The Dynamics of Transformation

“American superpower,” “the greatest power in history,” or, more recently, “America first” have become part of American political values. What about constitutional democracy?

This post is part of a reading series on Democracy Incorporated by Sheldon S. Wolin. To quickly access all chapters, open the book title tab on the Authors & Books page.

Disclaimer: This chapter summary is personal work and an invitation to read the book itself for a detailed view of all the author’s ideas.

Americans are raised in the idea that their main political institutions, the Constitution, and the protections of citizenship are firmly established because the United States is, after all, “the world’s oldest continuous democracy.” But expressions such as “American superpower,” “the greatest power in history,” or, more recently, “America first” are objectively referring to something other than the principle of constitutional democracy. Sheldon Wolin states, “Instead of a system in which governmental powers are measured by a constitution of enumerated powers, there appears to be an expansive conception of power and a triumphalist ideology alien to the Constitution.”

This ambivalence in exercising power is nothing new in the United States history. This chapter describes how the shift from its constitutional background to its expansive one was made possible.

A national Constitution is not the word of God. Far from being the hieratic statement of some absolute law, it is a political document handed down from one generation to the next as a set of necessary guidelines for the achievement of a state of law. Being a work of reason, it is bound to evolve in time, either by extending its protection to new categories of people or by amending what is dated and not acceptable anymore.

The dynamics of transformation in US politics: Two lawmakers during the writing of the Constitution criticizing the fact that it had had 10 amendments already.

Moreover, as Sheldon Wolin explains, “In general, while a constitution may “constitute” power by creating institutional authorities virtually de novo—as in the invention of the presidency and the Supreme Court—more often it demonstrates flexibility by recognizing and investing de facto power with authority—as when, in 1933, the Weimar Reichstag declared Hitler to be chancellor (or prime minister) but only after changing the law that had declared Austrians ineligible for the office. . . . A constitution may also serve as the means of deflecting external powers: for example, a supreme court may zealously turn back ‘attacks’ on property rights and business interests from the regulatory powers of state legislatures, as happened from roughly 1871 to 1914 in the United States.” There is a painfully clear example of that last instance in the fact that “challenges to racial segregation were resisted by all branches of government and the two major political parties until the mid-twentieth century.” Whether or not the interpretation and implementation of a constitution answer the requirements of a fair and just society, the document itself is usually supposed to remain the necessary template for the coherence and authority of political power.

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here
Stay in the loop
Notify me of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Share to...