Interpreting Interpretations: It's the American Way

I have been noticeably (or not so noticeably) absent from this blog of late. This is not for a lack of material. Rather, with all the hateful speech in the media, I reverted to the old practice of, “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”

Well, I’m over it.

In recent months, politicians and pundits have mercilessly and unapologetically attacked not just politicians, but private citizens, as well. These diatribes are being splashed across the news, polarizing the nation.

More often than not, justification for these verbal attacks ultimately boils down to an individual belief about what is associated with being a “true” American, or the proclaimed desire to return America to what the founders had intended.

But, since it’s safe to say those embroiled in recent debates were not present at the Constitutional Convention 236 years ago, everything is left up to interpretation.

And I do mean everything.

Take, for instance, the preamble to the Constitution. The preamble is one sentence which defines the purpose of the Constitution and establishes the inalienable rights of the American people; yet even this simple and straightforward sentence can be interpreted and contorted to fit one’s personal beliefs.

I took the liberty of rewriting the preamble as interpreted by the far right, left, and moderates, respectively, to illustrate this point:

We the [conservative] people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union [free of homosexuality], establish justice [except for those who can afford a high-powered attorney], insure domestic tranquility [except when we are right and our opponents are wrong, which, we do decree, is always], provide for the common defense [at the expense of all else], promote the general welfare [of men], and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves [but not to women and other specified minorities] and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

We the [liberal] people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union [until we make good on our threat to move to Canada], establish justice [in order to prove a point, any point, it doesn’t really matter], insure domestic tranquility [until we find a reason to protest], [reluctantly] provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty [through means which alienate the rest of the country] to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

We the [moderate] people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect [tolerant] union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility [until our life choices are attacked on a daily basis], provide for the common defense [and support the troops regardless of our opinions on the war], promote the general welfare [and tolerance of others], and secure the blessings of liberty [regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation] to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Of course the above is just conjecture. It is my perceived interpretation of how certain outspoken, extreme politicians may interpret the preamble. Really, my obnoxious interpretation of their unknown thoughts is no different than politicians interpreting any article of or amendment to the Constitution to fit their own convictions, and spouting that interpretation as constitutional gospel. As such, I feel perfectly justified in interpreting their interpretations.

Confused? Good. That’s politics for you.