In the latest wave of progressive rhetoric, a certain commentator has made quite the stir proclaiming—or rather, complaining—that any laws established before 1965 don’t hold much water in his view. According to him, laws made by what he dismissively calls “old white judges and legislatures” somehow lack legitimacy because they didn’t consult him or people who look like him. One can’t help but wonder if he’s actually advocating for the kind of world where each generation gets a do-over on governance entirely, throwing out baby and bathwater alike every few decades.
It’s quite a skill to manage the audacity to dismiss some of the most critical legal foundations in U.S. history with such casual disdain. This perspective seems to overlook that many of those pre-1965 laws were transformative, like the abolition of slavery or the establishment of free speech rights. These laws have built the very scaffolding on which everyone—including the critics—can stand up and freely express their views today. The hollowness of attacking foundational laws without acknowledging the rights they provide is an irony often missed in these monologues.
Beyond the historical amnesia at work here, there’s also the troubling undertone of erasing common sense. Suggesting that the entire Constitution is invalid because it wasn’t tailor-made for the individual grumblers of today is, quite frankly, an absurdity. Modern society is a testament to the enduring relevance of these foundational documents, which have navigated countless societal changes while preserving fundamental freedoms. They’re hardly the relics this critic paints them out to be.
It’s always entertaining, perhaps even a little sad, to witness such robust mental gymnastics aimed at burying history. Discarding law and tradition willy-nilly because they don’t fit a modern narrative—even one tailor-fitted to grievances—is akin to trying to run a marathon without understanding that the track existed long before anyone single runner arrived at the starting line. It’s okay to embrace change, but it must be built on respect and understanding of the history that brought society here.
So, when the argument is made to toss away pre-1965 America, one has to wonder just how well-thought-out that strategy truly is. Laws and rights weren’t written for their time alone but crafted to endure and adapt through time. They’ve operated like pillars sustaining justice and order. What we shouldn’t entertain is the idea of razing them to the ground every time someone somewhere feels left out, particularly when those laws have created the very forum for such disagreements to occur peacefully.
