Crisis of the Two Constitutions (Charles R. Kesler)

We must ask why false beliefs about trauma find such friendly lodging in the minds of many scientists and clinicians when the disproving evidence is before them.

CATEGORY: BOOK REVIEWS

Read time: 2.5 minutes
 
Redefining traditional concepts of American culture has been a staple of the progressive agenda. What do attempts to redefine American’s Constitution and attempts to redefine the meaning of psychological trauma have in common? More than one might think. As has often been the case in psychology, intellectual frameworks are not formed in a vacuum.
 
Book Summary
American politics can operate on two levels. In normal politics, there is consensus on national goals, with disagreement only on the means of achieving them. In regime politics, the author Charles Kesler explains that the stakes are considerably higher; the conflict is over the ends themselves—over which vision of the country should prevail. The United States is edging toward regime politics, split between two constitutional visions: the original Constitution and the “living” Constitution. Proponents of the latter, often on the progressive Left, argue that the original framework is tainted by systemic racism and must be replaced. Kesler likens this to a “cold civil war.”
In Crisis of the Two Constitutions (2021), the book begins by defending the Founders’ Constitution, then traces the rise of the progressive “living” Constitution, and finally examines conservative efforts to restore the Founders’ principles. The purpose of American constitutionalism itself is at the center of this struggle. The Founders assumed that all citizens were capable of broadly shared moral values such as fairness, security, and truth, which converged on at least the major objective of a strong nation. Progressives, by contrast, over time, rejected that assumption, contending that modern circumstances require reinterpreting the Constitution to produce a different kind of nation.
One of the most compelling sections outlines this reinterpretation as the “Three Waves of Liberalism.” The first, Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom, targeted political reform. The second, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, launched the welfare state. The third, in the 1960s, rejected many traditional American values outright. Despite their differences, all three waves sought to “transform the country into something altogether freer, fairer, and more fulfilling.” By this account, the 20th century was the century of liberalism. Conservatism, emerging in force only in the 1950s, reached its peak influence in 1980.
 
The New Left of the 1960s, influenced by Herbert Marcuse and thinkers like Freud, Marx, and Rousseau, found its home in universities, where it championed radical individualism. The subsequent “New New Left” combined critical legal studies and radical feminism into a politics of identity, characterized by emotional fragility and heightened sensitivity to perceived slights. This shift marks not just a change in political priorities, but an evolution in the very conception of the citizen—and the role government should play in shaping that identity.

​Who Wrote This?
Charles R. Kesler is a political scientist and professor at Claremont McKenna College. He is editor of the Claremont Review of Books, a conservative magazine.

What Does This Have to Do With Trauma?
This historical outline helps explain why, by the 1990s, leftist-based hype around psychological trauma flourished. With the third wave of liberalism in the 1960s, the focus shifted from political structures to reshaping personal identity, often in opposition to traditional norms. The “New New Left” that emerged by the 1980s–1990s was steeped in radical identity politics. This created fertile ground for softer, emotionally resonant narratives—like those centered on trauma—to serve as moral justification for social change.
Universities, already crucibles for New Left activism, became hubs for importing psychological concepts into political discourse. Trauma frameworks—especially those stressing hidden wounds, systemic harm, and vulnerability—offered a unifying language that fit neatly with critical legal studies’ focus on structural oppression and radical feminism’s focus on lived experience. By framing political grievances as psychological injuries (“the body keeps the score,” “toxic stress,” “complex PTSD”), activists could claim scientific authority while advancing a moral revolution. Thus, trauma rhetoric became a strategic tool in regime politics, serving to redefine both the citizen and the political ends of the republic.