When you see articles like this from mainstream media, it’s worth paying attention. Recently, The New York Times published an article suggesting that the U.S. Constitution itself could be a threat to modern democracy. The underlying message seems to be that if we stick to the Constitution, much of what the Left has worked for could be undone.
The article begins by noting that liberals often accuse Donald Trump of being a threat to the Constitution. However, the article also presents a contrasting argument: Trump’s rise is actually a product of the Constitution, a document that, according to the author, is “essentially antidemocratic and, in this day and age, increasingly dysfunctional.”
The point seems to be that some on the Left are only now realizing that the United States was not originally founded as a pure democracy, but they insist their idea of a “Sacred Democracy™” should prevail. Ironically, the Constitution they criticize also allows for democratic processes—such as the election of Donald Trump.
The article goes on to argue that the Constitution is “dysfunctional.” The reasoning? Trump became president in 2016 despite losing the popular vote but winning through the Electoral College (Article II). He also appointed three justices to the Supreme Court (Article III), with two confirmed by senators representing just 44% of the population (Article I). These foundational elements are now seen as threats to the version of America that some at the New York Times advocate.
This illustrates the divide between two very different visions for America. The Left seems to have moved beyond the Constitution, viewing it as outdated. Szalai further critiques the Constitution by pointing out that it was written by “all white men,” some of whom supported slavery, implying that these contradictions render the entire 200-plus-year-old document obsolete.
The article also criticizes conservative judges, particularly those who identify as “Originalists.” These judges argue that they are correcting decades of “overreach” by so-called “activist” judges. However, liberal critics contend that sticking to what the founders supposedly intended is a way to sidestep the goal of fostering a multiracial democracy.
The implication is clear: if you support the original Constitution, you’re labeled as being against progress—or worse. It’s suggested that, under this logic, even conservative Black justices like Clarence Thomas could be considered “racist.”
The New York Times appears to be laying its cards on the table. The message is that the Left is dissatisfied with the country as it was founded, has been pushing against it for decades, and will continue to do so if given the chance.