One of the best aspects of being retired has been continuing to learn from outstanding professors at the RIce University Glasscock School of Continuing Education. The offerings have kept my mind active and been a source of information that leads me to new and exciting places. Most recently my husband and I took a couple of courses in philosophy taught by Dr. Victor Saenz. 

Somehow in spite of my own liberal arts education I had never before studied different philosophies so deeply. Learning about The great thinkers of the past and the present became a new kind of obsession for me. Along the way Dr. Saenz introduced us to the Houston Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping people think deeply about the best way to live through “robust conversations.” In that spirit the Houston Institute offers readings, monthly gatherings and debates. Among them was a spring debate concerning free will and evil. This fall the topic changed to the United States Constitution with Professors Lee Strang from Ohio State University and Mitch Berman from the University of Pennsylvania advocating for differing ways of interpreting the meanings the Constitution of the United States. 

Professor Strang defended the view of using the original meanings of the Constitution as much as possible while Professor Berman argued that the Constitution is a living document that must allow for change. Each speaker had twenty five minutes to assert his points of view, followed by fifteen minutes of refutation. With a very formal set of rules the discussion was polite and informative rather than confrontational. Each of the speakers demonstrated a high level of knowledge and understanding of Constitutional law. I ultimately sided with Dr. Berman whose arguments insisted that the Constitution must inevitably adjust to the changing times. Nonetheless, because of the calm and educated presentation of Dr. Strang I also found merit in his feeling that it is always best to begin with an assumption that ferreting the original meaning of differing aspects of the Constitution may in the long run lead to the best decisions. 

I was in awe of the knowledge of both men and our I found myself imagining taking one of their classes and reading further to develop my own understanding of the document that so radically changed the world over two centuries ago. It is remarkable how the thinking of the men involved in creating a new experiment in governing were able to contrive a system that has been up to now able to expand and grow into the defining characteristics of a a modern nation. 

I left the debate understanding how we still have work to do. Each of us needs to become more familiar with that original document and its amendments. We must be partners in developing the best aspects of the Founders’ intent. We know that much has changed since that original document was forged. We now include women and individuals who were once slaves in being active participants in the democratic processes. It should require serious consideration on the part of each of us to protect our Constitution by electing only serious individuals with as much dedication as Drs. Strang and Berman. Our discussions should be as calm and serious as the ones that they presented in the debate. We need to insist that the silliness that has seeped into our election processes cease. We need to be ready to deny office to anyone whose words and promises fly in the face of the inverted way of governing that puts the people first and foremost.  

Every candidate should first and foremost understand the warnings of our Founders who worried that there would be tyrants intent on using or ignoring the Constitution for their own power and not for the good of the people. The ridiculousness of cheap hype and fear mongering does grave harm to the very design of our nation. We have to spurn those who would have us believe that they have the power to overturn years of democratic rule by inciting revolution rather than engaging in serious discussions like the debate that I witnessed.

This was an important reminder to me that we do indeed have differing ideas about how things should be done, but those discussions need to be sane, respectful and productive. The professors both agreed that the differing points of view are not only legitimate but important for the health of our government. Sadly we have eschewed this kind of intelligent research and discovery all too often in favor of demagoguery and ignorance. it’s time we all agreed to become serious enough to do the hard work of talking and working together to come to conclusions that take each of us and the ideas of our Founding Fathers into account.  

I highly recommend that we turn off the meaningless rallies, the gotcha interviews, and the sickeningly dangerous political ads and instead ask ourselves who among the candidates has the humility and intelligence to represent the millions of diverse needs that we all have. The time for being serious is now and it will be found in mutual respect, not in whining and anger.