Liberals to Desire a Return to Federalism?

[Grendel]

I found this article on FoxNews.com and thought it was interesting. I have always supported the return to a more federalist system but the biggest foe to that position has always been the whining liberal who wants the federal government to do everything for them as oppossed to allowing people in localities decide their own fates. Now that those same liberals are on the other end of the arguement for a change, they'll be more open to the idea.

Seeing Red, Blue States May Want to Think Local
Thursday, November 11, 2004
By Nick Schulz
It’s national navel gazing time, and the chattering class is trying to divine what George W. Bush’s victory means.

The spinning and counterspinning is dizzying, and the national unity both Bush and John Kerry called for seems increasingly out of reach.

Several commentators claimed that in this election, as author and lifelong Democrat Ben Wattenberg (search) once put it in a book title, “Values Matter Most”. Over 20 percent of ballot punchers cited “moral values” as their primary concern in selecting a president. Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett announced in National Review that “ethics and moral values were ascendant” on election night.

The president’s critics seized on this factoid to claim that fears of a Godless pledge of allegiance, gay marriage and abortion rights were the values that motivated Bush supporters. Best-selling novelist Jane Smiley (search), writing in Slate magazine, blamed Kerry’s loss on the “unteachable ignorance of the red states.” Gary Wills, another best-selling writer, fretted in the New York Times that this values vote meant the United States was no longer an “enlightened” country.

But before that conventional wisdom congealed, efforts to debunk it emerged. Yes, values were important, but not all important. The Washington Post’s respected columnist E.J. Dionne (search), a Bush critic, admitted that “moderates, not moralists” won the election for Bush. “John Kerry was not defeated by the religious right,” he said. In the New York Times, David Brooks (search) harpooned the “values-vote myth” and cited Pew Research Center (search) election data to bolster his case. It wasn’t haters in the heartland that put Bush over the top, Dionne, Brooks, and others said. Instead, Bush helped voters feel safer in the post 9/11 world and was rewarded for that.


Who knows, next week there might be a new conventional wisdom. Economists reported strong jobs numbers right after the election, with 337,000 jobs added to U.S. payrolls in October. Maybe, a la Bill Clinton in 1992, it was “the economy, stupid” that gave Bush a second term.

Whatever the reason for Kerry’s loss, you can’t blame Bush critics from feeling particularly bitter. They had a strong, smart, experienced candidate to back. They were extremely energized and had tons of cash. If they couldn’t beat Bush playing that hand, it’s possible they could never beat him. And so even though John Kerry called for uniting the country in his concession speech, and even though George Bush professed his wish to do the same, unity is going to be difficult in a nation that just doesn’t seem to want it.

But is that such a bad thing? Maybe not. In a democracy, where 50 percent plus 1 takes home all the political marbles, there are bound to be people who strongly dislike political outcomes. In a nation as large as the United States, that means millions and millions of people won’t like the outcome.

There is a way around the disunity problem and it’s a solution the nation’s Founders devised. It’s called federalism (search) — devolving political decision-making as close to voters as possible, to the states and local municipalities. It’s an old idea, but one that might be rejuvenated in the wake of this election.

Consider the big blue state, California. A majority of California voters favored John Kerry in this election and Al Gore in the last election. So are Californians condemned to suffer in Bush’s red America?

Not exactly. Consider the issue of embryonic stem cell research (search). President Bush is against federal support for the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines. The president’s position was attacked by Senator Kerry in the campaign. California voters, favoring Kerry’s position, worked around Bush’s ban on federal funding — by funding it themselves! Voters supported ponying up $3 billion for embryonic stem cell research.

During the 20th century, political liberals have generally opposed federalism and devolution, preferring Washington and the federal judiciary to impose liberal policies on the entire country, from abortion rights to environmental policy to gun control laws. That’s fine for them when liberals are in power. But what about when conservatives become firmly entrenched?

George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux put it this way recently: “Uncle Sam is more and more influenced by red-state values — now that both houses of Congress have been in GOP hands for 10 years, and now that the GOP is ascending throughout the nation… centralization of power surely must seem less appealing to modern liberals.”

He’s right. Under current political circumstances, expect federalism to start looking good again. The Founders would be pleased.

Nick Schulz is the former Politics Editor of FoxNews.com and currently edits TechCentralStation.com, a science, economics and politics website.

[Darth Wong]

Federalism is good, as long as the federal government pays homage to the Constitution. The current one does not.

[Stormbringer]

Federalism is good, as long as the federal government pays homage to the Constitution. The current one does not.

Umm, federalism = state's rights.

[Darth Wong]

Federalism is good, as long as the federal government pays homage to the Constitution. The current one does not.

Umm, federalism = state's rights.

Not when it comes to shitting on civil rights. Let me remind you:

Human rights > State's rights.

[RedImperator]

Were it not for Federalism, this Congress and this President could have banned gay marriage nationwide already, and there wouldn't be a frigging thing anyone could do, save hoping SCOTUS overturned it.

[Stormbringer]

Federalism is good, as long as the federal government pays homage to the Constitution. The current one does not.

Umm, federalism = state's rights.

Not when it comes to shitting on civil rights. Let me remind you:

Human rights > State's rights.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm just still puzzled at the string of non-sequiters.

Federalism places far more emphasis on the states. The federal government is rather limited and is expected not to be involved in people's personal lives. So it's really the states that matter.

[Grendel]

Not when it comes to shitting on civil rights. Let me remind you:

Human rights > State's rights.

Actually, If you want to be exact, it is:

Federal Constitutional Rights > State's rights.

So-called "human rights" don't enter into the discussion, only those garunteed to us by the Constitution.

[Grendel]

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm just still puzzled at the string of non-sequiters.

Federalism places far more emphasis on the states. The federal government is rather limited and is expected not to be involved in people's personal lives. So it's really the states that matter.

The idea of federalism is that the higher you go, the less direct influence over an individual's life that part of government has. That is what allows people to control their own enviornments instead of having those from halfway across the country being able to force their politics onto you.

The federal government would still matter, but not so much anymore, and their juristiction would be limited to constitutional rights issues and anything that crosses state/ national borders.

[Stormbringer]

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm just still puzzled at the string of non-sequiters.

Federalism places far more emphasis on the states. The federal government is rather limited and is expected not to be involved in people's personal lives. So it's really the states that matter.

The idea of federalism is that the higher you go, the less direct influence over an individual's life that part of government has. That is what allows people to control their own enviornments instead of having those from halfway across the country being able to force their politics onto you.

The federal government would still matter, but not so much anymore, and their juristiction would be limited to constitutional rights issues and anything that crosses state/ national borders.

Thanks for adding all those words to what I just said. It wouldn't have been windy enough with out them.

[Grendel]

Thanks for adding all those words to what I just said. It wouldn't have been windy enough with out them.

You're welcome.
The way I read it, your post came off as though we'd somehow be rendering the federal government "useless". I just wanted to make sure that wasn't you're intent.

Besides, the more verbose you are the less chance there is for misinterpretation.

[Stormbringer]

Thanks for adding all those words to what I just said. It wouldn't have been windy enough with out them.

You're welcome.
The way I read it, your post came off as though we'd somehow be rendering the federal government "useless". I just wanted to make sure that wasn't you're intent.

Besides, the more verbose you are the less chance there is for misinterpretation.

Not useless, but the scope of it was deliberately limited and that the states were emphasized as the basic governing unit. And the federal goverment certainly doesn't have any business at all passing "morals" laws.