Second Amendment Solutions

In my old age, I've become a rabid radical.  I just don't respect anything anymore.  Lately, for instance, I've been "disrespecting" the Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, which seems to me to have been one of God's mistakes.

Like avocado pits.

Because, according to the vast majority of NRA true believers, the Second Amendment (unlike, perhaps, the Fourteenth), was granted to Americans, not by civil authorities drafting a social contract for a particular place and time, but by Yahweh Himself, speaking for and from All Eternity.  The Second Amendment, intone these zealots, enshrines the God-given right of each and every American to bear arms.

Rubbish.  Rubbish.  Rubbish.

The Constitution is a man-made document, establishing or affirming MAN-MADE values.  I find absolutely repulsive the notion that some "loving" God would want, indeed decree, that we should tote around lethal weapons in order to compensate for His inability to design and actualize a secure environment for His Chosen People.

No, a constitution is made by men, for men--and, most pertinently, for a specific society of humans. For as long as it works, this social contract binds a group of people to a distinct political structure and to guidelines for acceptable behavior.  Obviously, the document--both as a whole and in its various parts--is intended to ensure and advance the prosperity, security and overall well-being of that society.

It is NOT intended to negate or impede the achievement of those very goals.

The writers of our Constitution--themselves imperfect men (and NOT Yahweh)--soberly recognized their unavoidable inadequacies and, accordingly, clearly specified a means (albeit a very "prudent" one) whereby their document could be amended to suit changing circumstances or needs.

(Surely the very inclusion of an amendment procedure is proof positive that the Constitution is not in any way an expression of divinely immutable principles.  God's laws, if such exist, presumably could not be changed by anyone under any circumstances.  And yet, the Second Amendment is itself just such a "change," brought about by an act of Congress and approval of three-fourths of the states.)

In any event, it's pretty clear that the country's circumstances and needs HAVE changed since 1789 (or 1791, when the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution).  And even more significantly, popular thinking has evolved--not always in directions foreseen by those who drafted the Second Amendment.

Even the most cursory glance at the language of the Amendment reveals that the Framers were primarily focused on providing "security" for a "free State." People should have the right to bear arms in order to organize themselves into a "well regulated militia" and thereby protect themselves against invaders or, perhaps, a tyrannical government.  In other words, it is the interests of the STATE and the COMMONWEAL that must be served (not those of particular individuals).

But precisely because the remainder of the Bill of Rights, enforced by an elaborate legal system, has worked fairly well, citizens no longer have any desperate need to use firearms to protect themselves against tyrannical government or abuses of authority. Indeed, the gun collectors and hoarders have only very rarely organized themselves into "militia" in order to defend their liberties against agents of some despot--foreign or domestic.  Instead--with the notable exception of hunters and sportsmen--they seem to regard their guns as a legitimate means of advancing their own subjective interests--a "God-given" instrument for intimidating, threatening or coercing "lesser" citizens into a certain course of action--or else.

I fear that increasingly our American definition of freedom is both simplistic and anarchic:  "Shoot any son of a bitch who doesn't agree with me or pisses me off!" (So much for the FIRST Amendment, BTW).

This, I hasten to point out, is NOT the defense of the Commonweal spoken of in the Second Amendment.  Rather, it is aggression in the service of selfish interests or private grudges--Commonweal be damned.

Let us note here that the language of the Amendment says nothing specific about employing weapons for self-defense (against a personal attack) or for hunting or sport.  I assume that the Framers, living in late 18th Century America, would have considered such practices both reasonable and proper.  And, if  "well regulated," similar gun use seems appropriate for our modern world as well .

But guns for AGGRESSION, for REVENGE, for SELF-AGGRANDIZEMENT, for EMOTIONAL RELEASE????

