What Would James Madison Do?

David and Sarah discuss the president’s rally in Tulsa, the firing of the U.S. attorney ...

By

David and Sarah discuss the president’s rally in Tulsa, the firing of the U.S. attorney in New York, the lawsuit over John Bolton’s book, and they process last week’s Supreme Court decisions.


Show Notes:

–David’s Sunday newsletter

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (30)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Aylene Wright

    Ok, I didn't have time to listen to this until today, but I might have made time earlier if I'd known there was a Hunger Games discussion at the end. I was about a decade older than the target audience when they were a big YA phenomenon, but found the books, & to a slightly lesser degree the movies, to be much more sophisticated than most YA fare.

    I might add to this later, but as Sarah herself thinks Katniss made the wrong decision at the end ... I am not sure if his being presented as the better man than Gale by the author (though she certainly convinced me) necessarily indicates that young women who read the books, as a whole, have a different model of the ideal mate compared to the ones who read Twilight (which were a thing a few years before HG but certainly had overlap in the fan base) or 50 Shades (which started out as a Twilight fanfic).

    Personally, I identified with Katniss, as I have a similar personality, & have always been attracted to the Betas over the Alphas. And her relationship with Gale is very different from the "naive girl falling for exotic, edgy older man" Bella/Edward one, as they were friends for years before there was any hint of a romantic component.

    (I also really liked Jamie from Outlander, though he's also more a Beta than an Alpha. Though I drifted away from the books after the first 3, because it was the Scots setting that appealed to me, & it got much less interesting after they left Scotland ... won't go any further than that to avoid spoilers, the book series is pretty old but the TV version is far from caught up).

    So, I was on Team Peeta all along & do NOT think Katniss "settled" for him at the end. But my sister, 2 years younger & growing up in the same environment, also was into the series, but found Peeta to be a "sissy" and preferred Gale. I think the overall fandom broke about 2/3 for Peeta and 1/3 for Gale. So the traditional "alpha male" of romance novels still is very popular, but perhaps he is not quite that popular than with previous generations.

    There is also a big difference between the kind of man that women like to fantasize about, and the kind of man they actually want to have long term relationships with. Also, it would be a pretty boring world if all women had the same preferences for romantic partners, anyway. (And also vice versa. I will not try to extrapolate to same-sex relationships at this time).

    Collapse
  2. Joe Curtis

    Sarah: "Women, you are the selector."
    Male listener: "Yes, Ma'am."
    Full stop.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Ethan Cordray

    On The Hunger Games: I thoroughly enjoyed the first two books, but the third one lost me by attempting unsuccessfully to move from depicting theatrical violence to realistic military violence (so the rebels can't use bombers, fine -- but have they never heard of artillery? Or armored vehicles??).

    I like your discussion of contrasting Peeta and Cale to Edward and Jacob from Twilight, and how choosing Peeta expresses different valuations of masculinity than Twilight's. That being said, from the standpoint of literary structure, Peeta actually occupies the exact same narrative role as Edward did, so I was 100% certain that he was going to be the final "winner" at the end of the story. He may have a different personality, but he's still the same character type, if you get my meaning (deuteroagonist, first overtly-revealed romantic option, etc.). This isn't really a problem per se, as the narrative is properly structured to make Katniss's choice believable and satisfying. It just means that the resolution isn't really all that surprising, at least if you're looking for the tell-tale structural signposts.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    John Bowling

    There may be good reasons that textualism makes sense as a judicial philosophy, but doesn’t make sense as a theological hermeneutic. But I don't understand the reasoning behind what David said in the podcast. What is the basis of the difference?

    Is it a difference of genre: legal document vs. covenant document? I’m not sure how “thick” the line between these could be drawn, but let’s assume that, as it currently stands, the spectrum of literary genre and function in the Christian “Bible” (covenant document) is too diverse to be appropriately considered a “legal document.” Still, if we went back into Israel’s past, the “Bible” at some point was primarily a collection of legal documents. At that point in time, would Israel have been justified in using textualism?

    Is it the source of the documents? I simply don’t see why a legal document coming from a divine mind requires a different hermeneutic than a legal document coming from a human mind. In fact, unless it is maintained that human law requires extraordinary means of interpretation, the idea that a different hermeneutic is appropriate would seem to be in tension with the spirit of evangelical and Reformed discussion of hermeneutics (e.g., the WLC 1.7 speaks of “a due use of the ordinary means”, and cf. the Chicago Statement’s exposition section on interpretation).

