Civic Literacy Is the New Counterculture
We Used to Read the Constitution. Now We Just Sign EULAs
Discussion provided by NotebookLM
Once upon a time — say, around 1789 — civic literacy was the expectation. Politicians quoted Cicero without footnotes. Farmers could debate the finer points of separation of powers while milking cows. The average newspaper reader knew the difference between a republic and a democracy, and more importantly, why it mattered.
Now it's a red flag. Say something like "Article I vests legislative power in Congress," and watch half the room think you're auditioning for a militia. The other half just assume you're running for school board in Florida, probably with a pocket Constitution and a grudge against Common Core.
But knowing how your own government works — the structure, the limits, the old ideas that gave birth to the newer and dumber ones — has become downright subversive. It's the intellectual equivalent of showing up to a knife fight with actual knowledge of metallurgy. Deeply unsettling to everyone involved.
It's not that people disagree with constitutional principles anymore. It's that they don't recognize them. Try quoting the 10th Amendment at brunch: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." You'll be accused of quoting Tolkien. Or worse — Tucker Carlson.
The average American can name more Kardashians than Cabinet positions, more Marvel superheroes than Supreme Court justices, and more TikTok influencers than constitutional amendments. This isn't an accident. It's a design feature.
The Weaponization of Willful Ignorance
Let's be clear: civic illiteracy isn't just a national embarrassment, like our healthcare system or our ability to maintain infrastructure. It's a strategic asset — for bureaucracies, for the managerial class, and for whatever alphabet agency just added three more letters to its domain and a new office in a strip mall outside Bethesda.
The less you know about how laws are made, who's supposed to make them, and who's definitely not allowed to enforce them with a PowerPoint deck and a federal grant, the easier it is to nudge you along. Civic ignorance isn't a bug in the system. It's the primary feature, complete with user manual and customer support.
Consider the modern citizen's relationship with government: we know it exists, we know it takes our money, and we know it occasionally does things we don't like. Beyond that, it's a mystery wrapped in an acronym inside a committee meeting we weren't invited to. Most people interact with their government the way they interact with their smartphone — they know which buttons to push, but they have no idea how the thing actually works, and they definitely don't want to open it up and look inside.
This suits everyone in power just fine, from career bureaucrats to elected officials who prefer governing without pesky questions about constitutional authority. An ignorant populace won't ask uncomfortable questions like "Where does the Department of Education derive its constitutional authority?" or "When exactly did Congress delegate its legislative power to regulatory agencies?" or "Why does the EPA have its own police force?"
Reading the Constitution Is the New Punk Rock
You want to rebel? Don't dye your hair blue or get a face tattoo that you'll regret when you're forty. Memorize the Bill of Rights. That's real rebellion — especially when the phrase "shall not be infringed" triggers more content warnings than a Tarantino film and more therapy sessions than a Twitter pile-on.
The modern rebel doesn't burn draft cards or chain themselves to trees. Those are quaint, analog forms of dissent for a simpler time when the establishment was easy to identify and even easier to locate. Today's rebel is far more subversive. He files Freedom of Information Act requests like a man possessed, methodically documenting the gap between what government claims to do and what it actually does. She audits school board budgets with the intensity of a forensic accountant hunting mob money. They read the footnotes in Supreme Court dissents — not just the majority opinions that make headlines, but the dissents that reveal how the sausage really gets made — and quote Brutus No. 1 in a grocery store checkout line while the cashier wonders if she should call security.
Because once you realize that the people who write your laws aren't the ones you elected — or even the ones who got appointed by the ones you elected, but the ones who just happened to be in the room when the funding cycle came up and someone needed to draft "interim guidance" — the whole thing starts to look different. The wigs and waistcoats of the Founding Fathers weren't period costumes. They were the uniform of people who actually read the fine print before signing anything.
This isn't cosplay. It's reconnaissance. It's intelligence gathering in hostile territory where the enemy wears suits instead of uniforms and conquers with committees instead of cavalry.
The Bureaucratic Industrial Complex
The administrative state is not a villain twirling its mustache in a secret lair beneath the Washington Monument. That would be too honest, too straightforward, too... constitutional. It's more like a sponge — ever-expanding, self-replicating, and fueled entirely by your ignorance of how any of this is supposed to work.
It grows in the spaces between what you know and what you don't know. Every gap in civic knowledge becomes a foothold for another agency, another regulation, another "clarification" of existing law that somehow manages to expand federal power while you were busy arguing about pronouns on social media.
