Meg Mott is professor emerita of Marlboro College and Emerson College and describes herself as a "Constitution Wrangler." She will be discussing the paradoxes in the Constitution on Constitution Day (Wednesday, Sept. 17) at 6:30 p.m. at Brooks Memorial Library (224 Main St., Brattleboro).
PUTNEY-Everywhere I go I'm asked if we still have a Constitution. The actions of the current administration, people tell me, are so egregious that its pages must be shredded with the force of its misconduct.
I am reminded of John Adams. In 1798, he spoke out against the misdeeds of powerful men who could "break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net." The Constitution was made, he said, "only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams was president when he penned those words, the leader of the Federalist party. That same year he signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, laws that made opposition to the government a criminal offense. If his political opponents were threatening the republic, he would fortify its cords through the force of his office.
Newspapers that gave voice to "the internal foe," aka Thomas Jefferson, were shut down. Some anti-Federalists were put behind bars. If the Constitution was weak, reasoned Adams, a strong executive would set things right.
Nowadays it's hard to find anyone who thinks that the Alien and Sedition Acts were constitutional. Shutting down the opposition's broadsheets? A violation of the free press clause. Imprisoning opponents for their political beliefs? A violation of the free speech clause.
In his fears of internal sedition, Adams forgot that the path to wisdom requires being open to different perspectives. The paradox of the Constitution is that competing truths make the nation stronger, not weaker. Those who shut down debate do more damage to the Constitution than any perceived insurgency.
* * *
While times have changed, human nature remains the same. When leaders get scared they forget about the truth in paradox and go straight for total control. Instead of listening to the other side, they use the method of tyrants: domination. This is true of presidents in both parties.
For instance, in October of 2020, during the early phase of the Covid pandemic, a group of scientists questioned the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's policy of lockdowns. Their Great Barrington Declaration urged policy makers to reconsider shutting down schools, ending athletic programs for young people, and halting all public gatherings, including religious services.
When the Biden administration took power, it dismissed their concerns. In the minds of too many Democrats, Donald Trump's endorsement of the Great Barrington Declaration was enough to condemn it. There would be no debate.
Five years later, many can see how the lack of debate led to worse outcomes. A new book, In Covid's Wake: How Politics Failed Us, describes how key principles of liberal democracy were abandoned in the hyperpartisan atmosphere.
"Public criticism, openness to public criticism, and the willingness to engage in self-criticism are essential to the fundamental liberal democratic values of truth-seeking," explained Stephen Macedo, one of the authors, in an interview. Had the concerns of the Great Barrington Declaration received more attention, some policies might have been relaxed much earlier.
Macedo teaches political theory. Although he generally supports Democrats, he felt compelled to write a criticism of Biden's Covid policies because of a higher commitment to liberalism.
He cites On Liberty, John Stuart Mill's essay on the importance of debate. "The beliefs which we have most warrant for, have no safeguard to rest on," wrote Mill, "but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded."
Macedo broke ranks with his party to stand for the higher principle of debate. Biden's CDC should have listened to the Great Barrington scientists, not suppressed their arguments.
And here's the surprising fruit of engaging with your critics: just because they may have some truth, doesn't mean you are proved wrong. "Conflicting doctrines," wrote Mill in On Liberty, "instead of being one true and the other false, share the truth between them."
Physicist Niels Bohr wrote, "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth."
To quote Shakespeare, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
All of these quotations remind us that beyond the spell of binaries is the wonder of paradox.
The Constitution promotes paradox through the First Amendment. Instead of censuring speech, governments must consider counterarguments. Instead of dismissing concerns about government policy, administrators need to engage in self-criticism.
The Biden administration shut down legitimate concerns against its public health policy. Not only has it led to a lack of trust in the CDC, it also burdened a generation of schoolchildren. The urge to shut down speech always backfires, a lesson that the second Trump Administration is ignoring at its peril.
* * *
So how do we stop leviathans in the executive office from breaking the cords of the Constitution? The answer is quite simple: Weave a stronger net.
Our willingness to hear each other, to understand our opponent's concerns, to review our reasoning in light of their concerns is what holds the republic together. The bonds we make across the political spectrum are what stop the whale.
Efforts to stop debate with prosecutions and professional censure only make us weaker. We have to look for the elements of truth in all sides, not split upon party lines.
If you're looking for ways to stretch your brain into the realm of paradox, here are two online resources:
• Tangle takes one issue, presents the best arguments from the left and the right, and then weaves together an opinion from both sides.
• We the People, the podcast of the National Constitution Center, features the best arguments on constitutional issues from all sides of the debate.
This Voices Viewpoint was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at [email protected].