A sterile mind

Here’s something about the Iraq constitution posted by long-time National Review senior editor Richard Brookhiser at The Corner. He had not participated in the previous NRO discussion on this topic, until chiming in with this. Notice the sheer emptiness of his observations and the utter unimportance and irrelevance of his comparisons between the U.S. Constitution and the Iraqi constitution. Yet he calls this nothingburger “food for thought.” It is no joke to say that this is indeed what passes for deep thought at today’s National Review and in the mainstream conservative movement at large:

FOOD FOR THOUGHT [Rick Brookhiser]
The first American constitution (the Articles of Confederation) took over a year to write (July 1776-November 1777), over three years to ratify (the 13th state, Maryland, did not sign on until March 1781), and about five and half years before roughly half the country realized it had to be junked. We had some harder problems than Iraq has—thirteen prickly sovereignties, a war against the world’s greatest superpower—but we also had great advantages—more than a century of experience of home rule in some places. Some of our circumstances were comparable (e.g., one third of the country disaffected in the early stages).
Posted at 02:43 PM

Brookhiser carries on the same irrelevancies in his New York Observer column:

Constitutions aren’t made in a day. Even believers in original intent must acknowledge that many intentions and false starts go into the process. Our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, took a year to write, four to ratify and six to junk. Our second, current Constitution was ratified only on the understanding that a Bill of Rights would be added. Even so, it didn’t manage to stop the Civil War, 70 years down the line. The constitutional history of France, our twin sister in liberty, has been even more checkered. Britain honors its constitution so much that is has never written it down.

Yet in the same column, which like the above excerpt is a rambling collection of disconnected observations, Brookhiser also says, “Democracy is tough in the Middle East, where there is no culture of self-rule,” adding that the only democratic Muslim government exists because Ataturk forced it on Turkey. Yet he draws no conclusions from this true and important fact about the Muslim world, and instead continues with his fatuous comparisons of Iraq to the United States, even while letting on in a roundabout way that he doesn’t expect much from the new Iraqi constitution. So what does he actually think? Does he himself know what he thinks? Does he even care what he thinks? The only clear and consistent idea Brookhiser conveys in his writings is that the answer to the last question is no.

It turns out I’m not the only person who thinks Brookhiser’s article is an exercise in emptiness. Here’s a comment on it as Lucianne.com:

Reply 2—Posted by: TunnelRat, 8/24/2005 7:43:34 AM

A remarkably chaotic article—rather like a stand-up comic making random jokes…

It is a series of thoughts, some more profound or clever than others, but none really quite coalescing into a reasoned arguement.

Why is this a Must Read?

But then comes a true blue Bushite to the rescue:

Reply 4—Posted by: flybynight, 8/24/2005 8:29:12 AM

Why is this a must-read? Because it’s GOOD, that’s why. It’s an excellent reflection on the difficulties that beset us at the beginnings of our nation, and those that will bedevil the Iraqis. No matter how fervently we might wish it, there are very few easy answers and pat solutions, and the constitution the Iraqis get, will surely, like our own, be subject to change.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 24, 2005 09:11 AM | Send