The Constitution and Beyond

“Imagine believing that a constitution written by slaveholders about 250 years ago is the greatest possible system of governance.”

These are the words that kicked off my first viral tweet. So far, about 45,800 people have liked my tweet. 8,500 or so have retweeted it. Those aren’t celebrity numbers, but this is by far my most popular tweet to date. Therefore, I’ve decided to write a blog post about it.

Why did I tweet that?

I tweeted those words because unfortunately that’s what some people actually believe. Some people believe that the United States literally has the greatest possible form of government. Others believe it’s the greatest one that’s been established so far. I’ve met both types. Either way, the result is effectively the same.

It occurred to me just how outlandish and harmful this belief is, so I tweeted about it. Obviously, my observation struck a chord.

Rather than responding to every reply tweet, I’m going to answer three questions that came up in the discussion.

What would I say to conservative supporters of the Constitution? What would I say to liberal supporters of the Constitution? What different form of government would I like to see?

What would I say to conservative supporters of the Constitution?

I don’t expect many conservatives to read this, much less agree with it. So I’m not going to waste too much time here. But I do have a few thoughts.

Yes, I know about amendments. I know that twenty-seven amendments have been ratified so far. I also know that Article V of the Constitution allows for a Convention of States to propose amendments. I know that in theory, some problems with the government (including some that you and I may agree on) could be fixed with more amendments.

However, there’s no point in amending a Constitution that needs to be redesigned from the ground up. Amendments are also notoriously hard to ratify. No substantial amendments have been ratified in my lifetime. The twenty-seventh amendment was technically ratified in my lifetime, but it wasn’t substantial. It was proposed long ago and only affected pay raises for members of Congress. That’s it.

We need a new start. Many problems cited by people across the political spectrum simply can’t be handled effectively by the Constitution. It wasn’t designed to solve these problems. It can only be forced to solve them through great convolutions of law and logic that are largely incompatible with originalist interpretations of the Constitution. I’m glad the founders rejected the supposed divine authority of kings, but that doesn’t mean that the Constitution they wrote is a timeless document that must never be replaced.

And if you’re actually concerned about federal overreach, please skip ahead to my recommendations for solutions. I guarantee you that I’m more concerned about federal overreach than you are. I’m an anti-authoritarian. The only reason why I sometimes make appeals to state or federal authority is because they are currently the only public institutions allegedly tasked with protecting the people and places that are near and dear to my heart. If we organize a new system from the ground up, no one will have to make appeals to state or federal authority anymore to protect their rights and interests.

What would I say to liberal supporters of the Constitution?

Some of the people who replied to my tweet were people who seem to share some of my values and policy stances but also seem convinced that the Constitution is currently the only way to advance those values and policies. Some expressed concern about who would write the next governing documents of the country which is a concern I very much share. A few tweets even seemed to be comparing me to the January 6 insurrectionists who I absolutely opposed and condemned.

So what am I saying about the Constitution?

In the short term, in some contexts, liberals may be right about the merits of appealing to the Constitution in support of various progressive policies and basic human rights. I don’t like it, but I see the strategic value in it.

As long as the Constitution is seen by most people as the law of the land, some people who care about “progressive” policy and governance can and must make legal and moral appeals to the Constitution. We can point out ways in which local, state, and federal governments violate our basic human rights and fail to serve the public good. We can decry the influence of wealthy and powerful lobbyists on the legislative and executive branches. We can object to conservative efforts to load the courts with far-right fanatics who appeal to the alleged intent of the founders as justification for all sorts of horrific court decisions.

However, we shouldn’t lean too heavily into the Constitution as long-term solution. Amendments, advancements in legislation, and favorable court decisions have improved some aspects of the system. Whole social movements have won new rights for many of the people previously excluded and violently oppressed by the founders and their successors. But there are still tremendous and fundamental flaws in the Constitution that can’t be fixed with simple tweaks.

We need something new. But we can continue to make appeals to the old while building something new. We can condemn the failure of politicians to uphold the Constitution while also organizing to establish new political and economic systems to replace the Constitution.

Whether or not you agree with my particular approach to creating something new, you might find the following quote helpful as you contemplate the possibility of creating new approaches to governance within the shell of the existing constitutional order.

When speaking to a reporter about the prospect of Egypt writing a new constitution, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested [fact check & original source] that Egyptians should look to more recent constitutions as examples rather than the U.S. Constitution.

I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

If there are other constitutions out there that a popular Supreme Court justice would point to as better examples for a newly-forming government, then why not consider looking at other examples of constitutions for our own self-governance?

The examples that I would point to are substantially different than the ones that she pointed to in that interview. However, if we the people of the United States are willing to recognize that our constitution has fundamental flaws, we can then look to examples of what other people are doing in other places. We can also look to examples of what people are already doing right here at the local level in the U.S.

What different form of government would I like to see?

I’m just one person. I don’t have specialized degrees in political science, history, economics, etc. What I do have is a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, two summer intensives at the Institute for Social Ecology (yes, I met Murray Bookchin), a summer of Earth Activist Training (yes, I met Starhawk), and about twenty-five years of various forms of local political and community involvement.

Whether or not these “credentials” mean anything to you is mostly irrelevant to me. I’m only stating them because I know people will ask. Credentials aren’t everything. Either way, feel free to take everything I say with a grain of salt.

Having said that, I do believe that everyone who wants to live in a free and democratic society should have at least something to say about politics. They should be able to explain in their own words what they believe about politics in general and about specific issues of the day. So regardless of what you think of my credentials, that’s what I’m going to to do.

