[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Federal Liposuction (click to view)
Date: January 8, 2011
One of the great rallying cries of conservative Republicans — and Tea Party Republicans in particular — is that everything that's wrong with America could be easily fixed if we would just devolve more political power back to the states, and away from the federalies in Washington. As the partisan climate gets more polarized and frantic, it's a belief that is starting to manifest in some truly bizarre ways, such as the increasingly popular conspiracy theory that the 10th Amendment secretly gives state governments the secret power to veto federal legislation, or the disturbingly high levels of support in some right-wing circles for repealing the 17th Amendment, and letting state governments — rather than voters — appoint senators.

Rabid support for "states' rights" is fine if one is a localist, and would prefer to be governed by people who best know and understand the particularities of his region. But it's not a position that is fundamentally conservative by nature, and certainly not one that inherently favors a smaller, more frugal style of government.

As Slate's Dahlia Lithwick points out in this great article on federalism, there is no direct line connecting "increased state power" to "greater individual freedom." Because of our old friend the 10th Amendment, which stipulates that all powers not granted to the feds is given to the states, many state constitutions are these vast, unwieldy documents regulating everything from parking lots to mosquito control. Some have amendments numbering into the hundreds, with more being added each year, as legislators and lobbyists fall in love with all sorts of faddish causes and short-term schemes. Indeed, Lithwick notes, since state power is virtually limitless in scope and reach, the majority of day-to-day government regulation in your life devolves directly from the actions of your state capitol — not D.C.

Likewise, no matter how conservative you may be personally, there's no guarantee that your state government will be more restrained and thrifty than the national Congress. Though state Republicans tend to be more conservative than national ones, the same is true of the liberalism of Democrats, which is greatly inflated in places like New England or California. We be to any right-winger living under a newly-empowered state government in one of those regions.

Now, there are times when the principles of federalism deserve a robust defense, and there are clearly many matter where state (or county or city) governments are better suited to address certain local issues than the comparatively out-of-touch, higher-up branches. But conservatives are doing themselves no favors when they cling to the polite fiction that the states will always do everything better, all the time.

Government will always deserve a healthy dose of scepticism and distrust, no matter how close to the people it is.

[Murray_Smith]

Newsbot wrote:

Likewise, no matter how conservative you may be personally, there's no guarantee that your state government will be more restrained and thrifty than the national Congress. Though state Republicans tend to be more conservative than national ones, the same is true of the liberalism of Democrats, which is greatly inflated in places like New England or California. Woe be to any right-winger living under a newly-empowered state government in one of those regions.

Fixed.

Otherwise spot-on. California's legislature is liberal to the point of idiocy. I might start trusting it after the non-gerrymandered elections next year, but right now, we would be better off with a bunch of teenagers running things. And there is no such thing as a smart teenager.

[Ted223]

Murray_Smith wrote:

Otherwise spot-on. California's legislature is liberal to the point of idiocy. I might start trusting it after the non-gerrymandered elections next year, but right now, we would be better off with a bunch of teenagers running things. And there is no such thing as a smart teenager.

That's the point of federalism though, if California is being too liberal, you can just move to another state. It is much easier than moving to a new country. Rather than have the entire nation sway one way or the other, the states can do their own thing, and every place on the Liberal to Conservative spectrum will be practiced in a state somewhere. So that if California is too liberal, and Texas is too conservative, maybe try Florida, and so on. It allows you to, ultimately, vote with your feet, which is the most powerful vote a person can cast to a government.

[Psudo]

The Articles of Confederation era obviously lacked some needed centralization of power. In the Federalist/Republican era immediately following ratification of the US Constitution, I still sway more strongly toward the Federalist view. But at some point the Federal government became so large and powerful that not only did it attract the most ambitious (best) talents of all the states, it also pushed state governments into ineffectual obscurity.

I believe the 1800s had the best balance of state vs. federal rights. Before the 17th Amendment, state interests could compete with the big political parties' interests, mitigating any particular interest's control of the Fed. By eliminating that competition, the 17th made it all about the parties. Sure, it took a lot of time for us to change a century of political habits (and to build the technology to ensure party consistency across 3000 miles of territory). That's what has given us our sharp us-vs-them party division and the cutthroat competition for party followers that has increasingly dominated our political landscape. People have always been just as angry and partisan, but there were more division of interests and, thus, less significance to each interest. Everyone was a minority, everyone had to play along to form majorities. We don't have to anymore; in fact, it's politically expedient not to.

For large populations, motivation virtually ensures outcome.