Customer Reviews

The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Anyone who complains about the author's left-wing views, which are obvious, is pretty much missing the point of the book. Left vs. right is only one axis, orthogonal to and in many ways less significant than older distinctions - Whig/Tory, Court/Country, federalist/parliamentary, etc. What, you say? Those are old issues, no longer relevant today? In fact they are as important today as ever, and are infrequently discussed in the modern United States because only one approach to them is allowed by the Holy Constitution...and that's precisely Lazare's point.

According to Lazare, the Constitution and the religious awe in which it is often held (even to the extent of my feeling compelled to capitalize the word) form the straitjacket in which our current looney-bin government and culture are confined. He seems to feel particular hatred for the amendment clause, but this brings us to the major flaw in this book. Despite his claim that the barriers to amendment are too high, Lazare himself discusses examples (e.g. Prohibition) that might lead one to the opposite conclusion. Likewise, though he favors a strong unicameral legislature, his commentary on the conduct of House members hardly support his own argument. In the end, much of the essential message of the book is muddied and lost.

Despite these flaws, though, this book provokes thought on a variety of matters not limited to the form of government. Of particular interest is the way Lazare discusses the relationships between abstract concepts such as separation of powers or individual rights to very concrete concerns such as public-health policy and urban sprawl. While his leftist tendencies do become annoyingly apparent in the later chapters, the attempt to tie everything together is laudable. Even if you disagree vehemently with all of Lazare's views, including the central thesis, the book is well worth reading in the spirit of broad intellectual exploration.

It was amusing to read the reviews which describe Lazare as a "socialist." Socialism, technically, means state ownership of the means of production, and/or the absence of private property. Needless to say, you will find neither in this book. It is also interesting to note how conservatives tend to use the pjorative term "mob rule" instead of the proper word, "democracy." God forbid that the rebellious rabble who comprise most of society actually rise up to demand a fair share of the American Pie.

In any case, Lazare's arguments are forceful and beyond dispute. What have our vaunted limited government and hallowed checks and balances brought us? Crumbling cities, reactionary civic religion, an explosively growing gap between rich and poor, political apathy, and cultural stagnation. Because the Constitution is so difficult to change, we have opted to let the economy do everything. The results of this political abdication are obvious. Citizens would not even know where to begin, would they ever want to actually assert their collective will to make society more humane by acting through their polity.

Investing an elected parliament with supreme federal power is actually to best way to make government more efficient, responsive to the people (I'm not part of a "mob," I'm part of We the People), and capable of ensuring our civil liberties. As we careen towards war in Mesopotamia, led by a shrubby dictator, our civil liberties are squashed at home without a peep from our nine supreme judicial protectors. This is "limited government" as the Founders intended? I'm with Lazare. Let's find a way to scrap our moldy old Constitution and put something in its place that actually embodies democracy. What are we afraid of?

Every reader of the Frozen Republic will find something to disagree with, but if you have an open mind, you will find that Lazare has many good points about America's government not being the be-all, end-all of democracy.

The Frozen Republic is a history of Constitutional (and para Constitutional) problems that America has faced and a description of Constitution worship as America's religion. There is very little on comparative government or a blueprint for change. Lazare appears to favor a parliamentary system, but he does not spell this out in any detail, or say very much about voting reform.

This is an intelligent, reasonable exploration of the problems with the American governmental system. It is certainly not perfect; any effort so ambitious that it tries to cover the history of Constitutional governments for the last 600 years is bound to overreach. But Lazare does a nice job of producing a readable, rational hypothesis as to what's ailing the USA and of suggesting some solutions. The simple fact is that what the written Constitution says and what our government do are barely related. Lawyers take an entire class in law school studying the contradictions and hypocracies currently involved in Constitutional law. We lawyers learn how to use the current law to win cases and to argue our client's positions, but no one ever steps back and looks at the system as a whole and says, "hey, this needs to be fixed, it's not working anymore!"

Lazare in this book tries to give some reasons and make some suggestions. Most people will find his suggested response to the problems -- eliminating the Constitution and its checks and balances -- too radical. But those of us who are paying attention to our world are glad that someone is learning from history, and is attempting to raise the level of political discourse in this nation above the mindless level of the current political debates. ("I'm a real reformer!" "No, he's a Washington insider -- I'm a real reformer! I was only in Washington when Dad was acting as President!" "Even though I've been Vice-President for the past eight years, I'm really an outsider who's all for reform...!")

Real reform might have to jettison the entire system.

People calling Lazare a socialist are the ones who obviously don't know the Constitution or its formation.

The Founders, after the Preamble, mentioned Congress first, in Article II, because the envisioned -- and PLANNED and DESIRED -- that Congress be the strongest and pre-eminent of the three brances, ideas of "checks and balances" notwithstanding.

Today's "executive presidency," going to war without explicit Congressional declarations (whether it be a Republican or Democratic president who does that) might have made some of them wonder just what they had rebelled for. That's certainly true of those who signed the Declaration of Indepdendence.

Lazare does have some ground to stand on, though, when he argues that the Constitution was in some ways "hijacked" by a more conservative "counter-reformation."

The Frozen Republic is his argument of how to get back to the spirit of 1776, in the places where the spirit of 1787 fails to live up to it.

Lazare's premise is that the Constitution is seriously flawed because of its insistence on checks and balances and the separation of powers. In contrast to the Founding Fathers's view of concentrated power being a menace, Lazare argues that power becomes irresponsible if it divided. Lazare refers not only to the federal government, but also the cornucopia of various governmental entities on the state and local level.

