Chris Matthews' Knowledge of US History is PowerPoint Thin

MSNBC's Chris Matthews used Rep. Michelle Bachmann's (R-MN) address to an Iowa Tea Party group as an opportunity to, not only bash her personally, but to provide the perfect capstone to the Left's several week long campaign mocking the new Republican House majority for their show of reverence for the US Constitution. Matthews called Bachmann a "balloon head" for her assertions that the Founders worked to end slavery and the Constitution gave the nation the ability to eventually do away with its "original great sin." In typical "enlightened" liberal fashion, he pointed to the clause in the Constitution counting Negro slaves as 3/5th of a person as evidence of the racist nature of America and the Civil War as proof of how inadequate the document was for dealing with the problem of slavery. In doing so however, Matthews demonstrated more than just his contempt for Bachmann, the country and its history: he showed his inability to analyze anything beyond the simple facts.

When I was still in the military, we had a phrase we used to describe people like Matthews - those who had limited depth to their knowledge. A typical example was the briefer who could not elaborate beyond his slide presentation. We used to say, "His knowledge of the subject is PowerPoint thin." PowerPoint is the Microsoft program for creating slide show presentations. Of this, Matthews is a perfect example - someone who knows facts but cannot translate them into understanding.

While the examples Matthews cites are in fact true, one cannot overlook the intricate political chess game that was required in order to get our Constitution ratified. Had the Constitution called for the outright abolition of slavery, the southern States, especially South Carolina and Georgia, would never have joined the Union. Furthermore, without the 3/5th apportionment clause, the South would have enjoyed an advantage in representation, that would have made it difficult to prevent the spread of slavery into any new territories. Last and most importantly, had the indirect approach to ending slavery not been taken in our Constitution, the United States as we know it would never have come into being. The more likely outcome would have been another loose and dysfunctional confederation as under the Articles of Confederation or perhaps one country comprised of the northern States and one or more nations formed from the southern States. In either case, it seems highly unlikely that a United States formed solely from the northern States would have ever gone to war against its hypothetical southern neighbor or neighbors to end slavery in their territories and the practice would have undoubtedly continued for much longer.

To be sure, the Civil War was, on the one hand a great national tragedy and on the other, a noble sacrifice to end an even greater one. Far from being flawed for not abolishing slavery, our Constitution is remarkable for providing the mechanism, albeit a costly one, for stamping out slavery throughout the land once and for all and resulted in the most just, prosperous and successful nation in history. It's about time Mr. Matthews and his ilk added some depth to their PowerPoint view of America.