Part of what I see with 50501/Hands Off protests is that they have a theme of “defending the Constitution” from Trump. This is really a somewhat conservative position and doesn’t have much historical rigor to it.

Prof. Aziz Rana of Boston College Law School is having a moment on Jacobin Radio right now. His basic thesis is that the Constitutional order is so deeply antidemocratic that the left argued with itself and the liberals over whether to focus efforts on challenging it in the early 20th Century. In the broad sweep of history since then, Americans have come to view the Constitution as a sacred text, but in fact, that order is part of what gives the Republicans and the far right their advantages despite losing the popular vote.

The shorter interview: https://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S250424 (April 24, 2025)
The 4-part long interview: https://thedigradio.com/archive/ (see the Aziz Rana episodes starting in April 2025) - Part 4 isn’t up yet.

So why should we venerate the Constitution, when it holds us back from real, direct democracy? I think part of what our liberal friends and family hold onto is a trust in the Constitution and the framers. They weren’t geniuses, they were landowners worried about kings taking their property. Use these interviews, or Prof. Rana’s book, to handle those arguments.

  • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
    0·
    9 days ago

    Oh, sweet! I love listening to 4-part interviews before I can take part in a conversation. I’d be happy to do that, but first I’m going to need you to watch this documentary, I’m sure you understand.

    Nothing but knee-jerk reactions here.

    Not really dude. You spent most of your message telling me what I was saying (and getting it 100% wrong) so you could disagree with the imaginary things you were pretending I was saying. I was reacting to the message and what was quoted, and the problems with it in some detail. How is that knee-jerk?

    • the_abecedarian@piefed.socialOPEnglish
      0·
      9 days ago

      You spent most of your message telling me what I was saying (and getting it 100% wrong)

      I think you have me confused with someone else?

      I love listening to 4-part interviews before I can take part in a conversation.

      It’s what the post is about. Your question is addressed in the content of the post. I know you just wanna bang out a comment real quick and move on, but maybe the discussion would be meaningful if you at least listened to the shorter, 1-part interview.

      • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
        0·
        9 days ago

        I am reacting to:

        The accounts on this thread who immediately go to attacking leftists on lemmy and protecting this document are running on pure vibes and low education. No other modern democracy runs on anything like it for a reason. No other modern democracy is unable to rewrite their document as appropriate, the fact that the US is stuck with this and people like Phillip are why you’re going to descend into fascism while screaming to protect the past. You are the conservative.

        I’m not attacking anyone on Lemmy, for example by saying they were running on pure vibes and low education. I disagreed with a post. Factual disagreements are totally different from attacks.

        I’m not protecting the constitution, I said it was written by oligarchs and was pro-slavery among some other things.

        Your whole thing is calling me out by name while pretending I said a whole bunch of ridiculous nonsense. You said:

        the US is stuck with this and people like Phillip are why you’re going to descend into fascism while screaming to protect the past

        While I said:

        What this country actually needs is a massive people movement to get the crooks and tyrants out of government. Trump didn’t invent any of that or even close to, but if him trying to have the government kill everybody who looks at him funny or gets in his way is what it takes to get that going, let’s fucking take advantage and accomplish some things, lord knows we need it.

        You’re literally just making up bullshit to ascribe to me. Not sure why I was motivated to spend this long talking with you, but yes, you’re making things up and claiming that I said them so you can go on extensive rants about how wrong I am.

        maybe the discussion would be meaningful if you at least listened to the shorter, 1-part interview.

        No thank you