    Is it a practical concern? Maybe that author-text readings require too broad a consideration?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Tracie

      My knowledge of the Bible's sources (scribes, translators, other literatures) is quite limited, but I think it's safe to say it's complicated.

      We know who wrote the Constitution, though the myriad, various influences of the authors is a fascinating subject. It totally makes sense to me that we can trust the text. Amongst the educated classes, the 18th century was a golden age of rational analysis and - for people willing to navigate the complexity - exacting standards of clarity in prose writing. We should be deeply greatful our founding documents weren't written by Romantics.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    rlritt

    Effete left coast accent@?. What BS.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ethan Cordray

      It's funny, but I instantly knew what he was talking about. I just started listening to Ezra Klein's podcast, and while I've enjoyed the content, Ezra's bay-area accent grates on my midwestern ears a little bit.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        rlritt

        Yes, but she said the "real" people won't answer polling questions truthfully because the pollsters who are asking the questions have West coast accents. Really? All of tbem? Every single one?

        Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Angie

    You guys are a lot of fun...and laugh a lot...that makes it even more fun to listen to
    The ending was interesting...I didn't read either Hunger Games or Twilight or 50 shades of grey, the first two are just not my thing, and the last...well, it was something I didn't want t encourage...lol..so, I can't really comment other than I enjoyed your takes on them...

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Tracie

      I opened up 50 Shades in a few random spots to see if it's readable. People turned on by a fantasy billionaire (whose monogamous obsession with one woman defies everything we know about male dominance from evolutionary biology) apparently have very low standards for prose writing. Didn't read it, so can't speak to plot or character development. I have been disturbed that millions of women in my age cohort eagerly read this book. Told myself they all voted for Trump, but I'm afraid it's not true.

      Most of my grad school classmates (~10 yes ago) read The Hunger Games. I didn't, but Jennifer Lawrence's character struck me as similar to the one she played in Winter's Bone, which was a mesmerizing portrayal of a fully human young female heroine.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Angie

        Yeah, as to hunger games...it is partly age I can not relate to women so much younger than I who have grown up in a different world and partly because her character is not me in many ways, so , I feel some sense of I am a terrible woman when reading or viewing women like that...lol..( I actually am pretty strong and have survived many terrible things...alone)...but I am anti-violence and not interested in being violent for any reasons and I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to love and be loved

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Tracie

    Regarding Christian "orginalists" approaching the Bible as trying to learn the mind of God: that is perhaps unique to Christianity.

    Karen Armstrong wrote a bestseller ~20 years ago surveying the common origins and distinctions of the three Abrahamic religions. She noted that Christians are obsessed with belief, whereas Jews tend to stress practice/observance (in addition to identity.)

    Maybe that Christian obsession with belief accounts for some of the obsession with intent.

    I suspect the Jewish conception of "the mind of God" is more like the lifting of the lid off the Ark of the Covenant scene in the Speilberg movie. Not for us to know.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ethan Cordray

      I thought that theory about reading for "intent" vs. reading for "original public meaning," and that concept being driven by the mindset of Biblical analysis, was a brilliant insight.

      That being said, I'm sort of surprised that it would take hold so strongly among religious Constitutional scholars, seeing as how clearly it is an errant lens for analyzing the Constitution. Perhaps this is coming from my upbringing as a millennial, but I have never had any affinity for the myth of the Founders' infallibility. So discerning the intent of James Madison et al. isn't of special significance to maintaining the harmonious working of the American government. Actually, in the case of the Constitution, understanding authorial intent is only important insofar as it helps us understand the grammatical meaning of the text and its practical application. So one might say that the relationship of significance between intent and text is precisely the inverted between Biblical study and Constitutional scholarship. In one case, you have a text which is an instrument through which we discover its Author, and in the other case, you have authors through which we discover their text.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        John Bowling

        I don't know anything about law or different legal theories of interpretation, but it sounds like you think reading in order to discern an author's intent, when applied to the human law, is misguided because is misguided because human law isn't infallible. I don't see why that fact makes it misguided though. Why would we need someone to be infallible to care about their intent - whether it's a legal document or a note from your wife in lunchbox?

        Maybe the idea connects in what you say here: "discerning the intent of James Madison et al. isn't of special significance to maintaining the harmonious working of the American government."

        But it seems like the integrity of law qua law requires deference to the legitimate purposes and acts of a legislator. In general debates about interpretation there are three relevant entities: author, text, reader. If being fallible breaks the link between author and text then it's not clear why it wouldn't also break the link between reader in text. That is, there's no more reason to defer to fallible product than the fallible author.

