It’s not clear to me at all why US constitutional law is not part of university theology departments. Not because of the content, but because of the way in which scholars and the legal system relate to the foundation text. It reminded Hobsbawm of Rabbis ceaselessly arguing about the Talmud. A “historical” method - originalism - that is by definition thoroughly de-historicized. A historically contingent, politically malleable text somehow re-purposed as a historically transcendent Guide to Life. Practically a definition of ideology.
The strangest phenomenon being the legal theorists who simultaneously regard the Dobbs decision as both immoral *and* the correct interpretation of the Constitution. The head spins off its axis. American parochialism yet again. Other countries’ constitutional courts take cues from evolving international law and the rulings of international counterparts - the concept of a constitution as a “living tree” that grows and adapts, but always with the ideal of expanding, not restricting rights and definitions of personal autonomy. None of this happens in the US context, where the only referent is a single 200+-year old document. Theology, not law.
That said, absolutely, leftist anti-liberalism is a poison pill and a gift to insurgent fascism.
Can you be a little more explicit about what it would (have) look(ed) like for the Dems to have imagination and not act lackadaisically? (I agree with what you’re saying here but — in what is potentially a symptom of Democrats lacking imagination — I’m having trouble picturing what this alternate history would look like in terms of policy and rhetoric.)
Actually in my experience at Boston College and Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, schools of theology often discuss politics and law. I highly doubt if theology, and even philosophy, are ever mentioned in schools of 'law.' You might want to consult the writings of Cathleen Kaveny, who has dual appointments to the school of law and the theology department at Boston College.
This really gets at something I’ve been struggling with. I’m much older than you are (though younger than Nancy Pelosi!), and I grew up in the liberal anti-fascist consensus. I hated that rhetoric of decline that older academics used in the 80s and 90s, and swore I wouldn’t be that person—but this all feels so different and so bad. I reread Simone de Beauvoir’s postscript to Force of Circumstance early in the pandemic, and felt for a few days like I had been punched in the stomach. I have to remind myself that her political world got much better just a few years later, and I hope for our own 68.
The rhetoric of 'democracy' that was coïncident with the Rights Revolution has been used to degrade the latter, as it refused to insist that The People—in these cases equalling often slim majorities in some states—ought to be a _constitutional_ monarch…and that especial care were necessary to ensure that membership in 'The People' were not removed or abstracted away from large numbers of actual persons. (Who is the hard-right writer who recently wrote out loud tgat very many Americans born here are not 'really' Americans?—'out loud', mind you, so the answer isn't 'all of them'.)
Similarly, the rhetoric of anti-elitism failed to take into account cases where very many people, through bigotry or callousness or (in my arrogant and entirely correct opinion) misplaced priorities do not worry themselves with the rights of groups to which they do not belong, or even their own. That is to say, sometimes it seems as if only an elite bother with some rights.
And, of course, to jump on mine old hobby-horse, there are those whom liberals don't seem to understand well, those for whom civil rights pale in comparison to the feeling of freedom they get from identifying with a powerful figure immune to the frustrations of civilised life because he can do, seemingly, exactly what he wants. ('Autocracy is perfect anarchy for one person.', source forgot.)
I think you're on to something here, and I think this also helps explain the apparent fecklessness of Democratic leadership in Washington. Check it:
Pelosi: 82
Hoyer: 83
Clyburn: 81
Schumer: 71
Biden: 79
Pretty much all of these had their formative experiences during the area of consensus. It's no wonder they behave the way they do!
It’s not clear to me at all why US constitutional law is not part of university theology departments. Not because of the content, but because of the way in which scholars and the legal system relate to the foundation text. It reminded Hobsbawm of Rabbis ceaselessly arguing about the Talmud. A “historical” method - originalism - that is by definition thoroughly de-historicized. A historically contingent, politically malleable text somehow re-purposed as a historically transcendent Guide to Life. Practically a definition of ideology.
The strangest phenomenon being the legal theorists who simultaneously regard the Dobbs decision as both immoral *and* the correct interpretation of the Constitution. The head spins off its axis. American parochialism yet again. Other countries’ constitutional courts take cues from evolving international law and the rulings of international counterparts - the concept of a constitution as a “living tree” that grows and adapts, but always with the ideal of expanding, not restricting rights and definitions of personal autonomy. None of this happens in the US context, where the only referent is a single 200+-year old document. Theology, not law.
That said, absolutely, leftist anti-liberalism is a poison pill and a gift to insurgent fascism.
Can you be a little more explicit about what it would (have) look(ed) like for the Dems to have imagination and not act lackadaisically? (I agree with what you’re saying here but — in what is potentially a symptom of Democrats lacking imagination — I’m having trouble picturing what this alternate history would look like in terms of policy and rhetoric.)
Actually in my experience at Boston College and Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, schools of theology often discuss politics and law. I highly doubt if theology, and even philosophy, are ever mentioned in schools of 'law.' You might want to consult the writings of Cathleen Kaveny, who has dual appointments to the school of law and the theology department at Boston College.
This really gets at something I’ve been struggling with. I’m much older than you are (though younger than Nancy Pelosi!), and I grew up in the liberal anti-fascist consensus. I hated that rhetoric of decline that older academics used in the 80s and 90s, and swore I wouldn’t be that person—but this all feels so different and so bad. I reread Simone de Beauvoir’s postscript to Force of Circumstance early in the pandemic, and felt for a few days like I had been punched in the stomach. I have to remind myself that her political world got much better just a few years later, and I hope for our own 68.
The rhetoric of 'democracy' that was coïncident with the Rights Revolution has been used to degrade the latter, as it refused to insist that The People—in these cases equalling often slim majorities in some states—ought to be a _constitutional_ monarch…and that especial care were necessary to ensure that membership in 'The People' were not removed or abstracted away from large numbers of actual persons. (Who is the hard-right writer who recently wrote out loud tgat very many Americans born here are not 'really' Americans?—'out loud', mind you, so the answer isn't 'all of them'.)
Similarly, the rhetoric of anti-elitism failed to take into account cases where very many people, through bigotry or callousness or (in my arrogant and entirely correct opinion) misplaced priorities do not worry themselves with the rights of groups to which they do not belong, or even their own. That is to say, sometimes it seems as if only an elite bother with some rights.
And, of course, to jump on mine old hobby-horse, there are those whom liberals don't seem to understand well, those for whom civil rights pale in comparison to the feeling of freedom they get from identifying with a powerful figure immune to the frustrations of civilised life because he can do, seemingly, exactly what he wants. ('Autocracy is perfect anarchy for one person.', source forgot.)