Posted under Conservatism & Interventionism & Political Philosophy
Edwin Meese is one of four winners of the 2012 Bradley Prize, presumably at least partially for his contributions to the cause of “originalism.”
I certainly support originalism and consider it a core aspect of conservatism, but Meese is also a big supporter of military interventionism. It cannot be pointed out too often that advocating for American world hegemony and originalism are not reconcilable.
The Founding Fathers debated whether we should even have a standing army and whether the Feds should be able to federalize the state militias. Wanting America to be the world’s hegemon is clearly not the original intent of a group that debated the wisdom of standing armies. You are either an originalist or you aren’t. People like Meese are cafeteria originalists when it suits them.
Aaron on 29 May 2012 at 3:37 am #
1. Originalism is a doctrine of jurisprudence, not of policy. Imperialism and originalism are reconcilable.
2. Nowadays, I think originalism is more about “original understanding,” not “original intent.” Ratification is at least as relevant as writing.
3. Part of the Constitution was written when there was a debate over standing armies, part of it was written when America was a major imperial power (describing itself as such), part of it was written after a failed war of secession, etc. To focus on only one of those periods, and to say that originalism is incompatible with military interventionism and imperialism, is to be a cafeteria originalist.
RedPhillips on 29 May 2012 at 4:00 am #
“Nowadays, I think originalism is more about “original understanding,” not “original intent.” Ratification is at least as relevant as writing.”
I agree. What did the writers intend and what did the states think they were getting when they ratified it. This is why the Federalist and anti-Federalists papers are important as are the state ratification debates.
#3 I assume you are referring to the Amendments. What Amendments altered the raising of a standing army and militia provisions of the Constitution?
Feltan on 30 May 2012 at 4:24 am #
Aaron,
I think you have a strong argument here. The concept of manifest destiny, even if not articulated as such, was certainly part of the national psyche early on. The wars of westward expansion started will within the living memory of the founding fathers, and I don’t recall outrage over them.
Regards,
Feltan
Feltan on 30 May 2012 at 4:38 am #
Red,
I am going to guess that you and I think in a rather similar vein on how we would like to see U.S. policy vis-a-vis intervention. Namely, that the U.S. be far more isolationist and less adventuresome. I certainly would hope we trend in that direction in the future.
However, I don’t think you are going to find bedrock rationale for that position in our history or founding documents. The U.S., even early on, was never like modern day Switzerland. The restraint early on was not ideological self-restraint, but lack of money. Early on they were serious about spending, debt and fiscal solvency.
Regards,
Feltan
RedPhillips on 30 May 2012 at 5:22 pm #
Felton, that is the argument Robert Kagan makes, that America has always had an expansionistic mindset. To some degree this is true. But this was a time when the big powers still had Empires. So to the degree that America had Imperialistic designs it was of the good ol’ fashion illiberal acquisition of territory and resources kind that was common at the time. They wanted to be like the big boys. The hegemony that neocons imagine is of the liberal benign type. They want to make politician X’s desire to annex Cuba into proto-neoconism. It just doesn’t work.
Feltan on 31 May 2012 at 8:43 pm #
Red,
Unfortunately, the neocon playbook does work. Maybe not to annex Cuba (yet), but it has worked in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps it will work with Iran next. “Work” in this case meaning they got what they wanted.
The philisophical details seem less important to the neocons. I bet they will find a way to shoehorn their interventionist policies into some flag draped sappy screed. They will continue to do that as long as they are successful. Churchill paraphrased, history will be kind to them because they intend to write it.
Regards,
Feltan