Bernie Sanders' continuing obtuseness

Sandy Levinson

First, just to clear something up.  I have been accused of "hating" the U.S Constitution.  I do not.  There are some attractive things in it, beginning, most importantly, with the Preamble, which is inspiring in setting out the point of our constitutional order.  I'd also include some of the features "below the fold."  Obviously, I think there is also a lot to criticize in the Constitution, which is why I continue to advocate a new constitutional convention.  And, of course, I'm more than happy to wrap myself in the mantle of the Founders, especially the Publius of Federalists 1 and 14, who emphasized our ability to engage in "reflection and choice," based on the "lessons of experience," as to how we should be governed.

What has turned me into something of a crank is not my dislike of the Constitution, per se but, rather, the inexplicable wilful refusal to assess it, in any serious way, that is typical of even the elite punditry and almost all of those running for political office.  A refreshing counter-example is Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who has notably called for a new constitutional convention to consider nine separate amendments that he christens the "Texas Plan."  His suggestions are generally (no not completely) terrible, but that is almost beside the point.  He deserves great credit for putting the adequacy of the Constitution on the table as something seriously to discuss.

As one can tell from the subject heading, though, my ire is directed at Bernie Sanders, the ostensibly "revolutionary" candidate who is making all sorts of promises that cannot possibly be carried through in our present political system, operating under the 1787 Constitution, unless one truly believes in magic.

So why does Sen. Sanders, whom I admire and have contributed to (in his campaigns for the Senate) display the obtuseness I identify with inside-the-Beltway pundits who are more than willing to denounce given individuals, but pull back from engaging in genuinely systematic analysis?  It has occurred to me that one possibility is that the Senator from Vermont would have to address the embarrassing fact that one of the most indefensible features of our Constitution is the decision, made under threat of walking out by Delaware and other small states, to award equal voting power to all states in the Senate.  I happen to like the Vermont senatorial delegation of Sanders and Leahy more than any other dynamic duo, and I probably like the Texas duo of Cornyn and Cruz (who would bring down any rating on his own) least of all.  But there is really no justification for Vermont having the same number of votes as Texas. Vermont in 2014 had a population of of roughly 650,000 people; Texas is approaching 27 million people.  This, of course, is not the most extreme disparity; that's reserved for Wyoming and California.

If one wants to talk about how the "game is rigged," one could do worse than begin with the U.S. Senate, whose equal-vote rule helps to explain why we have a terrible agricultural policy (including subsidies for the dairy industry that I am certain that Sen. Sanders has voted for) and why, in addition, we are unlikely ever to get a cogent energy policy, given the excessive voting power of senators from coal-producing states.  As I've said many times before, but never tire of repeating, James Madison was absolutely right when he described  the allocation of voting power in the Senate as an "evil," even if, as with the compromise over slavery, it was arguably in 1787 a "lesser evil" to having no constitution at all.  We did get rid of slavery, at least as a formal institution (at the cost of 750,000 lives).  Alas, we're still stuck with the Senate.

Perhaps Sen. Sanders recognizes that he could scarcely embark on a serious discussion of the Senate without challenging the legitimacy of his own excessive power in that institution.  But, honestly, who knows.  The only thing we can know with certainty is that he is deluding his impressionable supporters to believe that the very act of electing him would the revolutionary transformation that would make all things possible.  It won't be, and the Constitution guarantees that, unless one can believe that Sanders will see, when he gets to the White House, a Senate with at least 60 Democrats, all pledged to support a democratic socialist program, and a House that has flipped to a strong Democratic majority equally committed to becoming as much like Scandanavia as possible.  One might offer the same cautionary warnings to Tea Party devotees, already livid over the inconsequentiality of the 2014 elections, should, for example, Ted Cruz become president while the Democrats take back the Senate (and thus don't have to worry about a Republican Senate simply eliminating the filibuster).  A Cruz presidency would be terrible beyond belief, but not because under "divided government" the Republicans would in fact be able to enact into law their perfidious agenda. 

I am truly afraid that Sanders is wasting an opportunity to educate the public about important constitutional issues.  To say that every American should be recognized as having a "right' to health care is lovely (even if somewhat meaningless, as a practical matter).  What he should be addressing is why it has proved impossible, over the past century, to engage in genuinely radical reform of the health-care-delivery industry, which is a mixture of American ideology and the institutions foisted on us by those who mistrusted democracy in 1787.  I'd like to "feel the Bern," but I feel that we are being confronted with yet another politician who believes that he (or she) by virtue of good intentions and an inchoate "movement" can turn the dinosaur that is the American constitutional order around. 
Posted 4:29 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]