Elitism, as American as it gets.

It has become commonplace for Republicans of all stripes to paint themselves as defenders of the United States Constitution and its true heirs. They posit a world in which progressives are activists who are changing the original intent of the Constitution through the advancement of alien (elite, European, take your pick) values that could hardly have even been considered when the Constitution was framed.  From the recent healthcare decision to the 2010 decisions on Gun Rights and the Citizens United case regarding corporate funding of political campaigns these "conservatives" suggest that there is a definite pattern that can be found within the specific writings and milieu of the founders that should be used to ascertain the intent of the framers on particular matters of government.  In short, these "originalists" believe that they can read the minds of long dead politicians, and ought to apply those readings faithfully to the problems of today. 

Whether one believes that judges can indeed tease out the framers original intent when deciding cases, one should always remember one fundamental fact and that is that the framers were irredeemably elitist in their view of the common man and designed a system of government specifically to stymy the passions and weaknesses of the great unwashed.

William F. Buckly once summarized the conservative disdain for elitist intellectuals  when he stated that he would prefer to "entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University".  While savvy politically, this statement is a complete betrayal of the framers' vision and the Constitution that they created.

Like Buckley himself, the framers of the Constitution were undeniably elitists.  They were, if not as privileged as European nobles, still  aristocratic in both position and outlook. In addition to being wealthy relative to most Americans, a number of the leading framers were hyper-educated intellectuals, fluent in many languages, well read, and more than willing to look to European history and European economic ideals in order to find examples to inspire their new form of government.  In point of fact, the framers were exactly the kind of "smarter than the poor dumb common folk know-it-alls" that Republicans now decry at every chance they get. 

One need only read the published writings of the founders and their flowery letters to one another to know that they had little faith in the common man.  Rather they designed a system of government that was specifically engineered to keep ordinary Americans from exercising any voice at all.  What is the reason for this prejudice?  Simply that they felt that elites were better and more foresighted and choosing a course of action for the country. 

Thomas Jefferson perhaps most singularly personified the kind of intellectual elitism that is now so unfashionable in certain circles.  Jefferson spoke no less than 5 languages, was deeply interested in the life of the mind, including various continental philosophical systems and was an avowed and lifelong Francophile.  Much has been made about Jefferson's idea of a yeoman farmer and his statements on the dangers of big government, but Jefferson's agrarian philosophy embraced the plantation as much as it did the single family farmer working his small plot of land. 

The Framers were not modern men.  They lived in a specific time and place.  They believed that voters should not be untethered members of society who owned no property and did not already have the wherewithal both economically and educationally to deliberate on national issues.  Rather they set up the constitution in full knowledge that most of the original states had drastic limitations upon who could vote and frequently limited that vote to white Protestant landholding men.  Many classes of individuals could not vote, most notably women and certainly not slaves.  In point of fact because of the limitations imposed upon voting at the state level, less than 10% of the country could vote during the first national election after the Constitution was adopted.

Ultimately, the idea that we should look to the framers intent when trying to settle matters of Constitutional law rather than adopting more expansive notion of evolving law is certainly open to legitimate debate.  However, it is critical to recognize that to be an originalist is by definition to accept a worldview that is fundamentally elitist.  Republicans cannot have it both ways.  They cannot claim to be conservative on the Constitution without also recognizing and accepting that elitism is built into the fabric of this country and its Constitution.