In a recent episode of his podcast, Joe Rogan, a renowned comedian and podcaster, vehemently criticized an op-ed published by The New York Times.
The op-ed, penned by Jennifer Szalai, controversially suggested that the U.S. Constitution poses a threat to democracy. This perspective was met with widespread disapproval from readers who found the argument to be fundamentally flawed.
According to RedState, Rogan expressed his disbelief and frustration with the op-ed during his podcast. "What the f*** are you talking about? Yeah. One of the biggest threats to Americas politics might be one of the greatest documents that any country has ever found on, if not the greatest ever. That could be a threat to Americas politics. What politics are we talking about? How could you possibly gaslight me enough to go along with you on this?" Rogan questioned.
Brett Weinstein, a former professor and Rogan's guest on the show, agreed with Rogan's sentiments. He suggested that the op-ed was a predictable product of an authoritarian force that resents the Constitution for its inherent checks and balances. "Theres obviously an authoritarian force there that just grinds its teeth at night over the Constitution and the fact that it prevents it from doing things that it just wants to do last week," Weinstein stated.
Rogan further argued that the rise of figures like former President Donald Trump has emboldened authoritarian tendencies among left-leaning individuals. "Well, this is why a person like Trump is so important to them. Because if you dont have someone that is an imminent threat on the horizon in three months, its very difficult to justify all this s***," Rogan asserted.
In her contentious op-ed, Szalai argued that the Constitution, rather than safeguarding democracy, poses a threat to it. She cited Trump's political ascent, despite losing the popular vote in 2016, and his Supreme Court appointments as evidence of the Constitution's alleged threat to freedom. "Trump owes his political ascent to the Constitution, making him a beneficiary of a document that is essentially antidemocratic and, in this day and age, increasingly dysfunctional," Szalai wrote.
Szalai also highlighted the Constitution's historical compromises, particularly those favoring slaveholders, and criticized the concept of originalism. She quoted an author who claimed that "originalism has allowed conservatives to undermine progressive policies while using the soothing language of constitutionalism."
The underlying motivation for Szalai's piece appears to be her belief that the Constitution is dangerous because it hinders individuals like her from imposing their ideologies through state power, while enabling those she disapproves of to hold positions of power.
Those who argue against the Constitution often do so not because they believe it restricts freedom, but because they desire a document that grants the government more authority to interfere in citizens' lives and infringe upon their natural rights. Ultimately, any legal document or ideology that curtails this authority is deemed dangerous only by those who wish to wield state power to impose their will on others.
Login