I very much doubt that the Framers had any such purposes in mind.  Unfortunately, their vague language has all too often been so interpreted, much to the detriment of our collective security. Statistics leave no doubt about the fearsome prevalence of gun deaths in America.  Indisputably, we own more guns than any other people--and, according to the Centers for Disease Control, we kill each other with guns at astonishing rates (14.2 per 100,000 vs., for instance 4.3 for Canada or .41 for England).

So, the Second Amendment, which was originally intended to ensure domestic security (NOT God-given rights to kill people we don't like), has, to paraphrase Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, become destructive of these very ends.  It therefore behooves us, again as Jefferson asserted, to "alter or to abolish" the offending writ.

Not by armed uprising, not by violent revolution (as advocated by Jefferson), but by the very prudent amendment procedure that established the Second Amendment itself.

I realize that this will be a very long process, especially given the pro-gun culture that now prevails in the U.S. And I am not naive:  perhaps we have grown so fond of our guns and/or so afraid of defying the NRA that we will be forever powerless to remedy our current Old West environment and restore some measure of domestic tranquility (the language of the Constitution's Preamble) to the general citizenry. Still, I continue to hope. Perhaps people of good-will and good sense will ultimately triumph.

So MY Second Amendment Solution is to trash the whole confusing and misinterpreted thing.  Replace it with a clear-cut set of rules appropriate for life in  21st Century America--rules governing the sale of weapons and permitting duly licensed/registered firearms for sport and self-defense. Period. Maybe then--sometime in the distant future, I suppose--we will begin to resemble the safer and more civilized democracies of the world--none of which (true believers please take note) seem to have the slightest yearning to share our "God-given right to bear arms."

Shit Maria in the Hen Coop!

As best I remember, my father almost never uttered the word "shit"--or, for that matter, any other vulgarism.  Fastidious and professorial, he donned a suit and tie every day and affected a language that was generally as tasteful and tailored as his outfits (except when, inexplicably and incongruously, he would let slip an ungrammatical "he don't"). But my MOTHER, imitating HER mother, was perfectly capable of employing decidedly colorful language.  Both Mom and Grandma, though they generally avoided the "Lord's name" in at least conventional deference to the Third Commandment, would quite willingly--almost gleefully--"talk shit" whenever they deemed it appropriate or, even, just fun.

In fact, for my maternal ancestors, the simple interjection "shit," sometimes prefaced by "oh," was an almost indispensable reaction to nearly all unanticipated or aggravating situations.

Not surprisingly, then, "defecatory" similes and metaphors (albeit not very original) also abounded in the diction of my progenitresses:  "I feel like shit; ha,ha, that gander sure scared the shit out of me; uffda, isn't that minister a dumb shit?"  

But now both Grandma and Mom are gone--and I find myself regretting that they departed before I ever had the chance to ask them what they meant by one of their absolute favorite excremental ejaculations:  "Shit Maria in the Hen Coop."  BTW, they always pronounced "Maria" with an affected British accent--as "Mar-eye-ah."  

What in the world was the origin of that curious exclamation?

I used to think that the name "Maria" could have referred to a kind of dimwitted poultry tender (not to be confused with a "chicken tender" of the McDonald's variety)--a peasant girl of Chardinesque mien who needed advice about where it would be appropriate for a person of her lowly status to defecate (answer: in the hen coop).

But if this expression were some kind of Dr. Phil-type admonition, why would Mom and Grandma have emitted it most typically immediately after slicing a thumb with a paring knife or dropping a freshly-baked tuna hotdish on the floor?

My grandmother's hen coop was definitely--and literally--full of shit.  Because I adored my grandparents, I used to spend entire summers living with them on their rather bleak and terribly primitive farm in northern Iowa (though for me, this dreary farm--lacking telephones and indoor plumbing--was perfectly idyllic and in every way hors pair).  To the north of the house, between the garage and the privy, lay the dilapidated chicken house--or hen coop, if you will.  Since I suffered from hay fever and, I must confess, genuine fear of pigs, my doting grandparents generally exempted me from chores in the allergen-filled barn or the roiling pig pens.  But I WAS expected to gather eggs in the chicken house.

