The conversation between Stephen Bowling and Ahkil Reed Amar (AMA going forward) was definitely intellectually stimulating, but a few things that Ahkil claimed were wholly not persuasive to me.
His big thing is originalism is correct, which is the orientation that original intent and history are key to understanding ideas is right. He claims also that these right wingers like Scalia don’t know their history, as compared to people like Hugo Black.
Then, he goes on at length about all the novel great things Justice Black does like applying the bill of rights to the states. I almost had whiplash. How can you radically alter governance structure, while proclaiming that original intent is the deciding principle. If anything, that would make AMA a textualist, not an originalist.
The important thing he wanted us to know is he wears his bias on his sleeve, and although he’s not modest, he’s objective (and presumably correct).
I approached him after the speech and book signing and asked him about Gonzalez v. Raich, and whether the commerce clause is overextended. He first mistook it for guns (fair enough, long day), and then proclaimed that it was interstate commerce.
Instead of trying to get him with a gotcha question, I asked about the case involving grain on someone’s own property (Wickard v Filburn), and whether there’s a limiting principle to which he replied “interstate commerce”.
At this point, I pointed out that grain remained in the state, at least according to the Gutzman book “Who Killed the Constitution”. This precipitated a rant by him about the importance of not filling one’s mind with garbage, how clearly interstate refers to our interconnected world, how “The Politically Incorrect Guide To The Constitution” should be true; after all why would anyone ever want something incorrect in any sense, how Gutzman is a third rate professor at a third rate school (who on good authority I know like Jefferson), and how Ahkil is an elite professor at the top of academia.
When he said something interesting, I told him good point. Since he went on mostly uninterrupted for 2 minutes, I thanked him for answering my question and moved on.
I don’t think anyone else saw the interaction, but I think it’s telling of broader academic decline, and I want to explain why.
First, as far as I could tell, few ask famous academics truly critical questions. Everyone else who asked him questions asked him narrowly technical or otherwise adulatory questions. People like Tyler Cowen do a great service by pushing intellectuals on their broader ideas. As a society, when we fail to challenge our best and brightest, it’s clear that we lose something.
Second, public intellectuals get to a point where they get more used to talking than listening. Fame does that, and being in high regard may end up undermining your humility and curiosity. Had he listened more closely to my question, he would have easily avoided faux pas.
Third, academics don’t understand how much they select for conformity, which I think is disconnected from how people view status or prestige in general. At one point, he talked about whether you’d want the best doctor, top of his class, or listen to a third rate doctor. If the elite doctor said my mole was a pimple, I’d accordingly question his expertise. In the same way, I don’t think the fact that he’s cited by Supreme Court justices or held in high regard by both the left and the right is especially persuasive if he gets the basic facts wrong, even though from his speech. Prestige is not a substitute for convincing argumentation. I find it entirely credible that libertarian thought is marginal in academia despite being correct.
Finally, I learned I don’t have to like everything someone says to appreciate learning something new. Hearing about how George Washington may be the real father of the constitution is heartening, and I appreciated AMA’s charm and affability when discussing a topic that I also find fascinating. I’m glad I got a chance to hear his perspective and I appreciated his generosity with his time.
Isadore Johnson's Website 