Lately there’s been animated discussion on this website about the need to draft a new governing document for our derailed federal republic. Those who advocate such a plan believe the present constitutional order corresponds less and less to how this country is actually run and stress the need for an alternative. Although we continue to hear such proposals coming from the left, this current call for change is being issued from the right. It is hoped this constitution, will serve the needs of modern American society and will be taken more seriously than a document that we merely pretend to follow.

Allow me to add my two cents. The main problem that we face as a political society is that a powerful, relentlessly aggressive cultural and social left has been allowed to seize our public administration, educational institutions, and mainstream media and to weaponize them against us. Not even our elections are secure any longer from pervasive leftist rigging. And by an executive order enacted in 2021, federal employees have been encouraged to drag marginal voters to the polls, particularly minorities (aka likely Democratic voters). Such election rigging from the top, in which the FBI has been conspicuously involved, and which has been furthered by corporate leftist bias in news-reporting, should concern us deeply.

For better or worse, a supposedly antiquated Constitution that needs to be replaced does not make my list of top complaints. J. Eric Wise’s proposal to change our Constitution for a new document raises a problem that Patrick Newman underlines on our website:

The fact that Newsom and other far-left extremists seeking to disarm Americans and sexualize children in government schools see a constitutional convention as a route to victory should cause every sensible conservative to recoil in horror at the prospect. Are Newsom and California Democrats stupid? Or do they know that a convention is their path to total power, unrestrained by the current Constitution?

Are “far-left extremists” wrong in pushing for a new constitution, one that will further solidify their already vast power? Since from where I stand, the left is already in a position to shape national elections and largely determine outcomes, why shouldn’t it be able to fill a constitutional convention with its allies and underlings? How would the power balance change simply by calling for a constitutional convention? Why does Wise, in his defense of a new constitutional convention, tell us: “A successful convention would involve compromises. That is how agreements among discordant parties work.” How can we be sure that the left won’t get its way entirely if such a convention takes place, that is, if the left decides to show up? Why would I think, as Wise suggests, that red states like Wyoming and Idaho could leave this convention with more representation than they have right now? That could only happen in a counterfactual reality in which the right would outweigh the left in power and influence.

There is a way to approach this imbalance, and it does not reside in rejecting our ruling document for some hypothetical replacement. That solution is taking power back from our leftist police state. That task may be truly daunting, and all talk about a new constitution is a mere diversion from what must be done to wrest our state and society from its current masters. Wise’s hope that a new constitution will restore our “sacred history of consent” has no chance of happening unless the left is stripped of its control.

Elections have to be returned entirely to election day; only registered voters who can identify themselves with the proper documentation should be allowed to vote; the corporate leftist media must be forced to offer more balanced reporting of political issues or else face dire consequences, for example, being made subject to antitrust suits.

Finally, the opposition party must give up the neoconservative notion of seeking “common ground” and be willing to wield power effectively against the left. This will first involve recognizing that we’re not in a gentlemanly or ladylike struggle against a fair-minded opponent. Although former President Donald Trump’s language may have been over the top when he complained about “the radical left thugs who live like vermin” in our midst, that rhetoric was no more divisive than when President Joe Biden railed against white Americans as systemic racists and Trump voters as “terrorists.” Trump’s heated invective suggests at the very least that he understands the kind of battle we’re in. The left that has already weaponized the federal government against its partisan opposition, while the Justice Department has gone after Trump and his associates with unmistakable vindictiveness. I have no idea why such hostile behavior should not elicit an appropriately hostile reaction.

Please note that I don’t know whether Trump could be elected (that is, whether the left or his own verbal intemperance would permit that to happen). Nor am I sure that once in office he would undertake the massive clean-up job that would be required to save us from the already tightening leftist dictatorship. (Pedro Gonzalez may be onto something about Trump’s grave moral defects.)  But the application of muscle from the top, not calls for new constitutional conventions, should be our top priority in trying to restore an American republic.