God, what a stinky and intimidating dump!  Don't tell ME that "free-range" chickens and "organic eggs" are any more healthy than the agri-business-industrial variety.  Uffda!  Every day, sweatily clutching my basket, I ventured into that shitty hen coop to do battle with vicious hens for possession of  their daily eggs--as if, somehow, those egg belonged to THEM.  Mean, violent creatures--they pecked me and scolded me and shit on me.  Because I hated and feared them so, I never felt the least bit bad when, upon occasion, Grandma decided to seize one of them and summarily chop off her head in order to have something to serve the dumb shit minister who had unexpectedly shown up for dinner.

So what is my point?  Well, I guess it's just that NO HUMAN BEING, not even Maria-the-chicken-tender, should, under any circumstances, be obliged to shit in a hen coop. Shitting is unpleasant enough as it is (especially on a January morning in an unheated privy)--but in a hen coop?  How perfectly inhuman.  Ergo, I conclude that "Shit Maria in the hen coop" must have been my foremothers' expression of utter misery, humiliation and pain.  A fate that should happen to no-one.

Much like dropping a freshly-baked tuna hotdish on the floor just as the dumb shit minister appears at the door.  Shit Maria in the Hen Coop!

Cock and Bull

A rooster crows and immediately afterwards, the sun rises.  Therefore, the rooster crowing CAUSED the sun to rise.  This follows that, therefore this is responsible for that.  Post hoc ergo propter hoc:  one of the most popular and infamous of logical fallacies.

A French nun prays for healing to the spirit of Pope John Paul II and, subsequently, is "miraculously" cured of Parkinson's disease.  

Therefore, by time-honored post-hoc reasoning, the prayer to John Paul II actually brought about the cure from the disease.  

And therefore, also, John Paul II must be "in heaven" and, not only that, but a powerful force in heaven--i.e., a saint.  

Consequently, the current pope, Benedict XVI, is going to "beatify" his predecessor on May 1--signaling the Church's intention to put JPII on a "fast track" to sainthood.  Subito.

I don't have any problem with people wanting to honor John Paul II with another title.  Though I almost always disagreed with his theology, I admired his sincere attempts to further peace and social justice.  So, if people want to light candles to him and talk to him about stuff, I couldn't care less. (After all, I talk to my deceased mother all the time.)  No, my gripe is about the faulty logic.  Because there is simply no RATIONAL justification for concluding that Sister Whosit's intercessory prayer to JPII had any cause/effect relationship with her recovery from Parkinson's. One thing just followed the other, that's all.  Pure coincidence unless proven otherwise.

Nor, when we read the various medical reports, is there any certainty that the good nun actually suffered from Parkinson's.  But let us grant that she did.  Let us grant, even further, that the disappearance of Parkinson's was not medically explainable.  

I.e. it was an anomaly.  Something that seemed to defy the usual rules.  Something that medical science, at this point in its development, is unable to understand.

OK.  A "miracle," if you like.

Thousands, perhaps millions, of such anomalies / miracles occur daily, weekly--everywhere and in every domain of earthly experience.  But because we cannot immediately assign a natural cause to these phenomena, are we therefore justified in assuming that some sort of supernatural  intervention has occurred? 

That is indeed a leap of "faith."  

Is it not much more likely that the cause of these so-called miracles lies in some unusual (but naturally occurring) jerk, twitch or glitch in the normal patterns of the universe--an anomaly which, because of its rarity, has as yet not been recognized and cataloged scientifically?  

True believers are familiar with "explanations" involving imperfect human reason. They are, for instance, constantly telling us skeptics and doubters that all the incarnadine and seemingly senseless evils of earthly life DO, indeed, have an explanation--but an explanation available only to God--an explanation that, because of our "fallen nature," will forever lie beyond human ken.  In other words, they are suggesting that "natural" disasters have "supernatural" justifications/causes--causes we can never know or appreciate.

