The Meaning of Constitutional Conservatism

Today National Review Online has made available a very good essay by Yuval Levin from the upcoming Nov. 28th edition of National Review.  Levin argues that even though liberals have seemed to argue from two very distinct vantage points--one based on populism and the other based on denunciations of democracy--they nevertheless are in agreement on the central principle:  the rejection of the constitutionalism of the Founders.  Here is more:

The original progressives of the early 20th century, just like today’s seemingly incoherent liberals, were populist and technocratic — they argued both for direct democracy and for expert rule. Even as they called for enlarging the scope of the federal government and putting a class of educated specialists in charge of it, they also called for radical democratic reforms of our constitutional system. In the 1912 election, the Progressive-party platform proposed not only the direct election of senators but also the enactment of federal laws by public initiative, and even advocated allowing the public to overturn some court decisions by referendum.

But this is in direct contrast to the principles of the Constitution:

The Constitution is built upon a profound skepticism about the ability of any political arrangement to overcome the limitations of human reason and human nature, and so establishes a system of checks to prevent sudden large mistakes while enabling gradual changes supported by a broad and longstanding consensus. Experts should not govern, nor should the people do so directly, but rather the people’s representatives should govern in a system filled with mediating institutions and opposing interests — a system designed to force us to see problems and proposed solutions from a variety of angles simultaneously and, as Alexander Hamilton puts it in Federalist 73, “to increase the chances in favor of the community against the passing of bad laws through haste, inadvertence, or design.” 

For the Founders, more democracy did not necessarily mean more liberty.  And the rule of experts certainly would be in contravention to the consent of the governed.  But it is important to note that the Founders always qualified consent with a phrase like "enlightened" or "rightful" consent.  They were no simple majoritarians, and they knew that whatever the majority wants is not always in their best interest.  The Founders put in place what Madison called "auxiliary precautions" that would have the effect of tempering the passions of the people so that their will would become reasonable and rightful.  The standard to judge whether the majority is rightful are the principles underlying the Constitution:  the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

For the Founders, men, that being in between God and beast, had access to the faculty of reason and therefore were capable of judging things right or wrong, just or unjust.  Because of the dual nature of the soul--because men are capable of both good and bad--the Founders set in place a government that recognizes both the capacity for good and bad but above all, reason by which all men are endowed with by nature.  The reason for the existence of government was the protection of the people's naturally insecure natural rights.  It is in this way that the term "limited government" can be fully understood.

The Founder's did not always agree on the means--which is evidenced by the political fights between Jefferson and Hamilton in the 1790s--but they did agree on the ends of government and thereby the principles of government.  Today, however, liberals and conservatives are in disagreement regarding ends and means; this is why there is much fighting between the parties and why a civic education the in the principles of American statesmanship is all the more important.  Levin's essay is another step towards recovering that kind of education.