As shocking as this may be, it is a reasonable alternative to blaming politicians, big government, liberals, conservatives, the media, etc. for the inability of Washington to do anything. No one can really be held accountable as the other branches of the government can be blamed for stalling.

Lazare convincingly illustrates the negative effects of this system in his chapter about civil liberties. From the standpoint of the legislative branch (Congress), the judiciary (Supreme Court) is the institution that exists to protect civil liberties. Thus Congress need worry about passing constitutional laws as the Supreme Court would invalidate them if necessary. Of course, if the Supreme Court were to abdicate its role, then no one would be in charge of protecting civil liberties.

Not all of Lazare's arguments are convincing. His link between the separation of powers and urban decay is not entirely convincing. He also declines to thoroughly discuss the downsides of a parliamentary system which he strongly advocates throughout the book. Nonetheless, "The Frozen Republic" is a very insightful critique of the U.S. Constitution, and a plausible (although not complete) explanation for the current state of politics in the United States.

Lazare makes a very original argument (so original that, clearly, it went right over the heads of several of the reviewers on this site). What Lazare is arguing is not-as some seem to think-ideological, per se. Rather, he is arguing structure. The rights that the Constitution was designed to protect is not the question; the question is whether the structure set up by the Constitution is effective in that protection. More importantly, does that protective structure ultimately tend to freeze us in eighteenth century thought, making the transition into the twenty-first century unduly painful?

I highly recommend the book, not because I think Lazare has all the right answers but because he has asked some very important questions. That is something sorely lacking in U.S. politics. We tend to cling to our individual partisan political views with religious fervor.

Daniel Lazar's book is a literate, powerful, critical, and insightful commentary on the extent to which the structure of the US Constitution has guided American history for the past two centuries. Beginning with the Elizabethan era of Britain, Lazar uses historical examples and astute analysis to reveal the true motivations behind the founding fathers in constructing the document that shaped this nation. Departing far from the "child's history" of the United States that is to be found in many history books, "Frozen Republic" draws back the curtain to reveal how the Constitution doomed the United States to such seeming unrelated tragedies as the bloody civil war and 20th century urban decay. Although far more critical than other Constitutional works, Lazar's tome avoids becoming political polemic by confining most arguments to historical fact, instead of concentrating upon political revisionism. Through careful and methodical analysis, Lazar reveals to the reader how our Constitution is one of the least democratic in the free world, and what alternatives exist. Lazar is a barely veiled Anglophile (Great Britain is the most common counter-example to the American political process), and openly advocates a parliamentary system for the United States. He is able to muster powerful arguments for this position, and only occasionally slips into the critical fallacy of idealizing other systems or experiences without proper evidence. While Lazar's work lacks realizable suggestions for changing the American system, it does serve as a powerful inspiration for further thought on the political structure and processes of the United States.

Lazare has hit the nail on the head. Everyone is always complaining about the government, and yet, the system by which that very government is ruled is considered holy. How can this be?
Real reform, and the only reform that can snatch our government away from the big money handlers that are running it now, is only possible from the ground up. That means that you cannot expect that a little tinkering will fix it. You have to realize that the entire system needs an overhaul.
Lazare makes that point beutifully in his book. His grasp on American history and how the constitution has failed in the past is an eye opening experience. This is required reading for anyone interested in reclaiming thier democracy.

Definitely an interesting book, but "not quite there." Lazare's understanding of the strucutrual problems as they relate to the Constitution and slavery was very good, and, indeed, many on both the pro-slavery and abolitionist side argued against the Constitution as it stood.

Where Lazare goes wrong is in the later years. His analysis of the drug war and the government policies that, in effect, subsidized suburbia, were both good, but not really having anything to do with the Constitution, either that I could judge or he could coherently argue. His overarching strucutural approach led him to see a systemic failure when others may see only a failure of policy. To impute the former from the latter simply begs the question.

I'm also not sure why he thinks that government would become more progressive as a result of a more powerful House of Representatives. The notion that many different groups have varied, legitimate, but ultimately incommensurate views regarding what government can and should do presents a blindspot for Lazare. To take his example of the drug war, while it is true that medical marijuana resolutions do well, very few politicians, other than New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson have been elected on a pro-legalization platform. If anything, the prevailing rhetoric has been to get "tough on crime." Yet, Lazare thinks that more direct democracy can and will lead to greater progressivism. Maybe we're better with checks and balances. Also worth noting is that a lot of the strength of American Democracy is that, to use the hoary old cliche, it's a republic of laws, not men. An overarching legal framework has some value, then.

Interestingly, some issues where the Constitution, at least as presently interpreted, may present issues he'd want to discuss, went missing. No real discussion of Campaign finance appeared, and he did not mention voter turnout, once. Does low voter turnout have anything to do with the Constituion? Well, not really, unless you want to use Lazare's ideology, in which the lack of good public transit does. Nevertheless, these strike me as the real issues facing American democracy, but they don't require constitutional overhaul to address.

I also think he does himself a disservice by not really considering any prevailing theories of jurisprudence other than the bi-poles of William O. Douglas and Robert Bork. He also takes Bork's strict constructionism at face value, which is, while unfortunate, does serve his ultimate project.

"The Frozen Republic" is intersting in parts, but really, he's stretching quite a bit to make his criticisms of present policy and discourses a systemic attack on the Constitution, qua constitution.