Many of us probably use “culture war” too frequently. It is a broad term, easily misinterpreted, and designed to rile people up. SAnd it is hard sometimes to think of another term to describe the efforts by many people and groups to tear down the foundations of society and institutions of great importance. Flawed as all these institutions are, they are often – even mostly – far better than what their enemies wish to substitute for them.

Consider this example. Browsing online, I ran across an “opinion piece” in Newsweek, which I believe is both “Mainstream Media” (MSM) and strictly on-line these days. See below for further discussion of this “news magazine.”

The meat of the piece: “Facing a largely ineffective Congress, an overstepping Supreme Court, the rising threat of authoritarianism, and a government seemingly unable to address many of our most pressing problems, a small but growing number of liberal scholars and commentators have been making a strong case against a previously sacred cow: the U.S. Constitution.

“Among the biggest issues they cite are the amendment process (which makes changes virtually impossible), excessive veto points, the Electoral College, lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices, a first-past-the-post (winner-take-all) electoral system (rather than, say, proportional representation), and a grossly disproportionate Senate that ensures greater power for the mostly white, more rural small states at the expense of larger ones.” (Newsweek via MSN)

Newsweek appears (to a biased observer like me) to be firmly in support of this “opinion” and that matches its historical position, at least for the half-century I’ve been familiar with it. At a time when Time seemed to be the “progressive” and “liberal” (neo-liberal) rag and US News and World Report appeared to be generally “conservative,” Newsweek was “middle-of-the-road” – another term for wishy-washy. Definitely not “libertarian” (paleo-liberal), but indeed leaning towards authoritarian ideas.

But that is the past. Today, like virtually all MSM, Newsweek is a frankly “progressive” (what we here at TPOL call regressive) and anti-American publication verging on Woke, if not quite to the standard of Vogue or HuffPost.

Now, we at TPOL, like many libertarians (think Boston T Party and Lew Rockwell) have been and are very critical of the Constitution. We point out many problems with it, beyond the problems we see with all forms of government.

But that is not what Newsweek’s opinion piece is spouting. Indeed, while appearing to be “anti-government” in its attack on the US Constitution, it is actually extremely pro-government. It wants government to grow more and more powerful, especially the FedGov. It wants, indeed, a unitary government such as France or China are blessed with. (Sarcasm)

The faults it lists with the Constitution are actually some of the very things that many minarchists and even a few anarchists like us find to be good. Things such as the general difficulty in passing laws. The division of powers. The protection for smaller but sovereign States. There are many more.

While it is reading between the lines in this Newsweek article, it seems that what is wanted is “efficiency” and “power.” They desire a unitary state – like France or various Communist dictatorship. Uniformity. Limitations – more limitations – on the rights of people. Even such exotic concepts as group-think and thought-crime.

We have no choice but to oppose them. And that means, at least for now, continuing to defend the Constitution, flawed as it is. In current conditions, it is very unlikely that an intact “US” would produce something better. Better? Defined as restoring and protecting individual freedom and liberty, reestablishing and preserving peace and prosperity, and controlling predators.

Disclaimer: Several of us here at TPOL have committed in the past, and still hold to the obligation we have to “defend and protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” We believe that Newsweek is such an enemy. Therefore this commentary is very much biased.