I, on the other hand, am suggesting that so-called "supernatural" phenomena may very likely have "natural" causes--but causes we do not YET (and may never) have the skill to ascertain. 

Of course, none of this discussion applies to the "miracles" recounted in the Bible or (I assume) other collections of mythological tales.  THESE miracles are not really anomalies.  Rather, all the evidence suggests that they are complete, albeit pious, fabrications--invented by storytellers and theologians in order to assert (or prove) the omnipotence of a particular god or his agents.  We simply do not witness any such phenomena in the real world of 2011--not even in the devoutest of convents in France.  In 2011, praying to either John Paul II or your Heavenly Father will NEVER (I can assure you), bring your dead friend back to life.  Bathing in Lourde's waters will NEVER (I can assure you) give you the power to walk on those waters.  Invoking Yahweh to make the sun stand still will NEVER (I can assure you) afford you the extra hours you need to smite your enemies and/or get a good tan.

So don't ask for the impossible when you pray.  And be careful about assuming that there's anything more than a coincidental connection between the cock's crowing and the sun's rising.  Above all, please don't give in to all the cock and bull reasoning that ascribes anomalous "miracles" (which do exist) to divine intervention (which almost certainly doesn't).

Merry eX-mas

Every year at this time, we Minnesota provincials are subjected to countless pious, cliché-ridden lamentations  about how Christmas has become too secular and commercial. The concluding exhortation of all these jeremiads is always the same:  we simply MUST put the "Christ" back in Christmas.

Or else.

Or else, what?  The apocalyptic consequence, should Americans continue to prefer Santa Claus to Jesus Christ, is unspecified--but presumably comparable to the fate that befell Sodom and Gomorrah.  (The people who fuss about saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" tend to be rather partial to Old Testament Wrath and, in fact, would probably enjoy a nice little display of Divine Displeasure.)

Generally speaking, of course, those who yearn for a more religious or spiritual holiday aren't quite so angry.  Mostly, they just sense, in some vague way, that Christmas isn't as satisfying as they would like it to be.  So they blame commercialism and reflexively (but obtusely) endeavor to "put Christ back in Christmas."

I wonder, though.  What in the world are these people actually talking about?

Because Christmas was NEVER very much about Christ, was it?  I mean, "Christ" was never really IN Christmas to begin with.  Most historians concur that the celebration of Jesus' supposed birthday is just a thin veneer pasted onto an amalgam of much older and much less "holy" festivities.  In fact, it appears that the Christian Church adopted December 25 as the date of Jesus' birth for the largely cynical (or at least pragmatic) reason that it couldn't manage to suppress all the  pagan celebrations of the Winter Solstice that already existed and were deeply loved by Romans as yet only superficially converted to Christianity. So Pope Julius I (or maybe another pope in the early 4th century) just decided that, since he couldn't make folks stop eating and drinking and carousing and buying needless stuff at the end of December, well, he would simply "join" them and label their hitherto pagan celebrations "Christian."

So it came to pass that Saturnalia was renamed--or christened--"Christmas.''  But as is so often the case in christenings, the effect of the measure was mostly a matter of semantics:  nothing much changed in actual fact.  True, a Christ-Mass would now be said at midnight--and, eventually, little creches would appear at church doors (some believe that St. Francis started this custom).  But the revelry, the feasting, the gift-exchanging, the singing and dancing (sometimes naked) in the streets continued much as before.  And, as the countries of northern Europe also converted to Christianity, the Church obligingly embraced other pagan rituals and traditions associated with the Winter Solstice:  the festival of Yule (lights, sacred logs, drinking, eating), the druidic and/or Germanic celebrations of nature and enduring life (holly, ivy, mistletoe, evergreen trees and, of course, more drinking and eating).  Fa la la la la, la la la la.

