I wish I could engage with the discussion on Iraq’s constitution, but I can’t. Isn’t it a commonplace of political science (doesn’t Aristotle say it somewhere?) that a state may have a very liberal constitution, and yet be a tyranny, and contrariwise? The current Chinese constitution, as I have pointed out here before, guarantees every liberty you could wish for. So did the last constitution of the USSR.

I won’t go so far as to say constitutions don’t matter, but they surely don’t matter half as much as the temper of the people, and their customary ways of getting along with each other. The US constitution has served us so well not because we got all the words exactly and precisely right, but mainly because it affirmed centuries-old understandings among (mostly) British people about how citizens get on with each other, arrange public affairs, and settle their disputes. It has worked, in short, because we are Americans, of largely British-Celtic-North European origin.

I do understand, of course, that getting the Iraqis to agree on some form of words is politically important for the admin. as it brings closer the day when we can declare, er, “mission accomplished” and get the heck out of there. Possibly — I don’t know enough about Iraqi affairs to say what the chances are — there are enough sober middle-class types in Iraq to actually keep constitutional govt. going after we leave. That would be great, though I wouldn’t bet the farm on it. So, yes, this is newsy. 1789 it ain’t, though.