“The kinds of parliamentary democracies that prevail in Europe tend to prioritize muscular policy action . . . The American system almost never empowers any majority in that way but, rather, insists on restraints that slow and structure decision-making and require broad and durable coalitions, both within and across different institutions.” American Covenant (2024), page 21.
A Cure for What Ails Us
Today, the United States is a deeply divided nation facing one of the most important presidential elections in our history. We are experiencing worldview wars centering on the issue of truth. Whether we can ever unite again under a common vision is the issue.
Praxis Circle’s Book of the Month for September—American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation – and Could Again (2024) by Yuval Levin—is one remedy to consider that can lessen the anxieties we all feel, especially around presidential election time. Our Founders were courageous in 1776 with the proclamation of the Declaration of Independence and geniuses in 1788 with the ratification of the Constitution.
It’s a miracle that the American vision, dream, and experiment remain alive and functioning today.
The Constitution is one of the most amazing documents ever generated in human history. American citizens are blessed to have it. As Levin artfully explains, the Constitution has held us together in the past, and we have endured similar and much worse situations before. It is the source and foundation stone of our rule of law. The Constitution of the United States of America can and will be more than adequate for us once again, “if we can keep it.”
Indeed, with the many insights Levin offers in this marvelous book, we can already see it happening as we get closer to Election Day, Tuesday, November 5. It is happening before us just as he describes.
At age 49, Yuval Levin is one the leading, still “young” conservatives in the United States. He is the director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington, DC, where he also holds the Beth and Ravenel Curry Chair in Public Policy. The founder and editor of National Affairs, he is also a senior editor at The New Atlantis, a contributing editor at National Review, and a contributing opinion writer at New York Times.
(Praxis Circle is fortunate to have two AEI legends as Contributors: Michael Novak and Nick Eberstadt.)
As Yuval mentions in the short video clip at top, he is a naturalized American citizen born in Israel who treasures his citizenship. Without question, he loves America and wants the best for us. If you are an American political science junky, you already know Mr. Levin as one of the brightest minds and coolest heads in the Washington-based “think tank” space—a source from where, under the right circumstances (when political forces occasionally align properly under the Constitution), many of the nation’s best public policy moves are designed and implemented.
I was fortunate as a law student at the University of Virginia to have been taught Constitutional Law by A.E. “Dick” Howard, one of the top Con Law professors in America. Mr. Howard just retired after 60 years as the longest teaching professor in UVA history. I was also fortunate to have been taught Criminal Procedure (in general, a specialized area of Constitutional Law) by J. Harvie Wilkerson, III, a leading member of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and, during his long career on the Fourth Circuit bench, a recognized candidate for the Supreme Court.
I went to law school before the age of critical legal theory (CLT), though it was in its early stage in the Ivy League. Law schools across the nation are suffering from the CLT disease today. If you talk to law students now you will often hear the complaint that their required Constitutional Law class spends almost no time actually reading and studying the words of the Constitution because so many professors see it as the systemic source of our national oppression and problems.
In part written as an anecdote to this utterly false view, Mr. Levin’s American Covenant does a superb job walking the reader through the big picture of the Constitution itself, its history, and its underlying intent. He explains the evolution of American Constitutional political practice, related political and party theory, and Constitutional law practice from our nation’s formation to today. By necessity, it traces the evolution of our federal government. Throughout American Covenant Levin makes skilled reference to one of the most special works of political theory ever produced, The Federalist Papers, written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. Most importantly, he updates the reader on Con Law’s critical developments since the 1960s within their national political context. Mr. Levin places a heavy emphasis on the great divide America suffers from today, perhaps not experienced since the 1930s or even the 1850s.
In sum, I will wager (though not much of a gamble) that Mr. Howard and Mr. Wilkerson would be pleased with Mr. Levin’s work, and that you would be, too.
At UVA in the early 1980s, legend had it that students across “the Grounds” referred to UVA professors as “Mr.” rather than as “professor” or “doctor” because Mr. Jefferson unpretentiously preferred it that way. In other words, the author of The Declaration of Independence and the third president of the U.S. saw himself as just another citizen, Virginian, and American, who, after his founding of UVA in 1819, really enjoyed his books and madeira every now and again.
If you love America or are critically worried about it, you will find American Covenant calmly reassuring and helpful, especially when assisted by a glass of Mr. Jefferson’s special brandy.