I find it amusing, therefore, that so many present-day churchgoers are surprised and upset that the desired metamorphosis from merry pagan "holiday" to solemn Christian "holy day" never really took hold.  How could it have been otherwise?  Of course, if the Church hadn't been so willing to compromise and so adamant in its desire to co-opt the nearly universal northern-hemisphere celebrations of solar rebirth, it might have insisted upon a more likely birthdate--sometime in the spring, perhaps (when shepherds might legitimately have been tending flocks at night)--or in that really dead time (rightly called "ordinary" in the Church calendar) around mid-July. Had such a scenario been adopted, the festival could have been kept essentially religious and suitably decorous, since no pre-existing and more appealing traditions would have been available to tempt people into frivolity or debauchery.

Oh well.  In any case, the Christmas story as told in Luke and Matthew is almost certainly little more than a pretty fairy tale--or, more fairly--a beautiful myth expressing the Church's belief/hope that God has somehow united himself with human beings and, in sharing our nature, allowed us also to share his.  But the theology of the Incarnation--also an idea that antedates Christianity--is probably better elaborated in the philosophical language of the first chapter of John than it is in the fanciful, albeit poetic, narratives of Luke and Matthew.

In short, I've come to the conclusion that I don't really need "Christ" in my Christmas--and I even feel, a bit perversely, perhaps?--that Christ doesn't much "belong" in this happy--but INCLUSIVE and UNIVERSAL (not narrowly parochial)-- celebration of the Sun's nadir and rebirth.  Christmas is just too big and too important to be reserved for the practitioners of a single religion.

Accordingly, for the first time in many years, I decided to celebrate this Christmas with exclusively pagan traditions, albeit those that have long been honored in my family (you will, no doubt, be disappointed to learn that we generally don't "do" naked dancing). In this eX-masing endeavor, I think I was pretty successful (with one notable exception, see below). I ate, drank, socialized, reconnected with old friends, exchanged gifts, decorated the house--in all the manners and modes customary to generations of Kellys and Kirkebys.  Except:  no church and no Jesus.

And you know what?  I didn't miss the "Christ" stuff very much, not even midnight mass.  The exception I mentioned, though, is MUSIC.  I must confess that, in this one domain, I broke my own rule and listened, almost exclusively, to Christian material.  I love Christmas music, the religious variety--the Bach, the Berlioz, the Handel, and the ancient carols in minor keys.  No "Jingle Bells" or "Rudolphs" or "White Christmases"  please!  That dreck is just too painful to my ears.

So I'm wondering:  isn't there any good Saturnalia music? If there is, please let me know.  Then, maybe--at the very least--we could put THAT back in Christmas.

Meerkat Manor

Once again today, eternally optimistic that Republicans care more about the country than about corporations, President Obama is hosting a "bipartisan" "planning" meeting of congressional "leaders" at the White House.

Or, as I've begun to call it--Meerkat Manor.

We all love those cute little Animal Planet creatures that inhabit multi-chambered burrows in remote South African deserts.  They're so remarkably photogenic:  perky, attentive, friendly, eager-to-please--and they seem to spend all of their time scurrying about from here to there without actually doing anything or going anywhere.

Just like our president and the Democrats in Washington.  Apparently, in 2008, we elected a whole colony of innocuous meerkats, who have little inclination to do anything other than chirp, peep, cock their heads coyly  and wait for something to happen.

Well, they'd best get ready for some changes in the zoo.

Obama, Geithner, Holder, Napolitano, Axelrod, Reid, Baucus, Hoyer--God, such sweet little meerkats. Quick, take a picture!  And today, most of them are meeting with the likes of Boehner, Cantor, Kyl and McConnell--all of whom are great, lumbering war elephants, perfectly prepared--indeed eager--to stomp out the entire meerkat population--and in so doing turn Meerkat Manor into an inelegant dust wallow for addlepated and malevolent pachyderms.

