The Beatles Reject Woke’s Demand to Change the Constitution
You say you’ll change the Constitution
Well, you know
We all love to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
Revolution, The Beatles’ hit song from 1968, was released during the second most tumultuous time in modern history. The Beatles were the de facto leaders of the counterculture movement, and in many ways, their music provided guidance and served as a calming influence for a nation in the midst of enormous social change.
There are several parallels between the turbulent 1960s and the 2020s, but at its core, those who promoted scuttling the Constitution in the 60s were consistently rejected in favor of those who wanted to work for change within the framework of the document. This resulted in substantial advancements in racial equality, environmental consciousness and the social justice that we enjoy today. These were extraordinary societal shifts in how America shaped its self-image, and while it was painful, much good came as a result of the effort.
You Say You’ll Change the Constitution
In their song, the Beatles acknowledged the violent elements within the movement and rejected them outright. This specifically included those who advocated changing or rejecting the Constitution. Today, we face the same threat, only it feels much more sinister and ominous than many who lived through the 1960s recall.
In fact, according to a poll taken in 2022, 57% of Democrats believe the Constitution is a “document rooted in racism,” and almost half (49%) believe the Constitution should be “mostly or completely rewritten.”
Think about that for a minute. Half the people who identify as belonging to one of the two major political parties in America are in favor of rewriting the Constitution. Unbelievable…
The basic argument from the left for abandoning the Constitution goes like this: The document is odious, cumbersome and outdated, and from a structural perspective, it stands in the way of the important societal changes woke progressives tell us must be made.
They point to the filibuster as an obvious target, which was used successfully to block horrific proposals to pack the Supreme Court, destroy the second amendment and eliminate the electoral college. Yet, from the woke perspective, eliminating the filibuster wouldn’t be near enough. Additionally, they favor radical changes to how voting is conducted, including implementation of ranked voting, which was used in Alaska to elect a Democrat to Congress when the majority of people voted Republican. Radicals also favor electing the president through the House of Representatives, specifically to eliminate the possibility of a populist candidate like Donald Trump ever ascending to the presidency again.
To further buttress their arguments that the Constitution must be renounced, Woke relies on the tired argument of racism, pointing to specific demeaning references to people of color, such as Article I, Section2, which counts each slave as three-fifths of a person. Further, Article IV, Section 2, requires that a slave who escapes to another state must be returned to their owner if captured. While these obviously egregious errors were subsequently corrected through amendments, progressives argue the original language in the Constitution is hurtful to minorities and must be expunged from the document completely.
Of course, Woke always employs a smoke and mirrors strategy of using sanctimony to achieve their underlying goal. If a single phrase in the original Constitution was changed, it would open the door for liberal progressives to scrutinize every word in the entire document and alter or remove entire Articles that stand in the way of their authoritarian objectives, namely, Marxism. Even the Bill of Rights would be in jeopardy.
Troubling Trends in the Perception of the Constitution
Seventy percent of millennials, and 64% of Gen Z, say they are somewhat or extremely likely to vote for a socialist candidate. The allure of abolishing private property and collective ownership is appealing to many young people who never experienced the poverty and oppression that inevitably comes from centralized government. So, how do the leaders of the woke socialist movement intend to achieve their authoritarian goals?
By its very nature, the Constitution’s purposeful decentralization of power makes adoption of socialism problematic. The framers recognized the best way to thwart the plans of a despot was to keep government limited with a variety of checks and balances. Look at the vast difference in the manner in which California is structured compared to Florida. As long as the Constitution allows for such autonomy on the state level, a centralized socialist, totalitarian government will be very difficult to implement on the scale woke progressives envision.
Follow the Sage Words of the Beatles and Protect the Constitution
A nation should never try to purge its sins from its past. We learn and grow from our shame, which is an essential element of the human condition. As left-wing extremists rachet up the volume and cry racism as an excuse to change the Constitution, remember, no matter what the price, we must resist.
As the Beatles said, “You say you’ll change the Constitution, well, you know, we all love to change your head.”