This FT article from a few months ago, is still an interesting read. The opening paragraph gave me a lot to think about. It about the response of law students on what they think of the US constitution and they express pride in it. So the professor probes them some more on the topic:
“Presumably you think it would also be great if our surgeons worked off the oldest neurological manuals, or if our ships steered by the oldest navigational charts?” The question usually stumps her students. What, she probes, is so special about the oldness of a document as opposed to its usefulness? Clear answers are rarely forthcoming.
Turning anything into the absolute inviolable truth that cannot be questioned or changed no matter the consequence is a recipe for trouble. This is the basis of religious zealotry. So this devotion to the wisdom of the founding fathers is no different. Only way to find out if its worth the degree of veneration is to see if the system can withstand a severe stress test. In the event that it cannot, then the answer would become self-evident and it would be sad and foolhardy way to find out. All indications are that's exactly what we will do to our own peril.
Comments