        But I'm a fish out of water when it comes to law. I'll have to look into these issues more over the next few months.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ethan Cordray

          I don't think I'd call it "misguided" in general. The mistake is prioritizing the analysis of intent above the analysis of practical meaning. To wit: the reason why we wish to understand the intent of e.g. Madison's conception of the presidency is to practically interpret the text of Article 2, to comprehend the literal meaning of its various clauses. This is, properly understood, only a subset of the analysis of the "original public meaning" of the Constitution, which comprises Madison's intent, the various (possibly competing) intents of the other framers at the convention, the reception of the Constitution's text by other analysts (e.g the authors of the various Federalist and Anti-Federalist essays), and the reception by the general public.

          In contrast, the purpose of Biblical interpretation (in many applications) runs in the opposite direction: to understand the literal meaning of the text, in order to better comprehend the Divine intent that generated that text.

          In a nutshell: Understanding Madison is a means to an end, understanding God is an end in itself.

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Tracie

        "...reading for "intent" vs. reading for "original public meaning…"

        A really important distinction. "Intent" is a Pandora's box as complicated and unknowable as any individual.

        "I have never had any affinity for the myth of the Founders' infallibility."

        I agree. However, we must acknowledge how learned they were, and have respect for the work of understanding them which (we hope) everybody on the federal bench has devoted their lives to.

        "...in the case of the Constitution, understanding authorial intent is only important insofar as it helps us understand the grammatical meaning of the text and its practical application."

        "Only" lol. That's easier said than done.

        "...Biblical study and Constitutional scholarship. In one case, you have a text which is an instrument through which we discover its Author, and in the other case, you have authors through which we discover their text."

        There's probably more than one motivation of Biblical scholars. Some might be seeking some transcendent, private truth or communion, which we assume is ultimately meta-textual. Others might be looking for indications of how to live, historical/cultural information, etc.

        Constitutional scholars hopefully aren't worshipping the founders. I'd say most of Madison et al resisted cults of personality, and had a profound understanding of the distinction between public and private life.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      John Bowling

      I'm not sure I understand this claim, though I've heard it several times. Lets distinguish between thin practice and thick practice. With thin practice, someone's behavior counts as a token regardless of their cognitive states (beliefs and intentions). With thick practice, cognitive states are part of the relevant practice and having those appropriately link up to the type is just as necessary as one's bodily action in order for it to be a token.

      A "thin practice" understanding of any philosophy or religion or ethic seems to have serious difficulties. Most obviously, would a zombie count as good or religious if it happened to wander into synagogue, church, or mosque? How can a thin practice understanding account for practices that obviously rely on cognitive states like prayer or repentance?

      The terms "stress" and "obsess" that you (following Armstrong?) use suggest a matter of degree. But, as I understand it, Christianity seems to have a maximal sense of the importance of practice (all of the law is summed up in love, one cannot love God and hate one's neighbor, if one is a hearer and not a doer the hearing is pointless, etc.). And Judaism, at least as I read it in the OT, seems to place also have a maximal sense of (thick) practice: Shema and the whole section of Dt. 6:4-9. So both seem to view belief as necessary conditions. The way belief and practiced are *organized* (or related to one's standing with God), at least during the Second Temple period, might be said to be different but their importance as necessary conditions looks the same. Aside from those points, textual religions would seem to require a thicker sense of practice in order to properly interpret and, thus, perform the practice.

      Maybe this is different with rabbinic Judaism?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Tracie

        My firsthand knowledge of Judaism is limited to co-workers and patients, who range from Orthodox to High Holidays + weddings, funerals, Bar and Bat Mitsvahs only in terms of observance. Not being a religion seeking converts, they are not as prone to talk about religious matters the way the Evangelicals I spent my childhood with are (who put tremendous emphasis on internal experience, belief, depth of feeling, etc.) So, my knowledge is pretty limited to what I read.

        Armstrong also notes that the focus on belief is more modern than the focus on practice:

        "The extraordinary and eccentric emphasis on "belief" in Christianity today is an accident of history that has distorted our understanding of religious truth. We call religious people "believers", as though acceptance of a set of doctrines was their principal activity, and before undertaking the religious life many feel obliged to satisfy themselves about the metaphysical claims of the church, which cannot be proven rationally since they lie beyond the reach of empirical sense data."

        https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/jul/12/religion-christianity-belief-science

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          John Bowling

          Thanks. Speaking from within the Reformed tradition, Armstrong's comments about the importance of belief and it being "an accident" are her own particular take that miss the mark. (I'm not sure her comments make much sense at a philosophical level either.) But this gets into some finer points of theology that aren't of much relevance to the thread.

