Harry Reid is a determined radical, intent on limiting freedom, overturning American traditions, and remaking our institutions in the name of crushing the opposition and empowering the left. His attempt to amend the First Amendment to curb free speech is a natural extension of his obliteration of longstanding Senate rules that promote deliberation and minority input.
But Reid seems almost moderate by left-wing Democrat standards. Take Donna Brazile, vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee for voter registration and participation. For her, eviscerating the First Amendment is small potatoes; she wants to scrap the entire U.S. Constitution.
Brazile tweeted: “We need a new constitution.” This, she stated is “how we save American democracy from charlatans, loudmouths and the 1 percent.”
Brazile is no fire-brand outlier. As noted, she holds an important position in the Democratic Party. More than that, she’s a long-time, high-level Dem insider. In 2000, she managed Al Gore’s campaign. In 2011, she briefly served as interim chair of the DNC.
Democrats have viewed the Constitution as an anachronistic barrier to their agenda since the days of Woodrow Wilson who, before entering politics, consistently argued as much. These days, though, their contempt for our founding document is becoming increasingly manifest.
Why? For two reasons. First, the more radical the Democratic agenda, the greater the need to push back against the Constitution. Today’s agenda is more radical than it has ever been in my lifetime.
Second, because public regard for the Constitution probably isn’t what it once was, thanks to the way American History is taught, Democrats can be more open about how they view the founding document.
We have discussed the short shrift given the Constitution in the framework being imposed for the teaching of AP U.S. History. That framework, though newly created, is symptomatic of how history already is taught in many high schools and certainly at the college level.
Even so Brazile’s desire for a new written Constitution is, I think, is fantasy. So too, for now, is Reid’s effort to amend the First Amendment. Those “loudmouth charlatans” on the right will block both moves.
But can the Constitution meaningfully survive under the auspices of a judiciary whose members are selected from a pool consisting in significant measure of lawyers who think like Woodrow Wilson, Harry Reid and Donna Brazile? I have my doubts.