Yuval Levin is the director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he also holds the Beth and Ravenel Curry Chair in Public Policy. He spoke with City Journal associate editor Daniel Kennelly about his new book, American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation―and Could Again.
Many today see the Constitution, at best, as unsuited to our times and, at worst, an impediment to finding solutions to our problems, but your book sounds a hopeful note. Why?
Hopeful is right. I’m not an optimist, but I’m hopeful that the Constitution can still work for us because I think the Constitution was intended to address exactly the kinds of problems we face now. It was intended to enable a divided society to hold together and govern itself. This is one of its primary ambitions. And a lot of the facets of the Constitution that are most frustrating to the most intense and polarized political combatants today are a function of the fact that it was intended to frustrate intense political combatants, and that it was designed to make sure that the system as a whole does not become a weapon for one side or another but facilitates a politics that compels them to deal with each other—to act together even when they don’t think alike. The tools it offers us for achieving that are still there for us to use if we understand them properly, and if we can come to know the Constitution again on its own terms. That’s my aim in this book.
Has the Constitution’s unifying function failed us, or is it that we’ve lost or forgotten something?
If it’s true that the Constitution is intended to facilitate greater cohesion, then we would have to say that a time of bitter division is an era of constitutional failure. I do think that’s true of our time. But your question is key: Is this a failure of constitutional design, or of constitutional practice? Is it our failure, or the Constitution’s failure? I think it is much more our failure—and I argue in the book that this failure has been driven by our implicit and explicit adoption of an alternative constitutional vision, a progressive political ideal that sees itself as more sophisticated than the U.S. Constitution about what modern government requires. But I think the Constitution is actually much more sophisticated than its critics when it comes to the most significant challenge facing every modern free society: the challenge of cohesion amid diversity. So I think the most significant failures in our politics are failures of constitutional practice, and that a more functional and cohesive political culture requires us to return to the logic of the Constitution.
Tell us about the religious connotations of “covenant” in your title.
I certainly don’t mean to suggest that there is anything religious or sacred about the American Constitution. It is a patchwork of compromises, adapted and amended to suit our country’s political needs. But the title points to the Constitution’s role in shaping American political life. The Constitution is more than a contract: a contract is an agreement that describes the actions different parties need to take and assumes that, if those aren’t taken, then the agreement will dissolve. A covenant describes a relationship; it’s an affirmation of a set of links and obligations. I keep my part in it because it’s part of who I am. In this respect, our Constitution is not a contract but a covenant. It can teach us that we belong together.
Are there any constitutional reforms you would recommend?
There are certainly political reforms I’d recommend, and which I detail in the book. I argue for reforms of the primary system (to revitalize the American party system), reforms of Congress (to empower committees again), and reforms to the budget process. I argue for expanding the House of Representatives, to improve its ability to represent the public. But these are all ways of allowing us to improve our constitutional practice, to better put into effect the logic and character of the Constitution. They don’t require constitutional amendments—they are ways of letting the Constitution amend and correct our worst civic vices.
What are you reading?
On the subject of the Constitution, I’ve really benefitted this year from reading Marc Landy and Dennis Hale’s new book, Keeping the Republic, which is wonderful. At the moment I’m also reading Rick Brookhiser’s new book about John Trumbull, which is just fantastic.
Photo: mphillips007 / iStock / Getty Images Plus