Yet, the peeping and chirping and head-bobbing continue.

It seems pretty hopeless, doesn't it?  Galumph!

And, in the unlikely event that some of the meerkats survive the war elephant stampede, there is another critter stalking about nearby (well, actually in sight of Russia--but still dangerously "near"), waiting for a tasty little snack:  a hella mean mama grizzly bear.


So it looks a lot like the Washington Zoo will soon be dominated by BIG and NASTY varmints. Not exactly cuddly or (poor) people-friendly.  Take your pictures while you still can, folks.

Nothing Gold Can Stay

I am a Francophile, of course--and my pays de prédilection will always be France.  But, if Paris has my heart (as I think Montaigne said), Athens and London have my head.  And even if I sometimes wish it were otherwise, I cannot honestly escape the conclusion that the Greeks and the English/British have shaped me and my culture more than have the French.  Indeed, I think it fair to conclude that, in all countries that we commonly label The West, these two peoples--the ancient Greeks and the modern Brits--have exercised disproportionate influence--in philosophy, science, politics, economics, literature, technology--and, well, spiritual/moral development.  Certainly one could criticize the Greeks for their misogyny and their occasionally bloodless art; certainly the English never equaled the French, Italians and Germans in painting, architecture or music.


All that notwithstanding, we can judge the overall "heft" of a people by asking ourselves a simple question:  how would the world be different if this particular tribe had never passed our way and left, in its wake, its special contributions?

Doubtless we would be much poorer in beautiful things, delicious food and artful living if Italy and Germany and France and China and India and Spain and Persia had never ''occurred."

But we would still have Socrates and Plato and Aristotle and Archimedes and Sophocles and Pericles and Euripides and Euclid and Pythagoras and Thales and Hippocrates and, and,..Bacon and Newton and Darwin and Shakespeare and Milton and Churchill and Priestley and John Stuart Mill and Hobbes and Hume and Adam Smith and Keats and Dickens and Stephen Hawking and The Mother of Parliaments.

Personally--and this is just a personal observation--I would scarcely miss anything at all contributed by China or India (though I think Chinese art is exquisite and I have a faible for Hindu mysticism).  I would miss a good deal of art, literature, music and cuisine from France, Italy, Germany.

I would also miss many of the insights and world views set forth by thinkers such as Montaigne, Voltaire, Kant, Marx.

But the ground of my being would not be shaken by the absence of any of these elements.

I WOULD, on the other hand, be deeply shaken by the removal of Platonic philosophy, the Greek ideal of individual self-actualization, the Socratic quest for the limits of knowledge.  And how could I not be shaken by the loss of English common law, Anglo-Saxon economics, Newtonian physics or the Darwinian understanding of biology?  (COULD these discoveries actually be "lost"?)  Above all, of course, how could I even be ME without the English language and the whole corpus of literature that it affords?

So, Greece and England--I love you.

And I will miss you.

Because, I think you're on your way ''out." It's pretty clear, isn't it, that China and India will eventually acquire hegemony in human affairs, ending the long imperium of the Greeks, Brits and their collective disciples and satellites? A day, not far in the future, will bring very different philosophies, attitudes, languages, ways of life to our little planet. Since this is a natural phenomenon about which, in any event, very little can be done, the imminent shift  from one human paradigm to another must be accepted with grace and good will.  And yet, and yet...nostalgia is surely permitted.

I will be gone by then, gone before Socrates and Shakespeare and Darwin are superseded or supplanted by whatever is next in the continuing (let us assume it will be "upward") march of humanity.  But already, in advance, I miss Athens and London, almost like the ancient Jews missed the Golden Jerusalem of King David.  Bye bye, my beloved mother cities. Nothing gold can stay.

Constitutional Couch Potato

I suppose I've been watching too much cable news again--too much pontificating about the implications of the Republican (and Tea Party) takeover of Congress, too much yammering about the inability of American "democracy" to rise above greed and irrationality in order to "get anything done."