The Enlightenment’s Supreme Work of Political Art
In modern times, the British Empire brought the rule of law and constitutionalism to up to 25% of the world’s geography. In addition, since the Fall of the Berlin Wall and Soviet Communism (between 1989 and 1991), constitutional scholars like Mr. Howard and Mr. Wilkerson have been called across the world to establish or comment on national constitutional democracy where none existed before. The world has seen an explosion of freedom during our lifetimes that’s being severely challenged at home and abroad more recently.
Even after the spread of the rule of law and freedom since World War II, the United States Constitution remains unique among written constitutions globally as the masterpiece of the Enlightenment’s political documents. With the rule of “We the People,” the Constitution created a durable set of laws, institutions, and even political cultures that remain highly effective and relevant almost 240 years later.
The quote at top from American Covenant summarizes how the Constitution is fundamentally different from parliamentary systems in creating specialized and independent, yet necessarily coordinated and supporting, legislative, executive, and judicial systems. Each institution has critical and limited purposes, that, with state and local governments, offers a federalism supporting morality, freedom, and prosperity. The Constitution with the People has created the most prosperous country in world history by allowing majorities to move government policy around the political chessboard, while protecting the rights of individuals and private groups, where human happiness flourishes most.
Mr. Levin’s primary point might be that the Constitution is not only our foundation for peace and prosperity, it brings us together at critical moments on a national, state, and local basis. Even today, respect for the rule of law remains so ingrained in our national psyche that still few Americans will openly admit opposing the Constitution and the procedures and solutions it offers. If the People don’t like it, they can change it with Amendments, done 27 times in the past (counting the first ten amendments, our Bill of Rights).
Again, we can see this “coming together” effect as Election Day approaches. Public focus is consolidating around two parties and two candidates, even though many voters are quite dissatisfied with both party and candidate. The two competing political platforms are tending to move together to attract the Electoral College majority needed to win the various national elections. Then, typically after the elections are over, the established nature of our independent institutions and our Constitutional rules of governance will force some degree of cooperation and keep the government’s trains running, yet mostly out of the way of the vast private sector our Constitution was intended to safeguard and support.
The Constitution necessarily creates and allows public squares at the federal, state, and local levels, but it understands that the People must report first to their pre-existing consciences, God, and family in sacred private space where many critical institutions reside, particularly churches, charities, schools, and universities. Here, most personal meaning, fulfillment, and happiness can only be found: freely, assisted by tradition, custom, duties, rights, virtue, and moral law.
The Constitution was quite a lot for the Founders to get right in a short period of time, and they have succeeded in spades beyond anyone’s wildest imagination.
The Magic of the Constitution’s System of Freedom
At the end of the day, nations only hold together based on love of country, mutual duty, and complimentary self-interest (at the group and individual levels). A good question that Mr. Levin answers as his discussion of the Constitution’s purposes, history, and institutions proceeds is whether America’s power emanates from love of God, religion, people, law, institutions, geography, culture, or national narrative. His answer? “All of the above.”
Mr. Levin offers extremely useful definitional insight on the concepts of democracy, republicanism (five core premises, page 80), liberalism (page 277), and capitalism. He places the greatest weight on republicanism’s ability to unite what the Enlightenment’s classical liberalism protects and what modern democratic capitalism supports and pays for.
Early on he presents one of his primary themes: The People become more divided as central government grows, forcing out disagreement and debate, since it is federalism’s dispersion of power across institutions and regions that permits debate and mutual agreement. He likes some of the political trends we are seeing today involving decentralization—those that place more authority in state and local government in law enforcement, education, and extremely contentious social issues (like abortion).
“That a more divided America has a more consolidated government is not a coincidence. And a less consolidated government could well help us grow less divided. The nationalization of our politics is clearly a key part of the story of polarization and division in American life . . . as both cause and effect.” American Covenant, page 120.
Predictably and in all truth, Mr. Levin is highly critical of the Executive Branch’s overreach in an obvious and even brazen attempt to dominate the other two branches (executive orders, selective law enforcement or even legal subterfuge, lawfare, packing SCOTUS) and the Administrative State’s (not contemplated by the Founders) usurpation of executive, legislative, and judicial powers.
Yuval is equally critical of the Legislative Branch’s failure to offer America legal direction via dialogue and compromise and to manage its finances properly. While he gives our Judicial Branch the highest marks, no government institution today is functioning in an optimal way: with the Executive Branch enforcing and protecting, the Legislative Branch deciding and funding, and the Judicial Branch resolving conflict, and with more power to the states and localities.
