How the Constitution Supports Common Good

Modern conservatism has defined itself, in large part, by fidelity to the United States Constitution. We seek to understand and sustain our nation’s governing document against any forces that would undermine it. The best-known term for this project has been “originalism,” a word and underlying idea that came to dominate in right-leaning legal and constitutional thought. Some on the right, however, argue we must question this project, thereby questioning our self-understanding itself.

This group is broadly known as post-liberals. They think our commitment to originalism has served us ill. Patrick Deneen, for example, says originalism is “toothless” at best and “consistently drifts leftward” at its worst. Integralists blame originalism for the perceived lost ground in law and society over the past 40 years. In so arguing, they assign a core inadequacy to the Constitution. By their lights, the Constitution — at best — can only preserve, not pursue. And even that power seems feeble, given the Left’s social and economic victories. Ignoring or underselling ground gained by conservatives on those fronts (consider this term of the Supreme Court), post-liberals lament conservatism’s inability to achieve moral goals, to pursue a “common good.” First and foremost, they see this need as a counter to the ongoing march of the Sexual Revolution. Their critique paints originalism as morally agnostic at best or, at worst, trending toward ethical libertinism. Originalism thus paves the way for unfettered pornography and various confusions regarding sexual identity, to name only a few societal ills thereby laid at originalism’s feet. Integralist Adrian Vermuele gives the particular instance of Neil Gorsuch’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, pegging it as “quite obviously parroting the orthodoxy of the present” on matters of sexuality.

About the Author

Adam M. Carrington

Adam M. Carrington is an associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College.

Featured Tags

Modern conservatism has defined itself, in large part, by fidelity to the United States Constitution. We seek to understand and sustain our nation’s governing document against any forces that would undermine it. The best-known term for this project has been “originalism,” a word and underlying idea that came to dominate in right-leaning legal and constitutional thought. Some on the right, however, argue we must question this project, thereby questioning our self-understanding itself.

This group is broadly known as post-liberals. They think our commitment to originalism has served us ill. Patrick Deneen, for example, says originalism is “toothless” at best and “consistently drifts leftward” at its worst. Integralists blame originalism for the perceived lost ground in law and society over the past 40 years. In so arguing, they assign a core inadequacy to the Constitution. By their lights, the Constitution — at best — can only preserve, not pursue. And even that power seems feeble, given the Left’s social and economic victories. Ignoring or underselling ground gained by conservatives on those fronts (consider this term of the Supreme Court), post-liberals lament conservatism’s inability to achieve moral goals, to pursue a “common good.” First and foremost, they see this need as a counter to the ongoing march of the Sexual Revolution. Their critique paints originalism as morally agnostic at best or, at worst, trending toward ethical libertinism. Originalism thus paves the way for unfettered pornography and various confusions regarding sexual identity, to name only a few societal ills thereby laid at originalism’s feet. Integralist Adrian Vermuele gives the particular instance of Neil Gorsuch’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, pegging it as “quite obviously parroting the orthodoxy of the present” on matters of sexuality.