The beauty of the system is its apparent invisibility. Unlike historical tyrannies that announced themselves with jackboots and armbands, the administrative state wears business casual and speaks in acronyms. It doesn't storm the gates; it files environmental impact statements. It doesn't seize property; it redefines wetlands. It doesn't censor speech; it partners with private companies to moderate content according to "community standards" that coincidentally align with government preferences.
But here's where it gets interesting: this same system has created its own antibodies. The very complexity that makes it impervious to casual scrutiny also makes it vulnerable to serious investigation. Every regulation has a paper trail. Every agency decision has a legal basis (or pretends to). Every bureaucratic overreach leaves documentary evidence for those willing to look.
Civic literacy is inconvenient to this power structure in the same way that a basic understanding of accounting is inconvenient to embezzlers. People who know the difference between a law passed by Congress and "guidance" issued by a regional office tend to ask uncomfortable questions. People who understand the difference between a constitutional right and a government-granted privilege tend to get testy when bureaucrats try to treat them as interchangeable. And people who can name more than two amendments — especially the ones after the Second — tend to get suspicious when the press secretary talks about "necessary flexibility" in "unprecedented times."
Here's a fun thought experiment that will ruin your faith in higher education: go ask the average college graduate what habeas corpus is. Ask them to explain the difference between common law and statutory law. Ask them what the Ninth Amendment says and why it matters.
Go ahead. I'll wait.
Now ask them who Kim Kardashian dated last summer, or which Netflix series just got cancelled, or what their favorite influencer said about climate change.
Congratulations. You've just discovered the true content of modern education: expensive ignorance with a degree attached.
The New Counterculture Is Boring on Purpose
This is where modern civic literacy gets truly subversive: it's boring. Deliberately, methodically, unapologetically boring. It doesn't generate clicks or likes or viral moments. It doesn't fit into tweet-sized explanations or Instagram-ready infographics. It requires the kind of sustained attention that our culture has systematically trained us to avoid.
Civic literacy doesn't go viral. It won't get you on TikTok unless you're yelling about how the Electoral College is racist (which, for the record, it's not — but explaining why would require understanding the difference between a democracy and a federal republic, the historical context of the Connecticut Compromise, and the ongoing tension between majority rule and minority rights, none of which fits comfortably into a fifteen-second video with trending audio).
Real civic literacy is quiet. It's methodical. It reads primary sources in full, in order, with historical context. It doesn't rely on cable news interpretations or social media summaries. It cuts through the digital noise to find actual documents, original texts, and boring-but-crucial procedural details that determine how power actually works. It requires patience, discipline, and the willingness to be labeled "difficult" at staff meetings, "extreme" at dinner parties, and "problematic" in polite company.
In other words, civic literacy embodies everything our current culture actively discourages: delayed gratification, sustained attention, intellectual humility, and the radical notion that some questions are too important to be answered with hot takes and tribal signaling.
Which is precisely why it's revolutionary.
The Inconvenient Truth About Expertise
Here's what the credentialed class doesn't want you to know: most of what passes for expertise in civic matters is actually just credentialed ignorance. The people with the most impressive titles often have the least understanding of first principles. They know how the system works now, but they have no idea how it's supposed to work, which means they can't tell you when it's broken or why it matters.
This is particularly true in law, where entire careers are built on interpreting Supreme Court decisions without ever reading the constitutional text those decisions supposedly interpret. It's true in political science, where professors can explain the mechanics of modern governance without understanding the philosophical foundations that justified it in the first place. And it's especially true in journalism, where reporters can cover constitutional crises without being able to explain what the Constitution actually says.
The result is a expert class that can tell you everything about the current system except whether it bears any resemblance to the system we're supposed to have. They're like mechanics who can fix your car but have never seen the blueprints, so they don't notice when the engine is installed backwards.
A Modest Proposal: Read the Damn Thing
Start with the Constitution. Not a commentary on the Constitution, not a summary of the Constitution, not a TED talk about the Constitution. The actual text. All of it. Yes, even the boring parts about post roads and letters of marque. Especially the boring parts, because that's where you'll discover just how much the federal government has grown beyond its original specifications.
You'll be amazed at how small the federal government looks on paper. The entire Constitution fits comfortably in a pamphlet. The powers granted to Congress are listed in a single section. The restrictions on government power take up most of the rest. It's a remarkably brief document for something that's supposed to govern 330 million people across 3.8 million square miles.