Here’s a tweet-length version of my broad proposal taken from one of my own tweets:

We the people must make new systems. Start local. Hold public assemblies where ALL people participate in decisions. Deal with the current system’s flaws AND create a new one from ground up. There are examples to draw on. We can do this together.

Treesong

What I’m describing here is mostly inspired by a libertarian municipalist approach to social change. There are other forms of municipalism and also non-municipalist approaches to the same general project of empowering people to have direct and democratic involvement in all economic and political decisions that affect them.

I first learned about libertarian municipalism from wonky political theorists and teachers at the Institute from Social Ecology. Personally, I loved learning about it in an academic context. I do appreciate the nuanced and informed analysis of politics, economics, history, and beyond that they brought (and surely still bring) to the work.

But the basic underlying concept of municipalism is exceedingly simple and not confined to the libertarian municipalist perspective. No fancy courses or jargon required to learn the basics.

So what are the basics?

Meet with people in your community. Talk about problems facing your community. Make decisions together as a community, directly and democratically. Take direct action to meet your needs and address your problems. Set up systems to ensure that those needs are met and those decisions are followed through. Work with others who are doing the same.

That’s it. There are all sorts of broader theories and history at play, but that’s the basic idea.

Some municipalist approaches focus entirely on meeting local needs and solving local problems. Three major examples include mutual aid groups, cooperatives, and public assemblies.

Mutual aid groups and networks focus on meeting people’s needs directly through community-level organizing. Mutual aid groups often form and mobilize in response to disasters, but they also often operate on an ongoing basis to help people meet their needs in response to the ongoing economic and political disasters created by our current economic and political systems.

Cooperatives are places where workers or the community at large own and operate stores, workplaces, community gardens, farms, and other economic institutions. The goal of such cooperatives is to provide economic empowerment to all people involved, especially people from marginalized communities. Cooperatives place economic decision-making power back in the hands of workers and local communities rather than outside economic institutions. Any income generated by these economic institutions stays with the workers and the community, thus building local and cooperative economic power. Cooperation Jackson is an excellent example of an ongoing effort to develop a mutally-supportive network of such co-operatives in a single community.

Public assemblies, also known as general assemblies, community assemblies, local assemblies, or simply town hall meetings, are the most “political” part of a municipalist approach to politics. They meet on a regular basis so that everyone in the community has a place where they can meet, talk, and make decisions about public policy. They can be organized autonomously by anyone in a local community, or they can be part of a broader effort to start public assemblies in multiple cities. Symbiosis is working to bring many such assemblies, as well cooperative projects like Cooperation Jackson and other grassroots community efforts, together into a municipal confederation. Confederations are a way that such local assemblies and other groups can work together while still retaining their local autonomy.

Of course, in most cases, decisions made by a public assembly will not be recognized in any way by existing local, state, or federal governments. However, if enough people get involved in a public assembly, its decisions start to have moral authority. In other words, if hundreds or even thousands of people have decided in favor of a proposal in their local assembly, and the city council decides against it, that makes the city council look bad. If city council members want to get re-elected, they may need to start listening to what the local public assembly decides. In this way, the public assembly gives the people an increasingly powerful voice in local decision-making.

In a libertarian municipalist approach, and some other allied approaches, the long-term goal of public assemblies and other local community groups is to advance a dual power strategy. In other words, they set up a tension between two powers: the existing economic and political institutions (Big Business & Big Government) versus the new municipalist economic and political institutions (mutual aid networks, cooperatives, public assemblies). The two powers may co-exist in tension with each other indefinitely, or we may see a transition from the old to the new. Either way, these new municipalist institutions put real decision-making power into the hands of the people.

All of these local community organizations can operate autonomously. For example, you can start a mutual aid group in your town even if you don’t have any cooperatives or assemblies. You can organize a public assembly even if you don’t have any cooperatives or mutual aid groups. And so on.

These groups can also operate as part of a broader municipalist strategy for people to reclaim their economic and political power at the local and regional level. They can attend each other’s meetings, have formal relationships with each other, support each other materially, work toward common goals, etc.

Whether these groups are working in isolation or in cooperation with allied groups, people in your community will see the practical benefits of having greater decision-making power over their economic and political circumstances.

So where does the Constitution fit into all of this?

Honestly, it doesn’t. And that’s the point!

All of these municipalist-style groups can operate right here, right now, in a land that is still called the United States of America, with a legal system that is still defined by the Constitution of the United States.

They can also operate effectively in the presence of many (but not all) other political systems. For example, if the United States transitions from its current constitution to a European-style parliamentary republic, or some other system of government that’s not too prohibitive of free association, these groups can continue to operate during and after the transition. They can ensure that people’s basic needs continue to be met and that local communities retain meaningful economic and political power during and after the transition.

These groups can also form the basis for a new government themselves. In a libertarian municipalist model, local assemblies would link up into regional confederations, which would then ultimately replace state and federal governments. Infrastructure and programs that require translocal planning would be coordinated by regional or continental bodies with delegates from local communities. This would allow such a society to manage infrastructure and programs at the translocal level while still retaining a meaningful degree of decision-making power at the local level. The confederations would also maintain standards of individual rights that would ensure that each local assembly respected those rights. This is similar to the way that the current constitutional system (allegedly) maintains standards of individual rights at the federal level that each state and city government must respect.

As you can see, there are plenty of options and possibilities. The good news is that we don’t have to have all of the answers or come to total agreement about the details before beginning the work. All we have to do is start meeting (remotely and in-person) with people in our communities to talk about solutions to the many problems and challenges we face. Once we start doing that on a regular basis, with a broad goal of making our own economic and political decisions to help ourselves and our local communities, the rest will follow.