"A republic, if you can keep it." That was Benjamin Franklin's famous response when he was leaving the Constitutional Convention, after he was asked what kind of government the Convention had given the American people.
Less well-remembered, but perhaps just as important, was what Franklin said behind closed doors just before that. As the convention came to an end, Franklin cautioned his colleagues that "with so many different and contending interests it is impossible that any one can obtain every object of their wishes," but despite his own reservations on some points, he intended to support the finished product in public because it was "the best possible, that could have been formed under present circumstances."
Ben Franklin was wise, and he understood how we got our Constitution. It was a compromise among a collection of brilliant and strong-willed men, none of whom got exactly what they wanted. It was, however, the best that a real-world process could produce under the circumstances. It was worth defending. And it was designed to last — for as long as the people were willing to keep it.
Two hundred thirty-seven years later, it has done exactly that. No other nation on earth has a written constitution binding on its government for as long as ours has bound our government. From the beginning, we have been the country where the people make the rules for the government, and not the other way around.
What have conservatives conserved in America? Every generation struggles with that question — but to be an American conservative is to defend our Constitution and the system it designed for ordered liberty. The day we stop trying to conserve that, we won't be long for defending much else.
Not everybody likes the Constitution. Some just can't resist the idea that they could do better. Franklin warned critics not to be like "the French girl who was always quarrelling and finding fault with every one around her, and told her sister that she thought it very extraordinary, but that really she had never found a person who was always in the right but herself." Here at National Review, we have always had the humility and the gratitude to understand that the Constitution has worked well in practice for generations, and that itself is proof of its wise design. And so we are asking for the support of you, our readers, as part of our ongoing webathon, so we can keep defending this nation's precious foundation, our inheritance as Americans.
The Constitution's durability has been its strength. When Louis-Napoleon staged a coup in 1851 just three years after France adopted a new constitution, James Rothschild wrote to his family, "My good nephews, how would you like a French constitution for two sous? They're being sold in the streets for that here."
There will always be those who see the Constitution as an obstacle to unchecked power. These days, they are particularly upset that the Supreme Court has recovered the habit of actually reading the document before issuing its decisions. Why shouldn't the president be able to pay your debts or borrow money on your credit without having to ask permission from that persnickety Congress? Why shouldn't judges be able to make up fashionable new rights about sex and ignore the old, written ones about exercising religion, bearing arms, and due process of law? Why can't courts just throw Donald Trump off the ballot, instead of leaving the choice to voters?
In an era when the Supreme Court is under relentless attack by people whose real target is the Constitution itself, and when even some voices on the right are not so sure about keeping faith with the Constitution as originally written, I am proud that we at National Review have consistently defended both the Constitution and the justices who uphold it. It consumes a lot of my work, and that of my colleagues, whether it's our fearless leaders Rich Lowry, Ramesh Ponnuru, and Phil Klein, or Andy McCarthy on lawfare, or Charlie Cooke on gun rights, or Ed Whelan and the gang at Bench Memos, or the many outside contributors we publish.
When NR updated its mission statement to coincide with the redesign of the magazine, we put "ordered liberty" at its heart and "Constitutional Government" as our top priority. I've been privileged to participate in some of our National Review Institute Regional Seminars this spring on the theme of defending our constitutional order.
Of course, as conservatives, we know that there's no such thing as a free lunch, and there's no such thing as a free website or magazine, either. It still takes money to pay for our editors, our commentators, our news reporters, our staff, our events, our podcasts, and all the rest that makes National Review what it is. We rely on our subscribers, and if you're not one already, please join us here. Even better, if you have products or services to sell, consider becoming an advertiser!
Throughout its existence, however, NR has had to ask for your donations to keep the lights on. And throughout its existence, our readers have responded. If gratitude is one of the central conservative virtues, and that gratitude extends to the past as well as the present, we are full of gratitude not only for your donations but for the support of all those who have gone before you to support National Review since 1955.
There are two ways to support our mission. One is to give directly to National Review, the for-profit enterprise (note to Letitia James: We do not claim to have actual "profits") that publishes our magazine and our website. (These donations are not tax-deductible.)
The other way to support our mission is to make a tax-deductible gift to National Review Institute, the 501(c)(3) not-for-profit journalistic think tank our founder, William F. Buckley Jr., created to advance and defend conservative ideas. It's a good time to support NRI as we approach the centennial of WFB's birth in 1925, and the 250th birthday of the country he loved in 2026.
Both NR and NRI could use your help, whether or not you're already a subscriber. But we appreciate whatever you can do, so please choose whichever option works for you. Everything helps: Again, if you can, give $100, $250, $500, or as much as $1,000 or more to National Review Institute or National Review, or preferably both.
Thank you, as always, from the bottom of our hearts.
Yours,
Dan McLaughlin
Senior Writer
National Review
Commentaires
Enregistrer un commentaire
Thank you to leave a comment on my site