An exploration—and explosion—of some of the presumed foundational tenets of the republic.
The Founding Fathers, writes political scientist and erstwhile Capitol Hill staffer Burgat, were unanimous about only two things: The new U.S. would not be a monarchy, and George Washington would be president. “Everything else required compromise and adaptation.” That’s forgotten in a time when “originalism” rules and the Constitution is ruled as a near-sacred, inalterable document. Nonsense, Burgat holds: “If we see the Constitution as a living, breathing document, we serve our country so much better.” One extraconstitutional ploy was the notion of executive privilege, which presidents since Washington have invoked for various reasons; contributor Alyssa Farah Griffin quips that the Emancipation Proclamation was one such order, even though it wasn’t billed so. Washington famously warned against divisive political parties, yet, as contributor Lilliana Mason notes, “When politics get contentious, we put party loyalty over truth.” A couple of U.S. representatives, Steve Israel and Derek Kilmer, weigh in on the canard that congresspeople do nothing but fundraise: Kilmer calls his daily rounds “a cyclone of a schedule that barely leaves time for sleeping or eating, let alone fundraising.” Fundraising and money come into the picture, of course, but Stephen I. Vladeck, dissecting the current Supreme Court, argues against the notion that the court is corrupt—and indeed, that the court is supposed to be apolitical, as it never has been. Money buys access, granted—and maybe a few vacations for Supreme Court justices, which we wouldn’t know about without a vigorous Fourth Estate. On that note, a standout piece in Burgat’s collection comes from journalist Matt Fuller, who wryly observes, “If I lie, if I make something up, my career is over. I’ll never work in journalism again. If a politician lies, it’s just another Tuesday.”
A bracing and often entertaining corrective to some misinformation about the way things work.