          Briefly, in Reformed theology we distinguish between "salvation" broadly which refers to a set of things like justification, sanctification, glorification. Faith is the principal or instrument of justification. Faith itself has distinct elements: intellect, affections, will. At a popular level, sometimes Christians speak of "salvation" in the sense of "justification" - "I was saved when..." meaning when they first "believed" or had faith. But works and practice play a necessary role in the overall process of salvation. They are both necessary conditions and faith has logical priority as the instrument of justification.

          Maybe someone might think that any theology which parses things out this finely is surely proving the point of Armstrong! But that would overlook the fact that I'm not objecting to Armstrong by saying that we in fact downplay the importance of "belief" for Christian theology (within my Reformed tradition), I'm trying to point out that works or "practices" are not downplayed in Christian theology. (My objections would also be to downplaying belief for some of the reasons I mentioned above.)

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Tracie

            "...in Reformed theology we distinguish between "salvation" broadly which refers to a set of things like justification, sanctification, glorification. Faith is the principal or instrument of justification. Faith itself has distinct elements: intellect, affections, will."

            Every Protestant sect and tradition has it's favorite things to emphasize. Once you get into churches who trace their roots to 19th century tent revivals, like the one I know best, there's more emphasis on belief and spiritual experience and a peculiar distrust of any theological analysis which is very far removed from a verbatim Biblical reading. So, when I read Armstrong's discussion of "belief", it's a child-like and all-consuming belief that comes to mind. A kind of invisible force which, by its nature, defies analysis. Being an ex-Catholic, Armstrong's associations with the word "belief" are probably different still.

            "At a popular level, sometimes Christians speak of "salvation" in the sense of "justification" - "I was saved when..." meaning when they first "believed" or had faith."

            In the church I grew up in, being "saved" was more akin to a transformation, a drastically altered path in life. It was not strictly defined, but it was not merely reduced to "belief."

            "But works and practice play a necessary role in the overall process of salvation. They are both necessary conditions and faith has logical priority as the instrument of justification."

            In my church there was no formal confirmation process. Though, Baptism required a full dunking in water. Personal experience: key.

            "I'm trying to point out that works or "practices" are not downplayed in Christian theology."

            In some Churches, which believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, sans historical and cultural context, there ain't a whole lot of what you'd probably call theology. Furthermore, the various protestant sects often formed in arguments over what to believe. Whereas, it appears to me that Orthodox and Reformed Jews are more distinguishable by how they live.

            Lol not sure we can easily return this discussion to Constitutional scholars trying to decipher "intent" or the minds of "the Founders."

            Collapse
  8. Will Findlay

    "They have their data." - From what I've read, a lot of the people who signed up for the rally used fake credentials.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ethan Cordray

      Agreed, I'm very dubious that the sign-up data is going to be especially valuable. Whatever is mineable out of there, I'm sure it will be less valuable than what they'd get from a normally-attended Trump rally.

      Collapse
    2. CAProf

      I agree. I was surprised by that comment. I would love to know how the campaign could possibly benefit from lots of trolls signing up for a rally. On the other hand, other outlets are reporting on this as though it is a huge win for the trolls. Does it really matter?

      Collapse
  9. Will Findlay

    "They have their data." - From what I've read, a lot of the people who signed up for the rally used fake credentials.

    Collapse
  10. David Ehrlich

    DACA, Obviously the dreamers should have a chance at a better, glad to see a good ruling, too bad we cant develop some bipartisan legislation in congress. Obviously no one should get fired for sexual orientation, glad to see a good ruling, too bad we cant develop some bipartisan legislation in congress. Moving on to the interesting potion of the conversation; the bible does not lay out a framework for woman as the selector. David was spot on that the archetypical tropes we see of masculinity dont capture the character virtues of masculinity, but Hunger games woefully fails to show the duality that men and woman fill in each others lives. Any other epistemology will lead to a trans sensitive epistemology that sees the genders as the same. There's a post-agrarian advanced economy conversation that needs to be had, but we aren't peacocks, we are humans created in the image of God to reflect the glory of the creator so lets hold off from telling young women to rely on biological impulses to select their life mate.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Tracie

      "trans sensitive epistemology"

      I think we all need to have a little more faith that biology will be the bulwark, whether you believe it had a Creator or not. True transsexuals, as defined by psychology, are a tiny part of the population. Socially defined roles change. Human nature, not so much.

      Collapse
Load More