As we preview the weeks ahead in both 2301 and 2302, one of the themes I try to hit is how the Constitution resists efforts to suddenly and radically change public policy. David Brooks analyzes Senator Kennedy's goals in office and how those goals were thwarted by constitutional design:
Kennedy’s life yields several important lessons. One is about the nature of political leadership. We have been taught since, well, since the days of Camelot to admire a particular sort of politician: the epic, charismatic Mount Rushmore candidate who sits atop his charger leading transformational change.
But the founders of this country designed the Constitution to frustrate that kind of leader. The Constitution diffuses power, requires compromise and encourages incrementalism.
He points to an odd tension. As citizens we might want strong, effective leadership, but the interplay between the institutions established in the Constitution prevents this from really happening. Is this good or bad?