Anyway, last night I had a dream about WESTMINSTER.  Yes, about the British Parliament--and about parliamentary "democracy" as it has evolved and continues to be practiced in the U.K.  And, particularly, about what the British call their "Constitution."

Curious subject for a dream!

But it wasn't a nightmare at all.  Quite to the contrary:  as the "narrator" (myself, I suppose) of this vision lucidly pointed out, the British system is both more efficient and more democratic than the American system.  Because Parliament is supreme, the legislative and executive powers are essentially identical.  The Prime Minister and the cabinet propose legislation and their majority in Parliament ensures that these measures will be taken.  If severe disagreement arises, the government falls and a new one takes over.  That's it.  Done!

No acrimonious conflicts between House and Senate; no threats of Presidential vetoes; no filibustering in order to avoid a democratic vote; no endless attempts to reconcile the concerns of the executive with those of the legislature. It's all the same.  Done!

And, by and large, done by the House of Commons--a unicameral legislature (the House of Lords is pretty irrelevant) with seats apportioned according to population, not geography (OK, so Scotland and Wales are slightly over-represented:  that's nothing like the insanity that gives deserted Wyoming the same number of senators as teeming California).  More equitable, more democratic.

I like it and I often wish that the Brits had been a bit quicker in allowing their colonies to establish similar national parliaments (as they ultimately did in Canada and Australia and New Zealand).  But it took the American Revolution for them to see the wisdom of such a policy, by which time it was too late for US.  Instead, we wound up with a Constitution that deliberately instituted an "anti-government" government, one in which checks, balances and redundancies virtually guarantee that nothing at all will be done by anybody in power unless nearly universal consensus can be achieved (i.e., in the direst of emergencies).

In other words, the Founders endowed America with a "government" that is essentially REactive, not PROactive, that generally does nothing at all, and that certainly does nothing gradually.  Any problem must be allowed to fester until the infection is so great that the very survival of the Republic is in jeopardy.  Only then, in desperation, are we willing to seek the aid of  Doctor Government--to rally behind a Lincoln or a Roosevelt and, counting on their vision and skill, submit at last to painful change.  At the eleventh hour, completely discombobulated, we finally resolve to DO something--almost anything at this point--in the hopes of pulling through the crisis.  But what if, in treating the cancer that we are currently allowing to metasticize, we put our faith in a "surgeon" who lacks the competence of a Lincoln or a Roosevelt?  Will we die on the operating table, merely another statistic in the history of nations?

The Westminster system, of course, because it allows for swifter response to incipient illnesses (before they have a chance to develop into full-blown, organism-threatening diseases), generally ensures that necessary reforms can be made without such excessive violence to the body politic.

Still, I'm not naive.  I realize that parliamentary government, because of its very democracy and efficiency, runs the risk of degenerating into mob rule, into a tyranny of the majority which could threaten the individual liberties of those whose only shortcoming is that they disagree with prevailing sentiment. In such a system, what is to protect the the rights of such fundamentally benign but disdained minority groups?

In the U.S., of course, normal governmental gridlock generally prevents any single ideological faction from gaining absolute power.  And, in the few instances where the intolerance of the majority DOES find its way into law, an appeal can yet be made to a written document that guarantees the rights of ALL:  the Constitution.

Britain, on the other hand, lacks such a clear, written, codified Constitution.  So what's to prevent a looney Parliament from abolishing free speech, suspending habeas corpus, forbidding blacks or Muslims from voting, incarcerating all homosexuals, requiring everybody to join the Anglican Church?

Technically, nothing, I suppose (unless it be the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Britain has legally bound itself).

