To understand those who believe in a ‘living document’ interpretation of the Constitution, it helps to understand that they study constitutional law not to understand it, but to subvert it. Their ‘interpretations’ are not grounded in the Constitution, but in their subjective sense of what society needs.
To the believer in a ‘living document,’ what the Constitution actually says is irrelevant, and as a consequence, arguing with them based on the actual text of the Constitution is absurd.
The fact of the matter is that, to the ‘living document’ crowd, the Constitution itself (or more to the point, the notion that it might actually say something) is the most un-Constitutional document ever written, as the notion that it actually says something would act as a constraint on their ability to ‘interpret’ it.
You’ll notice that I use quotation marks when using the word ‘interpret,’ in relation to the ‘living document’ crowd. There is a reason for that. There is no real opposite of the word ‘interpret’ in the English language, as ‘confuse,’ ‘misinterpret’ and other antonyms for the word fail to assume wrongful intent. The fact of the matter is that our law schools largely teach ‘living document interpretations,’ as a skill of twisting definitions and logic, in order to use Constitutional language to try and make the Constitution say things it was never designed to say. This is how ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ suddenly provides no individual right to keep and bear arms, and how social spending on specific people can be termed to be ‘general welfare.’
Similarly, ‘patriotism’ on the left is not a deep love of country, with a dedication to it’s founding principles. ‘Patriotism,’ rather, is now someone who hates everything our nation has ever done or stood for, but who believes that under progressive leadership, our nation has the potential to transform into something that may one day have some sense of legitimacy. Those who do believe in our founding principles become the opposite of true patriots, as they are trying to prevent the United States from emerging from its illegitimate past, into an equalitarian future.
If you believe in the Constitution, you are now considered an enemy of the Constitution, and if you believe in the legitimacy of our country, as defined in the Constitution, then you are an un-American, anti-patriotic extremist.
What I see from most of us on the right are, for example, constitutional arguments based on the actual wording of the Constitution, or arguments about ‘patriotism’ based on it being a love of country. Such arguments mean nothing to people who think the wording of the Constitution is an impediment to constitutional law, and that ‘patriotism’ is the belief that our country has been, at its heart, the pre-eminent example of evil in all human history – and that the country is thus a place deeply in need of fundamental transformation. ‘Constitutionalism,’ to such people, are laws designed to end the Western Patriarchy, and ‘patriotism’ is a dedication to building a post-west, postmodern society.
I’m asked sometimes how I try to reason with such people. My answer is that I do not try to reason with such people. I expose them to my ideas, often to great derision, not because I think I can reach them, but because there may be people dipping their toes in postmodernism who have not yet become indoctrinated in that philosophy, who might also be looking.
The postmodernist indoctrination process is fascinatingly effective. I call it ‘Virtue Signaling,’ and I explain in detail how it works here. If you have not read that article in its entirety, I strongly suggest you consider doing so.
In a nutshell, postmodernists make people believe that their viewpoints are virtuous, and that opposing viewpoints are evil, such that the postmodernist’s sense of self-worth becomes based on the holding of postmodernist political views. All other views become evil, making anyone who does not buy into leftism, by extension, evil.
How do you reach someone who believes that being reached means being corrupted? Frankly, you don’t. You can only reach their friends and family – you can only reach those who are open to being reached.
Nor are those indoctrinated into postmodernism trying to reach conservatives. They are trying to shame us, and to shout us down. As such, if you pick up the gauntlet and decide to join the fray, understand that you are going to be attacked, constantly, as being every bad name in the book.
People ask me where I think we are, with regard to postmodernism. I tell them I think we are just past postmodernism’s high water mark, and that if Trump is reelected, I think we will see the popularity of postmodernism, as well as it’s grip on the media, decline.
If, on the other hand, someone who believes in postmodernism becomes our next President, then this dangerous ideology will re-entrench itself within the halls of power, and I believe the postmodernist left will make election reforms designed to turn the United States into a one-party system, such that they never need worry about being out of power again.
