Trying to teach the editors of the New York Times the
meaning of their own American Constitution is like trying to teach rocket
science to a 4-year-old.
Let me begin with the concept of life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. It is easy to construct a visual representation for this
concept, so maybe it'll do them some good. Imagine a car or any sort of vehicle
you build to transport things. You need two important mechanisms in such
vehicle: an engine to make it move, and brakes to make it slow down or stop.
A life in motion is a life that progresses, which means a
life that evolves. But every progress is not necessarily a good thing; and even
a progress of the right kind can be bad if it happens at the wrong speed. This
is why you need brakes to slow down progress when it races ahead too quickly;
or to stop it cold if it proves to be of the wrong kind. There are two ways to
make brakes that work on the evolutionary process: There is the method of the traditional
rituals, which evolve over time; and there is the method of the reasoned out
codes, which are usually made in response to newly attested needs.
Even before our species had developed the ability to reason,
we instinctively accumulated a slew of rituals to govern our interactions with
each other and with the other species. And then, for thousands of years after
that, we adhered to those rituals but allowed them to evolve so that they jibe
with the changing circumstances. Eventually the rituals became what we now
recognize as the “Common Law” whether or not we call it by this name as do the
British.
As long as life moved leisurely at its own pace, the Common
Law remained the governing law in Britain and in the places where
they called it by a different name. But something happened around two and a
half centuries ago that accelerated the pace of life exponentially. That was
the Industrial Revolution. Its effect has been to necessitate the formulation
of another set of laws that could quickly respond to new needs. This set took
on the name of Civil Code, a body of laws that was formulated in France , and was
put to use almost everywhere else. America , whose Constitution was
formulated at that time, was heavily influenced by those ideas.
All of the above is the background that should help us
understand the difference between the words “function” and “code.” Here is a
definition for each. A function is the work you perform if and when you can.
You do it because you take pride in your achievements. A code is laws you
adhere to because you respect it and/or you know that if you break it, you'll
be punished.
We are now ready to see what it is that makes the editors of
the New York Times repeatedly come up with editorials as shallow and silly as
their latest. This one came under the title: “President Trump's Mideast
Contradictions,” published on May 23, 2017 in the NY Times, of course.
Speaking of the speech that President Trump gave at a
gathering of Muslims in Saudi
Arabia , the editors chided him because they
say “he said nothing about the need to advance the cause of human rights in
Muslim societies that discriminate against women and minorities.” To keep the
discussion moving, we pretend that the editors are correct, which they are not,
given that Trump said this: “That means promoting the aspirations and dreams of
all citizens who seek a better life – including women, children, and followers
of all faiths. Numerous Arab and Islamic scholars have eloquently argued that
protecting equality strengthens Arab and Muslim communities”.
What are these editors missing? Their biggest problem is
their lack of realization that to be solid and to hold together, a construct of
any kind must be coherent. This means all of its parts must work together as
smoothly as possible. If an external force intervenes and causes a change on
one of the parts, all other parts must adapt or the entire construct collapses.
Because the parts do not all change simultaneously, they take time to complete
the transformation. If the change to accelerate is made by outside
intervention, the power of the rituals (in this case called tradition) or the
Common Law itself spring into action, and slow down the change or stop it cold.
In the old days – before the Industrial Revolution – the
process for change came naturally and was eventually incorporated into the
Common Law. But when the Industrial Revolution accelerated life, it became
necessary to reason out new laws so as to keep up with the times. This is how
the Civil Code came to be.
Now that this code is here, the people who are in charge of
writing or amending it, try not to go too fast changing things. Instead, they
take into account the ability of society to absorb the laws that will compel
them to do things differently. This is a process that takes place all the time
in every jurisdiction.
As to Saudi
Arabia , they have been working quietly on
changing their society for decades, and they put down a plan that will bring it
to modern levels by 2030. They took their time writing the necessary laws
because their goal was not to motivate people out of fear or punishment.
Instead, they wanted the people to embrace the coming evolution out of pride
for the progress they will be making as they contemplate living their lives in
liberty and happiness.