Nancy Pelosi Responds to Aziz Rana
The former speaker's intervention is a sign of the times, writes Luke Pickrell
Last month, the New York Times published a guest essay by Aziz Rana titled “The Constitution Won’t Save Us From Trump.” Rana argued that far from acting as a “bulwark” against the former president, the Constitution has “made our democracy almost unworkable.” To “turn the page” on Trump, he concluded that America must “fundamentally” change its founding document.
Last week, Nancy Pelosi responded to Rana’s essay, saying that he made “a strong case for legislative solutions that will reinforce American democracy.” Employing the vague platitude Americans are used to hearing from politicians, Pelosi said she wanted to “empower the public, reduce cynicism in government and put people over politics.”
It’s Pelosi’s job to police the boundaries of acceptable ideology. The fact that the Democratic Party needs to intervene in discussions about the Constitution in the paper of record is a sign of the times. Hard as it may be to believe, the Democrats aren’t dumb. As speaker of the House, Pelosi was second in line to the presidency and is an adept politician with her finger on the pulse of popular sentiment. She knows as well as everyone else that Joe Biden is unpopular heading into November and understands Americans have an “unrelentingly negative” view of the existing political system.
Pelosi and the Democratic Party have repeatedly made it clear (if in a hamfisted way) what Americans should think about the Founder’s creation. Now, it’s becoming a little too obvious that book by book, article by article, and interview by interview, political discontent is slowly coalescing around the Constitution. In response, its defenders are jumping to attention. A Democratic Party big-hitter, Pelosi’s intervention is an unmistakable challenge to constitutional skeptics everywhere. Rana should be honored that the establishment has taken notice.
Pelosi’s desire to “reduce cynicism in government” is undoubtedly genuine. Any statesman worth a dime knows the importance of legitimacy: public opinion and attitude matter. Currently, the legitimacy of the Democratic Party is relatively low. The legitimacy of the Constitution is arguably higher than that of Democrats, but precisely how much higher is challenging to say (if the attitude of law students is any indication, things aren’t looking too hot).
The left should be hammering away at the question of democracy because the existing political institutions, grounded as they are in an undemocratic constitution, are so glaringly vulnerable on precisely that point. We must create a zeitgeist within which talk of “defending democracy” by Democrats draws jeers, and Pelosi calling Biden a “determined champion for democracy” makes readers spit out their morning coffee. The demand for democracy can potentially motivate people like nothing else — including socialism.
Pelosi’s response to Rana is about ideological power and legitimacy. The undemocratic Constitution is the loadstone of the existing state, and everyone, especially the Democrats, knows that even the smallest of cracks will widen under pressure.