Over the summer, I listened to the audiobook American Covenant by Yuval Levin, a public intellectual who has been thinking and writing about public policy and political theory for more than 25 years. Levin lays out a vision of the Constitution as a solution to our current divisions, arguing that it provides a structure for achieving greater unity in our country today.
In making his case, Levin argues we have forgotten the practical meaning of unity and reminds us that, in the political life of a free society, unity does not mean thinking alike; it means acting together. The Constitution shows us how we can “act together when we do not think alike” if we can rediscover its fundamental purposes and find ways to better put them into practice to address our most serious problems today.
This idea resonates with me, particularly at a time when so much of our public discourse seems focused on what divides us. Levin offers a distinctive way of thinking about unity, not as agreement, but as the ability to keep working together despite our differences.
Levin posits that the Constitution has a distinctive “operational style” that in fact insists on this kind of unity. The style is quite dynamic, as opposed to the kind of static structure we often invoke when referencing three pillars as representing the three branches. He describes the different “power centers” in society as “living political actors” who must engage with each other in tussling fashion to achieve “anything lasting.” By engaging in this kind of interaction, however frustrating it can be at times, Levin argues “civic habits are built up by civic action.”
A Constitutional System in Motion
I found this framework particularly helpful as Levin applies it to the three branches of government and the different roles they play in making our constitutional system work.
As the first branch, closest to the people, Congress is “primary and predominant” and is meant to achieve a form of unity by facilitating cross-partisan accommodation and negotiated outcomes. Levin describes Congress as an “arena of contention,” where deep differences can be represented and confronted; an “arena of coalition building,” where differing factions work together and find ways to accommodate each other; and, ultimately, an “arena of integration,” where coalitions can blossom into “nation building.” All three functions are important and interrelated, and, Levin cautions, all three are endangered today.
As the second branch, at some remove, the executive is the “locus of action,” meant to carry out the laws and respond as needed to national emergencies and urgent needs in ways that can, if deployed well, forge unity. Levin calls out “stability and steadiness” as especially important qualities in the Founders’ vision of the executive. He also emphasizes restraint and self-control, pointing out that presidents can yield to Congress the actions it should properly take and, in doing so, increase the legitimacy and authority of the more focused, limited actions the executive is empowered to take, strategically and responsibly.
Perhaps not surprisingly, as a former judge, I was especially drawn to Levin’s discussion of the third branch. He suggests the judiciary’s greatest unifying capacity lies in its “power to keep our system of government true to itself,” not foremost in its authority to resolve disputes once and for all. He says courts must resist the potential to fill policy-making voids and instead, when appropriate, “route political conflict back to Congress or the states.” In this way, they can facilitate the operation of majority rule while still fulfilling their function of protecting minority rights when constitutionally required.
In urging judicial restraint, Levin pays the judiciary quite a compliment, saying judges do “seem like the only constitutional officers capable of doing much of anything now.” But he insists that just because courts are able to function, reach decisions, and get things done does not mean they should assume responsibilities that properly belong elsewhere.
This point in particular stands out to me. An independent judiciary is essential to the rule of law, but courts are one part of a larger constitutional system. The courts comprise an equally important branch with limited powers. And the strength of our constitutional order depends on each branch understanding and respecting its role. There is something valuable in Levin’s reminder that a functioning judiciary cannot, and should not, compensate for every shortcoming elsewhere in our system of government designed to serve We the People, all of us.
A Spirit of Repair
What has stuck with me most, though, is that Levin ultimately places responsibility not only with our institutions and leaders, but with all of us. His prescription for greater unity is for us to repair our “broken constitutional practice” by choosing to prioritize cohesion, coalition building, and the forging of trust and, in doing so, to honor the Constitution’s original aims.
He describes our task as approaching our institutions in a “spirit of repair,” informed both by a sense of what is missing and has gone wrong and by an appreciation for what is good in what we have and could continue to serve us well. And he encourages us to resist the swirling naysaying and doomsday prophesying that can threaten to overwhelm us, arguing this moment calls not for repudiating our inheritance, but for renewing it.
I find this vision of civic renewal particularly compelling. At a time when disagreement can so easily morph into division, Levin offers a much-needed reminder that unity does not require unanimity. Our constitutional system was not designed to eliminate our differences. In many fundamental and powerful ways, it has given us a way to work through them, together.
As one citizen devoted to doing whatever I can to help strengthen our civil society and restore our constitutional order, I appreciate Levin’s framing and language. If you have not read or listened to American Covenant, I recommend it. One need not agree with all his views to appreciate the contribution he makes to our public discourse at a time when civic unity is at a premium.
That is the most hopeful message of American Covenant. The Constitution does not require us to think alike but gives us a reason and a way to keep working together even when we do not.