Then try the Declaration of Independence. Not just the famous preamble about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — though those words are worth memorizing — but the long list of grievances against King George III. Jefferson wasn't complaining about hurt feelings or mean tweets. He was documenting specific violations of English constitutional law: taxation without representation, judicial manipulation, executive overreach, and military enforcement of civilian law.
Read that list carefully, and then ask yourself which of those grievances might sound familiar today. Which powers that Jefferson condemned in King George III would he recognize in the modern federal government? Which violations of English law from 1776 have become standard operating procedure in American government today?
If you're feeling particularly adventurous, dive into the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. Not all of them — unless you have a year to spare and a taste for 18th-century prose — but enough to understand the debate. The Federalists arguing for a strong central government, the Anti-Federalists warning about the dangers of consolidated power. It's like reading the original comment section on the Constitution, except every comment was written by someone who actually understood the issues and had read the relevant history.
Pay special attention to the Anti-Federalist predictions about what would happen if the Constitution were ratified without stronger protections for individual rights and state sovereignty. Their warnings about federal overreach, judicial supremacy, and the gradual erosion of local government read like prophecy today.
The Paper Trail of Tyranny
Once you've read the founding documents, you'll start to notice things. Like how much of what the federal government does today would have been unthinkable to the people who wrote those documents. Like how many federal agencies exist without any clear constitutional authorization. Like how much law gets made by people who were never elected to make law.
You'll start asking uncomfortable questions: When did Congress delegate its legislative authority to regulatory agencies? When did the federal government decide it could regulate anything that affects interstate commerce, even if it never crosses state lines? When did the Commerce Clause become a blank check for federal power? When did the General Welfare Clause become a justification for any spending Congress wants to do?
These aren't rhetorical questions. They have specific answers, with dates and court cases and legislative histories. But finding those answers requires the kind of research that doesn't fit into a news cycle or a campaign slogan.
The Institutional Memory Hole
The scariest part isn't that most Americans don't know how their government is supposed to work. It's that most of the people running the government don't know either. We've created a system where constitutional ignorance is not just tolerated but rewarded, where understanding the historical and philosophical foundations of American government is seen as quaint at best and dangerous at worst.
Members of Congress routinely pass laws without reading them, much less considering their constitutional basis. Federal judges issue rulings based on precedent without examining whether that precedent has any connection to the constitutional text it purports to interpret. Executive branch officials enforce regulations without considering whether their agencies have the authority to issue those regulations in the first place.
The result is a government that operates according to its own internal logic, disconnected from the constitutional principles that are supposed to constrain it. It's like a computer program that's been modified so many times that no one remembers what the original code was supposed to do.
Final Thoughts: The Choice Before Us
We're not short on laws. We have millions of them, stacked in volumes that no human being could read in a lifetime, written in language that deliberately obscures rather than clarifies, enforced by agencies that exist in a constitutional gray area between legitimate government and administrative tyranny.
We're not short on experts. We have thousands of them, with impressive degrees and important titles, who can explain the current system in excruciating detail but can't tell you whether it bears any resemblance to what the Founders intended or what the Constitution actually authorizes.
What we're short on is people who understand how the system is supposed to work — people who have read the instruction manual and noticed that we're not following it.
So yes, civic literacy has become a radical act. Not because the words themselves are dangerous — though they are inconvenient to certain interests — but because the ignorance has become so widespread and so profitable that knowledge itself is subversive.
The Constitution isn't a perfect document. The Founders weren't perfect men. The system they created wasn't designed to solve every problem or address every injustice. But it was designed to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of people who think they know better than you do about how you should live your life.
Understanding that system — how it works, why it was created, what it's supposed to prevent — is the first step toward preserving it. Or, if preservation is impossible, at least understanding what we've lost.
And if that sounds overly dramatic, here's a simple test: go to your nearest government office — federal, state, or local — and ask them a basic question about their authority. Ask them where their power comes from. Ask them what constitutional provision authorizes what they do.
If they answer confidently, citing specific constitutional text or statutory authority, you've found competent public servants who understand their role in our system of government.
If they look confused and need to find someone who might know, you've discovered the scope of the problem.
If they act like your question is suspicious or inappropriate, you've identified the real threat to constitutional government.
The choice is yours: remain comfortably ignorant while others make the decisions that shape your life, or join the growing ranks of Americans who think reading the founding documents isn't just a good idea — it's an act of resistance.
Thank you for your time today. Until next time, stay gruntled.
Do you like what you read but aren’t yet ready or able to get a paid subscription? Then consider a one-time tip at:
https://www.venmo.com/u/TheCogitatingCeviche
Ko-fi.com/thecogitatingceviche
