and in countries like Canada, whose Prime Ministers don't have nearly the powerful place that the U.S. president does in the national psyche. (There is every indication the Tony Blair is trying to change this state of affairs.) In the U.S., however, most people on both sides of the aisle evince some emotional attachment at least to the Constitution, if not the flag, the national anthem, etc. Is it all lip service? Would your average political maven drop the Constitution like yesterday's garbage if given the opportunity to put through the agenda nearest and dearest to his or her heart? I ask this as someone who agrees with Gore Vidal when he says that our Constitution is like a Model T, when many other countries are flying supersonic jets.]

[Is there such a thing as "the nation's principles?" Stanley Fish says no. I don't know. I hate what this whole line of reasoning does to the idea of pluralism, that there might be more than one right solution to a problem, and that we need some rational way to hash them out. I get queasy when I hear people say Shrub isn't my President; by the laws of this country, he is, and however much you and I despise everything he stands for politically, doesn't the office itself stand for anything? Yes, I know the definition of reification. Boy, I'm glad I'm going to law school.]

[Notwithstanding any of the above, I hadn't been literally nauseated by a news story in ages until I read the initial account of the Helms amendment yesterday. This was Sen. Bob Smith's (Nazi-N.H.) proudest political moment? Really?!]

Previously Next