Trump is all about political theatre, or circus, and it often seems that even in resisting him, as decent citizens must do, we become part of the circus too. We are like the extras who splutter while he thrills the base by violating some heretofore inviolate human norm. So the show goes on. But why not put on our own show, our own form of political theatre, that leaves Trump out – or at least has a different focus?
We could consider the kind of political theatre that Americans created from 1768 to 1776 to resist Britain’s growing crackdown. Instead of employing their creaky legislative bodies, they opted for new forms of resistance,
non-importation committees, even a first continental congress with no apparent legitimacy or precedent.
However weak, those acts of political theater led to formal independence. After the war, American leaders held a convention – nominally to amend the Articles of Confederation with a unanimous vote by every state. Instead, the framers worked in secret, replaced the articles altogether, and changed the process for amending the new constitution to a three quarters vote.
The Trump presidency is a colossal setback to that constitution and its norms, but it is also an opportunity to change those norms for the better. Like the founders, we should create a limited, invitation-only body – an embryonic constitutional convention – that the anti-Trump blue states exclusively set up for themselves, limit to themselves, and control.
The constitution already provides some authority for doing so.
These selected states are meeting to propose an interstate compact by and between themselves, in the spirit if not the letter of the compacts that the
constitution’s article I, section 10, clause 3 describes, and for them to submit formally to Congress to adopt as federal law. Of course this will never happen in this case, as Congress, in its current broken form, is incapable of anything like a new constitution, embryonic or not.
But the point is to put forward a prototype for a new type of American government, for a post-Trump country, that carries forward part of the existing institutional framework that is worth preserving, alongside radical change in response to Trump.
So for example, let us say that New York, California, Massachusetts and Illinois declare a national emergency. The governors invite a select number of similar-minded anti-Trump states to send delegates selected either by the people or the legislature. The delegates’ job would be to draw up an inter-state compact, a declaration of rights of citizens and obligations of the participating governments. The compact would divide the funding of those obligations between the states and the federal government, if it were somehow adopted by Congress. It would create mandates that the federal government would fund – just for those states and any other that thereafter decide to join the compact.
That compact might begin with a preamble in which We the People of these several states recognize not just our rights but our obligations to treat each other with dignity. The preamble would recognize our obligations to ensure all have adequate food, social security, access to healthcare, and meaningful work for protection in a time of technological change. It should be explicit about the dangers of AI and a warming planet. It should insist on the federal role in medical research and scientifically based public health to ensure that we live better and longer lives.
And then there should follow a specific list of abuses by the Trump administration, acts of cruelty, that should be punished and redressed, and abuses by the supreme court, such as Citizens United, that should be voided by states adopting the compact.
At the outset, the states should also invite DC and Puerto Rico to participate as states on the same footing and sign on to the compact.
Then comes the hardest part – money. The compact would set out the specific programs that the state should fund and those that the federal government should fund – at least for the states that enter the compact. The document would not only be a constitution for the ages, but a budget document for the next fiscal year. It should include a restoration of funding for Medicaid, and reduction of premiums for other forms of healthcare.
Finally, the compact should include a call to Texas, Florida, Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, and every other non-signatory state to join as well, even if they were not originally invited.
Whatever may be said against such a compact, it would push Trump off stage and show a certain norm-breaking nerve from a status-quo left. It would give the blue states credit for their own little smashing of the pottery. All the better if the other states do not show. In the early American acts of resistance, only some colonies showed up, and the constitution took effect despite some states staying out altogether. In creating a new constitutional prototype, we may think more clearly, or at least draw it up more freely, if other states were not around.
The colonists in the period from 1768 to 1776, and the Framers in 1787, acted outside the law, with no clear process as to how the documents should be adopted or amended. It is time for We the People to declare abuses as serious as those set out by Thomas Jefferson and others in the Declaration of Independence. The idea of a compact may be dismissed as political theatre, but acts of political theater can turn into the real thing.
What’s giving me hope now
My hope is all the talent coming off the bench right now – all those who were once political bystanders and are now tracking Ice agents. Long ago, one of my teachers, the late Sam Beer, urged us to be brave. He said: “You have more friends than you know.”