But, in actual fact, any of these acts would (at this point in history) be regarded as blatantly unconstitutional by the courts.  Because there IS a British Constitution, and it's the BEST kind of constitution--a constitution comprised, not of written text susceptible to frivolous exegesis and hysterical amendment (like Prohibition), but of commonly-accepted rites, conventions and traditions that have evolved over centuries.  This unwritten Constitution is wonderfully supple (constantly undergoing almost imperceptible changes, like our species itself) and yet comfortingly stable (taking years, even centuries, to undergo any deep or remarkable alteration).

So, in Britain--and in the other Commonwealth countries, too (even in those, like Australia and Canada, that have a kind of written constitution), the fundamental social contract is shared traditions and practices.

All of which find a human embodiment in the figure of the monarch.  The Queen is, in a very real sense, the living, breathing, purse-toting Constitution.  Recently, I watched the State Opening of Parliament and the Speech from the Throne.  Absolutely fascinating.  And silly and boring (especially the horrible laundry-list speech), of course--at least to an outsider.  But to a participant in the British Social Contract, this was a sacrament--a celebration, in ritual and symbol--of the Constitution that binds all of Her Majesty's subjects to one another and to their mutual ideals and aspirations--a Credo that has evolved over nearly 1,000 years of pushme and pullyou.  The Norman Steps, the Robing Room, the Imperial State Crown, Black Rod, the Mace, the Sword, the Silk Purse for the speech--all of this seeming falderal serves to reassure the British people that the order and texture of their world is intact, that there, in their little island at least, civilization and the accumulated wisdom of the race are still working to stave off the natural anarchy of the universe.

I hope I'm not waxing too eloquent and overstating the case.  The recent results of the 2010 midterms here in America have been indeed sobering to me, a left-leaning progressive.  Because if the U.S. had a functioning Westminister system, John Boehner and his right-wingers would be forming a government--a government which might choose to enact any or all of the following legislation:  a) outlaw abortion, b) continue the ban on gays in the military, c) build a wall to "keep out" Mexicans, d) extend even further tax cuts to the very wealthy,  e) repeal Obama's healthcare reforms, f) privatize (i.e., eliminate or severely restrict) Medicare and social security, g) outlaw same-sex marriage everywhere, h) require prayer and creationism in schools.

Such  "reforms" would not be the modest, gradual, rational changes that I suggested typify the British approach.  On the contrary:  a John Boehner government effectuating the program outlined above would profoundly and cruelly alter the social and economic landscape of the U.S.

Question is:  if the Republicans actually had the power--and KNEW they had the power--to enact these changes, would they do so?  Or would they act more responsibly, realizing that many of those measures--though popular with their "base," would, in the long run, be judged unconstitutional and, in the short run, be enormously disruptive to the commonweal.

In other words, the Westminster system requires something of legislators that our American "checks/balances" system does NOT require:  RESPONSIBLE civil debate and rational, "for the common good" party platforms.  Since, in the British set-up, the legislators can actually GET what they SAY THEY WANT, they really must be certain that their pre-election "talk" corresponds to the post-election "walk" they envisage.

And the attitudes of the voting public are inevitably influenced by this realization.  I suspect that there would have been fewer Republican winners in our recent elections if the electorate had been truly confident that ALL of the right-wing rhetoric would indeed find its way into law.  Would the fiscally conservative old lady have voted for a party that was REALLY intending to abolish Medicare?  There's a good chance that she would have considered her options more carefully.  (Parenthetically, she might also have wondered what kind of medical care Boehner has been getting--i.e., why is he orange?)

But since we Americans just assume that MOST of the stuff advocated by politicians will never find its way into law, we often tend to vote emotionally and impulsively.  We have internalized the notion (which our Constitution renders statutory) that nothing much will happen anyway.  So go ahead:  rant, rave, scream, hate, denounce, wring your hands, wear sackcloth, proclaim the coming Rapture, threaten to round up all Mexicans, promise to bomb Iran, get an orange tan.  Whatever.  Then do nothing, as usual.

Britain is a constitutional monarchy.  The U.S. is a constitutional couch potato.  Burp.