There is no reading of American history where the press or the judiciary function as some conduit for the immortal "brilliance" or protection of the framers. One needs to only look at recent history, the condition of minorities in modern carceral state, being lied into war in Iraq, to recognize this. Further back, the judiciary was used to justify segregation, eugenics, and mass disenfranchisement. And the history of the press speaks quite bleakly for itself.
This kind of mentality, where individual agency is sacrificed in favor of "mythic" protections, is a big part of the reason things have become so precarious.
It's actually spelled hypocrisy, but that's a fun misspelling for those who know Greek roots.
Otherwise, I think a huge reason for our moral progress in the US, slow and unsteady though it may be, is having a document like the condition to point to when advocating for better conditions.
The constitution enshrined the diminishment of blacks' humanity, had to be ammended to extend the franchise to women, and still says that slavery is fine under the right circumstances. It's as much a reflection of our failings as it is our ambitions, and has been wielded violently to uphold or change the status quo. It has no inherent trajectory towards progress other than the one we actively embody.
[1] see also a novel "The Klansman", the Word of that narrative made flesh and into "Birth of a Nation" , i which the modern movie was born.
Sacrificing individual agency to mythic protections has a name. It's collectivism. And it takes quite the storyteller to kill that sort of story.
The housing crisis? "Housing never goes down." Vietnam? "The domino theory." Manifest Destiny? "Go West, young man."
The problem is that we're adapted to narrative as our principle means of information exchange. So we try to construct counter-narratives. Those work just about as well.
The antidote to narrative is rhetoric.
[1] http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/24/media/cnn-blocked-white-hous...
The more insidious statist leaders create deep, subtle, lasting harm. It's the Bushes and Obamas who set up the largest illegal domestic spying operation ever and got away with it because, even when called out, people trusted them not to commit evil acts with the store of data they were collecting. It was Obama who routinely violated journalists rights yet continued to be generally supported by mainstream news outlets.
That genre of politician will be making a comeback after Trump, and that's when people will start feeling comfortable again and go along with anything that promises stability and safety. And I believe that's the environment where the type of manipulation described in this article ("liberal paternalism") can really thrive.
Uhm, is this a joke?
How about having an anti-Semite for a chief strategist[0]? Or selecting a woefully unqualified campaign donor to to lead the Department of Education[1]? How are you feeling about transgender rights[2]? (And let's not pretend this is just about bathrooms -- if you can't use the bathroom in public, you can't go out in public.) Maybe you care about sexual assault[3]?
[0] - http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-campaign... [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/... [2] - http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/02/23/516837258/5-questi... [3] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-havin...
I'm not writing that to be funny, it's a serious issue. Also applies to climate change deniers who refuse satellite data and moon landing deniers who deny everything from NASA… not that I wish to imply any overlap.
Its happening all over the world already, people are already crying for democracy to be reduced in their countries after AI based analytics companies have spread fake news and targeted advertising. Its already extremely effective even though people are fully aware of its existance.
Its been a common trend of the past few years, the impact of media is vast and its widely subverting democracy right now and I am convinced its a grave threat to our societies but not sure how to stop it without doing equally bad things.
Perspective matters when considering the brilliance of the Framers. The debate over the electoral college and the effectiveness of a voter in rural Wyoming vs one in urban LA is a great example.
Personally I think they got a lot right but that the US is a vastly different country now. How do you make adjustments or further codify rights without disenfranchising others though? In theory through amendments but that seems unlikely in the current political environment.