Thanks, Andrew, for a very interesting and informative post.
I can respond at two levels: practical revolutionary politics, and general
societal philosophy.
With respect to practical politics... my response is that the US
Constitution is good enough, with minor modifications and different
players, and that I'd fear what might come out of a total redesign; it
could well be worse instead of better. Certainly, as history proceeds
under democratic control, continuing Constitutional evolution might be
desirable, but I don't see a need to emphasize that now. At this point
opening up the Constitutional can-of-worms is revolutionarily divisive and
delays effective action.
With respect to general societal philosophy...
I think there are several design requirements for a good society. You note
that economic justice is just as important as political participation (not
your exact words) and I agree. To these I would add "information rights" -
the right to comprehensive and unbiased information about the world and
government activities.
But I also believe that the Enlightenment notion of limited government must
be factored in as well. This reflects a healthy pragmatism: no matter how
wonderful a regime is at any given moment, there are always some
imperfections, abuses, injustices, and examples of tastlessness.
I believe strongly in an appropriate degree of personal liberty, such as
promised by the Bill of Rights, and which permit political and economic
(and artistic and religious) activity which is not necessarily what the
regime would prefer to prescribe. But this should be within limits: eg,
murder should not be allowed, and exploitation should not be allowed.
Liberty isn't license.
The Bill of Rights was subverted when it was used to make corporations
"persons", and this should be undone by amendment. But I don't believe
Constitutional provisions are needed to insure economic justice, and I
believe a constitution, just like an operating system (which is what a
consitution is), should be limited to core functions. Legislation can
provide for economic justice and for information rights.
I do believe politics should be separate from civil society, and from
religion, and from information-access. Leaving aside the question of
government abuses, Government shouldn't be necessarily burdened with
operating the economy or other social institutions. That doesn't mean
basic infrastructures shouldn't be under government control, or that
government shouldn't subsidize culture, but these should be political
choices, not consititional requirements.
With corporate person-hood undone, there's nothing in the Constitution
which prevents private economic activity from being adquately regulated,
and there's nothing that prevents the state from operating industries and
infrastructures in those cases where the electorate prefer it.
Nationalization (or municipilization) of corporate operations, for example,
is fully constitutional provided only that due process and due compensation
be observed, as they should be. (But "due compensation" should include
subtracting previous government subsidies and all ill-gotten gains.)
When the USA began, corporations were viewed as a threat - some colonies
had _been_ corporations, and people hadn't liked it, and the power of the
Hudon's Bay Company and the British East India Company were well understood
and resented. So at the beginning, corporations were given limited
charters and for limited times - the Consititution was proven to be
consistent with capitalist-constraining goverment policy.
No, the problem with the Constitution is that it is structured to give
extra weight to _elite_ interests: whoever is running government at a given
moment (whether capitalists or conservative land owners) has an extra edge
in maintaining that control (by hanging around for six years in the Senate,
by appointing Supreme Court justices, etc.).
How much does this need to be remedied Constitutionally? I'm not sure, but
I suspect most of the elite advantage has accrued from extra-Consitutional
mechanisms: political party system, elite ownership of media,
campaign-funding, and bribery. I believe some election reform amendments
might be necessary, and that the Fed should be brought under political
control, but I don't see complete Constitutional redesign as being
necessary.
Huntington is an enemy of democracy, and any use he makes of the term must
be inerpreted as anti-democratic propaganda. You are taking his
mis-definition of democracy as proof that the Consitution needs to be
revamped! What logic is there in such an argument?
I notice you didn't respond to my distinction between "enterprise" and
"capitalism".
rkm