Securing Stability or American Soulcrafting?

Lebron's solution for the “problem of social value” is democratic perfectionism, which "will make central attention to a kind of democratic ethos fundamental to a good democratic society marked by race. Put differently, it attends to American soulcrafting" (53). As we see in Lebron's suggestions from Chapter 5, this involves robust government involvement in deliberately changing the national character. By his account, there is a "moral and ethical burden which we must be aided in relieving -- others must help us be free of it" (52). The project is presented as a worthy cause, even if it involves “nudging” hesitant citizens.

However, Lebron makes clear that he is not in favor of just any shifts in our Constitutional scheme. He writes, "Institutions are designed for stability, [and] thus are intended to resist change" (59). In what can be read as denouncement of Popular Constitutionalism, he continues, "Acknowledging that our institutions would be at risk of too accurately reflecting the times, subsequently reflecting swift and possibly destabilizing shifts in patterns of political power” (60). Lebron warns we should be wary of such radical transformations -- except in the case of racial injustice, which he believes we should all be ashamed of.

While Lebron clearly thinks his project merits a substantial shift, is important to examine his basis for this assertion. He relies on an apparent fundamental disconnect: our institutions are out of line with principles we value as a polity. However, isn’t it also true that the frequent Amendments (within the unstable system he denounces) would reflect the values of the citizens whose Senators are in power? The obvious response is that our government is not designed to be altered by slim majorities, and there’s a good reason for that. However, if Lebron’s policies/solution to the problem of social justice are to distinguish themselves from these more partisan issues, they must reflect the disposition of our entire body politic; we would have to all – or at least mostly – agree that our current system is cause for shame, and that we really are falling away from our ideals in a way that merits the sort of shifts he is proposing. Is he right to assume that we agree on these things? And if we don’t agree on these things, could we really proceed as he suggests, since we would be pursuing the interests of a mere majority – in much the same fashion as his quixotic Popular Constitutionalists?