Our goal as citizens and elected and appointed representatives today should be refocusing carefully on the Constitution’s optimal purposes.
Levin’s Important Comment on Some of the Right’s Current Concerns
As mentioned already, one thing is certain about American politics in 2024 (even more so than in the past): The rank and file are not wholly satisfied or “in love” with their own party candidates and platforms, and the two parties themselves are being poorly managed and growing increasingly divided. As Yuval points out, some of this is systematic, being particularly baked into the candidate selection and primary process of both key parties.
In particular concerning Mr. Levin’s own political persuasion, two other issues of political theory dividing the GOP and the Independent Center-Right—other than the size of the federal government to the detriment of local control and family—are (1) Christian nationalism and (2) postliberalism.
Of course, Mr. Levin’s style is never to punch the other side in the nose with blunt declarative statements. He’s always cool, thoughtful, courteous, and the epitome of kind-hearted reason. Given this fundamental nature, he rarely or almost never in my careful reading of American Covenant or his other excellent books on the state of American politics declares unequivocally for either side on these two issues, probably believing that there is some merit in both sides of each coin.
Nonetheless, I did finish the book believing that he sees “Christian nationalism” as a pseudo issue from the Left meant to divide the Red team. Mr. Levin is quite patriotic and explicitly connects the Constitution to its Judeo-Christian heritage. I also finished the book believing he sees the Right’s extreme libertarian contingent prone to overemphasizing freedom without prioritizing traditional morality. It is a serious national trend that must be stopped and reversed.
But I would also say that, obviously, given the book’s subject matter, he knows that “classical liberalism” is just as necessary as it was in 1787 and that the last thing America needs now is Regime Change (i.e., something other than the constitution we have), other than as a metaphor.
Indeed, the American Covenant raises the fundamental issue: What is the role of the Constitution to “postliberals” and what should be the approach toward the extreme elements of the Democrat Party who want to eliminate or gut the Constitution as an instrument of limited government?
The quote below displays Mr. Levin’s simple and elegant writing style that often splits every difference, while clearly taking a mature position on several divisive issues at once. In fact, he will frequently move on to other subjects just when the reader gets hooked and wants more. He then further satisfies the reading addict by delivering on the next subject. (This good and cagey writing style follows my grandmother’s coaching: Leave the party right when everybody wants you to stay.)
“Because our free society permits its citizens broad latitude to set the courses of their own lives and to pursue their understandings of the good, Americans have always wanted to imagine that our laws do not impose a moral outlook on us or require a particular kind of character of us. But the law is a teacher, unavoidably, even when what it teaches is freedom and tolerance. And the political system of a society that seeks to advance a way of life marked by great personal freedom actually makes greater demands of the characters and souls of its citizens than would living under a tyrannical regime. A nation that gives citizens a lot of personal freedom requires a lot of responsibility of them. For such a society to remain cohesive, it requires a particular sort of public-spirited responsibility, and it must work to see that the forms and institutions of its public life can help to inculcate that spirit and enable it to endure.” American Covenant, page 73.
(The highlighted discussion above outlines what we have referred to as the Shane Principle and discusses PC Contributor Os Guinness’ Golden Triangle of Freedom.)
My summary on these two issues: One can easily be a devout Jew or Christian and an avid American nationalist at the same time (i.e., “Christian nationalism is quite ok”) because the Constitution and American law are founded upon Classical Judeo-Christian morality creating a duty of positive, moral freedom, rather than a potentially immoral libertarianism or individualism that bothers so many good citizens today for very good reasons. (I.e., “postliberals” have some very good points, but without the Constitution, America is toast.”) If we Americans could be good, virtuous, and informed citizens worthy of the Constitution, our founding document will help us get to a better place quickly again, as it has now countless times in the past.
Passing Thoughts
I only see two related areas where American Covenant could have offered more emphasis. First, while the book clearly recognizes the nation’s founding and the Constitution’s grounding in Christianity and Judaism, particularly in the early, back-to-back chapters “The Constituted Public” and “Federalism,” it did not develop the “covenant” aspect of American Covenant enough. We at Praxis Circle refer to the basis of Western culture, politics, and social existence as CJC, Classical Judeo-Christainty. The “Classical” part is Greek and Roman, and Mr. Levin tends to emphasize Aristotle and the Founder’s extensive knowledge of ancient Greek and Roman history.
