The core problem is not abandoning the constitution, the core problem is lying about it. For diverse reasons, lying enforces perverse incentives. E.g. it’s beta, not alpha.

Truly enforcing breach of constitution as it is now is impossible because the elite will never let themselves be constrained like that. Normalizing open abandonment should provide a space for enforcement by giving the elite a non-deception pressure valve.

—

Progressivism depends on denying that powerful progressives are powerful. I really liked Scharlach‘s cleric profile series; it dumbfounds me that anyone lets proggies get away with claiming to not have power. (One more point that Republicants are lapdogs, not a real party.)

Because they deny having power, they can’t ever openly defy the constitution, because getting away with it would be so obvious even the proles would clue in. Which reliably leads to lying, which reliably leads to morbidity.

—

Put it this way: when the elite feel like it, they’re going to abandon the constitution. Would you prefer they let you know about it, or keep you in the dark? In the former case, don’t attack them if they try, it will only lead to the latter.

“americans have changed. A lot. Is a complete consitutional restoration possible is a very difficult question and if there is a solution, it doubt it’s as simple as the people rising against their elites. (because I think the problem you are facing is more complex)”

You’re quite correct. However…nothing good happens with these people in power. Our elites. You cannot allow the insane, evil, and malicious to have power. Step 1. They must not have it. Attack.

2. This is the administrative structure not just nationally but at all levels, Jeffersonian democracy strengthened the Republic far more than any undermining. Remember the New Deal is elitist from top to bottom.
3. Any prospective scheme of governance cannot simply ignore that tens of millions are sworn to this very Constitution and Republic, millions of them very dangerous men.
4. We now proceed to any wise change in government anywhere usually largely includes the previous administrative bodies. If you would like to see an alternative solution there’s Iraq under Jerry Bremer.
5. Any policy matter properly approached seeks to mitigate evil not eliminate it, that is the madness of the 20th century .
6. The people’s hearts belong to the Republic, if not their stomachs.
7. Another arrangement however elegant or even perfect it seems not taking these factors into account must either fail…or kill many, many millions to prevail.
8. When you have the legitimate government already sitting at the desks…and so on.

[Yes I’m overlapping with the points. So what? That’s a general policy of mine.]

So you’re quite correct but when you proceed into the realm of policy the ideal must be discarded for the concrete.

Cheers.

Exactly. Of course constitutions will sound redundant if they are functioning, that’s the whole point. If a constitution seems reduntand that’s a clear sign that it’s working as intended. But if it sounds weird, stupid, or just plain old, that is a sign that it is not. The question to be asked about (and the principal problem of) constitutions is: Can they reinforce themselves? And if so, how?

And yes, that’s the funny thing about Patchwork. Understanding, formalizing and implementing Patchwork is in effect writing a constitutional framework for it. Insofar as Patchwork is a system it has rules and those rules have to be constituted .

Moldbug is not sensitive to this, so those who follow him closely tend not to be, either. In Moldbug’s case, however, there is some sleight of hand at work — probably unintentionally — since his dismissal of ‘divided powers’ as a domestic arrangement rests upon their functional displacement into the ‘international’ (Patchwork) sphere. What are the rules (emergent norms) of the Patchwork? That is where the ‘constitutional’ question rests for MM. (Dynamic pluralism is conserved.)

Putting faith in the power of the document is not problematic in itself. People put their faith in all kinds of stupid things. The object of faith itself is not as important as the faith itself. It is just that at some point, the public stopped believing in those things written in the constitution, or started doubting them. Is it any more reasonable to put your faith in people instead of documents? I am not sure. It is not any different with kings, really. If the people stop believing in the ligitimacy of their king, then the lie called sovereignty becomes obvious. The king rarely (if ever) has clothes.
This is not demotism, though. This is reality. If you want to rule, whether you are a king or a piece of paper, or even a God, you need followers. With no one to believe in sovereignty, no such thing exists.

It seems that the crisis of modernity is not a crisis of politics, but a crisis of faith.
The American constitution as every king before it relies on a (sort of) divine foundation. Monarchs claim to be the rightful rulers by God and his divine law and constitutions are not very much different, when they make “claims they consider self-evident” and base themselves on a (version of) natural law. Constitutions in reality simply formalize in a concrete framework the faith, beliefs and traditions of the society for (and/or by) which they are designed.

You can replace ‘instruction’ with ‘Constitution’.

What you are saying is that any Constitutional scheme is completely fragile with regards to its dependence upon preexisting and strong levels of public support for its principles and intentions in the overall social and cultural context.

So, if you have such support, you don’t need a Constitution. If you don’t have such support, or can’t maintain it, then no Constitution will help you.

That fragility is exactly the point, and anyone who puts more faith in the power of a document is being foolish, a matter which is proven conclusively by the actual historical experience.

“Consider this: Bundy and his posse have a halfbaked ideology at best. What if there were a movement which had an ironclad ideology? And was prepared to exploit the confrontation to trigger a much wider mobilization among white people?

This affair needs to be studied and used for the future.”

We went from the Roman Empire to the Holy Roman Empire– I wonder what successor state will claim the mantle of American influence and power? It will be a most painful if thoroughly engrossing phase of history for future historians to chronicle.

Breyer knows full well that there is a process for changing the Constitution, that it has been changed a significant number of times, and the reason we don’t change the Constitution anymore is that the left realized can move leftward faster by simply ignoring the process of getting the people on board with its changes.

You are though, absolutely right on continuously banging the point how important elites are. The problem is that the elites (and to a larger extent even the whole society) are a product of the social system, which is at the same time the product of those elites (and society influenced by its elites). It is complex feedback-mechanism, which to this day hasn’t been figured out. To say that “All you need is decent elites” begs the question “How do you get (and also keep getting) good elites” or to say “All you need is a good system” also begs the question “well how do you get that either”? My thoughts on the subject are that the two reinforce eachother. In other words for a decent society that runs well you need both decent elites and a decent political system. The question how to get there is not that simple…It is probably through a very complex and to this day incomprehensible catallactic process that it happens.
This is why Patchwork is an attractive idea, because it intends to let catallaxy run its course. (it of course is simply an idea, still with some very serious practical issues).

Yes, perfect constitutions will probably never exist (who know, though?) as Admin reminds us in his post on the topic a year ago, that is an insoluble logical problem. But to think that you need a perfect constitution is (to me) to get the whole problem wrong. You don’t need a perfect constitution, you need the population to be consistent and fit its constitution.
As I understand you VXXC, what you would want to happen is pretty much a return to the constitution (at least pre- New Deal). You shouldn’t overlook the fact that americans have indeed changed. It might have been the elites who changed first and then changed them in turn (I don’t have an answer to this one), but it is undeniable that americans have changed. A lot. Is a complete consitutional restoration possible is a very difficult question and if there is a solution, it doubt it’s as simple as the people rising against their elites. (because I think the problem you are facing is more complex)
I am an outsider, though, so all I can do is guess.