Yet, the earliest Europeans in North America nearly everywhere associated their pilgrimage across the Atlantic and into “the Promised Land” with the pilgrimages and covenants of the Old and New Testaments. The Declaration was clearly a political covenant with deep religious overtones that all Signers recognized (most being Christian) clearly, whether religious or not.
As Joseph Bottom mentioned in our recently released PC interview (see the clip below), a good question we should always be asking at every point in American history is, “Where is Protestantism at this time?” He argues that if you can answer that question well, you will be understanding and explaining the time well.
At the time of the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the Constitution, Christianity was so dominant via Protestantism that much of limited government and moral theory was taken completely for granted. Every American understood who “the Creator” was in the Declaration and where “created equal” came from. They didn’t have a word for “capitalism” because they were still inventing it.
Mr. Bottum uses this question to comment on our “Anxious Age” today and to explain our deep national divisions, as Christianity is changing in some places and is being “deconstructed” since the 1960s under the influence of the unholy trinity (this trinity being off-shoots of deconstructed Christianity in the 19th century): Neo- or Cultural Marxism, postmodernism, and identitarianism or Wokeism.
My second observation is that at times Mr. Levin might be accused of being overly hopeful (he avoids the term optimistic) that the Constitution can save us. Another way of saying this is that he could be accused of minimizing the severity of our deepest differences, due to the influences and anxieties created by this “unHoly Trinity” that Mr. Bottum and other Praxis Circle Contributors emphasize.
My own opinion is that divisions are so deep now in America internally that we are experiencing an ideological war as never before in the 20th century and that there must be winners and losers, rather than compromise. Another recent PC Contributor Eric Metaxas would agree with this. In other words, the Culture War might not be resolved in a completely peaceful way. Majorities must eventually rule either peacefully or otherwise, as in the 1800s.
When Sam Huntington talked about the Clash of Civilizations, he was mostly referring to the existential clash between nations or religions and philosophies, but divisions mostly external to America. Sadly, it appears these divisions have moved inside our borders, and it is very hard to see where it will go. To me, this is very sad, but that’s what I see right now.
While the Democrat Party itself seems dominated by the Radical Left who are anti-America and anti-Constitution, the struggle over the last ten years seems to have become more group-to-group and person-to-person, well below the national arena of party-to-party. It might be naive to think that the Constitution can save us when maybe up to 20% or even a third of the nation (just picking a number) wants it gone and replaced by an elite-, central-government dominated regime.
They believe 1984 and The Matrix are good things.
Covenants Have No End
I believe very much what Mr. Levin says below in the final quote offered from American Covenant‘s conclusion. As long as the rule of law is respected in the USA, American Covenant holds the prospect of being an Old Testament prophecy of redemption and renewal.
I just wish that more young people today could have been alive during the 1970s and early 1980s to take Mr. Howard’s and Mr. Wilkinson’s classes at Mr. Jefferson’s University so they could see how well the Constitution has done for us since and how far we’ve come with prosperity and equality in leading the world as God’s constitutional nation—ruled by God’s law, and not tyrannically by men. Rule by law versus men is a binary proposition, if there ever was one.
In fact, if Gen Z’s could go back in time they would find that America was a pretty darn good nation given today’s self-righteous standards even right after World War II up through the Gipper, and nowhere close to the “white racist, misogynist nation” imagined virtually anytime before they were born. All that is moonshine. Perhaps in time more will drill down below the Internet surfing surface to gain enough historical knowledge to appreciate the beautiful political opportunities and freedoms the Constitution and good American citizens since the American Revolution have provided them today.
The future will eventually ridicule their own moral positions. Bring it on and welcome to the pack of flawed, yet often well-intended human beings.
In any case, the American Covenant and the American Dream are alive. “In God We Trust;” covenants have no end. But as Yuval Levin warns, as in 1776, the Covenant’s and Dream’s prospects remain very much in our hands as citizens of this exceptional, unique, and globally critical nation.
“We have remained one nation, thanks in no small part to the Constitution’s distinct approach to keeping us together . . . The Constitution thereby offers us hope of greater unity. We should be cheered by that hope. And we should be profoundly grateful for the glorious fact that we all get to be Americans together.” American Covenant, pages 295 and 300.
