Only Federalism Can Unify the Party

"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

- United States Associate Justice Louis Brandeis

Our Founding Fathers understood one truth about political philosophy: To find common ground is sometimes impossible.  When disagreement between political opponents rests on fundamental ideological principles, one side must forfeit its core beliefs in the name of unity, or suffer defeat.  Consequently, to unify a young nation without engaging in an immediate civil war, the framers of the Constitution set up a system of Federalism that has since been abandoned by both political parties to America's detriment.

Federalism is the system of dividing government and political power between the States and the Federal government.  This form of decentralization guaranteed by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution ensures that regardless of which ideology achieves power at the federal level, it would not be granted monopolistic tyranny over minority views.

Although Justice Brandeis' famous quote has been cited several times over the last few decades, the Republican Party, the Party that could benefit the most from its implementation, has abandoned its principles.

Since Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party has doubled down on remaking the federal government in its own image.  It went from a Party that advocated local control over education and accountability, to using Jimmy Carter's Department of Education to create a "conservative" federal program called No Child Left Behind.  It went from a Party that advocated individual states experimenting with social policy to creating its own national healthcare agenda.  It went from a Party that wanted to keep the government off the citizens' backs to one that prevented states from individually legalizing medical marijuana and online gambling.  These are just a few examples.

The greatness of Federalism is that States can freely experiment with public policy without significant political difficulty.  Subsequently, if the ideas prevail, other states in the Union can mimic them.  If the ideas fail, individuals can "vote with their feet" and leave.  Conversely, if ideas crash at the federal level, our entire Country experiences a disaster rather than it being a localized phenomenon.

The liberty offered from Federalism is precisely why it is the only way to save the Republican Party.  The bottom line is that certain ideological factions, libertarians and social conservatives for example, may argue with one another until the end of time without agreement.  While they are struggling for control of a weakened Party, the Democrats will continue to prevail.  This avenue is no solution to our Country's problems.

Instead of continuing down this road, the only way to unify the several factions that have traditionally voted Republican is to allow each other to have local and State control of public policy.

Not only are there political differences between libertarians and social conservatives, but also there are cultural differences between different regions of the Country.

We need to face the facts that people like David Brooks and David Frum, Washington establishment pundits, have virtually nothing in common culturally with Ted Nugent.  Moreover, San Francisco has few cultural similarities to Montgomery, Alabama.  This is not a moral judgment; it is just a reality that we need to accept.

The great irony is that if the Republican Party adopts Federalism as a major goal of its Party platform, it will appeal to people across the political spectrum, even some Democrats.  The reason is obvious: Federalism offers the individual more control over his or her life.  The only tradeoff is that one must allow someone from across the Country to have that same liberty.

Over the last few weeks, numerous pundits have argued over who is going to control the Republican Party, and what type of "rebranding" is necessary.  This is never going to work.  What the Republican Party needs to do is to offer all factions the opportunity to unite around the ideals of Federalism.

Lastly, it must be noted that the term, "States' Rights" has a pejorative connotation gained from the era of Jim Crow Laws.  This may explain why Republicans recently have abandoned the policy for fear of being labeled a racist.  Nevertheless, fear that an ignorant few could engage in an ad hominem attack is no reason to avoid educating the masses of your true laudable intentions.

In fact, those who accuse States' Rights for being code word for racism ignore how Federalism was used to protect slaves.  For example, when the Federal Government passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which required the return of runaway slaves to the South, the northern states passed their own "personal liberty laws" to make it extremely difficult for the oppressive federal law being enforced. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Law_of_1850).

It should also be noted that those who charge States' Rights proponents of being racist never have an argument for why many of the northern states outlawed slavery at a time when the majority of the Country as a whole was prejudice against Blacks.

In conclusion, the Republican Party has only one option to avoid being swept into the dustbin of history.  It must offer a solution to empower the masses to take control over their own lives.  For the same reasons that the Founding Fathers did in the past, the Republican Party must unite around Federalism.   Do not forget that unity via a decentralized government is why we are called the United States in the first place.
 
Devil's Advocate
Editorialist
Copious Dissent - Your Daily Dose of Liberty
http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com

 

 

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Comments

A Flaw in Your Logic

While I agree that Federalism has a great deal to offer conservatives, I think your argument when it comes to slavery is flawed.

Yes, northern states were able to pass laws (that in some cases weren't enforced) making it more difficult for slave owners to kidnap and return their slaves to a state of bondage.  But those southern states were still able to have laws allowing slavery. 

Federalism would work beautifully if we all agreed on what kinds of inalienable rights we have.  Since we disagree, however, we expect the federal government to be the "decider".  After all, we don't want to see half of our country denying human or inalienable rights to our fellow Americans, right?

I agree

At least on the issue of abortion, you can't have 50 different views on whether or not someone deserves the right to life.

But on issues like education I agree with the author that the Federal gov't should keep out.

 

What do you think was the case....

Pre Roe v. Wade?

 

Before Roe v. Wade, each State set their own laws on abortion.  If Roe v. Wade were overturned, that is what would happen.

the main problem i see with letting everyone set their own laws

is that you would have runaways, from places where you must give parental notification.

That Was the law

That was the law in this Country before Roe v. Wade and would be the law if Roe v Wade were overturrned.

guess I'd campaign against it.

*snort* I'm glad I don't live in a ruby state.

Campaign against what?

Campaign against what?  What is it that you are against or for?

parental notification.

not against federalism, unlike the 'first dude'.

Well, explain what you are for or against

It gets easier if you make a clear argument to let me know what you are for or against.

That was also...

The way this Country was founded.  Read the 10th Amendment.  We have different death penalty laws, different property laws, different murder laws, etc.

gotta love Louisiana's laws, eh?

seriously, I do think that some diversity is good. but not when it would cause manifest harm to families that would be hard to undo.

then again, i'm about the closest thing you'll ever see to pro abortion (I prefer that to infanticide, which I also see as morally justifiable under certain narrow circumstances);

I still don't know what you are for or against

You didn't say anything.  Tell me what your argument is.  What is you concern, and what is your position?

That doesn't make it good law

When states trample on Individual rights (or allow for others to), the federal gov't should get involved, like they did with the 13th amendment.

And what do you mean right to life?

Federal Murder laws are a recent phenomenon.

Most murder cases are State law.

 

Moreover, the enumerated constitutional powers is superior to the States.

I'm not against Amendments

We have a 13th Amendment.

Nothing Gets Me More Upset than...

Uniformed Conservatives.  (This is a response to the first comment)

 

The thirteenth amendment my friend.  The thirteenth amendment.

OK, good framework...

Now, how do you translate it into policy. Give me five simple, easy-to-explain policy stances that a 2010 GOP house or senate candidate can push for which would be federalist, and which are different than what the GOP stands for now. What is the federalist agenda, and how will it be achieved politically.

And I hear you on the pro-life issue: as a pro-life conservative I'm completely confident that we'll do far more to reduce abortions with fifty democratic statewide debates rather than one nationwide debate dominated by the courts ( can't fathom any true Libertarian actually supporting the maintenance of Roe, which is a huge government intrusion into state prerogatives).

roe needs to be rewritten

horrid decision. everyone hates it.

but I still like the sentiment -- keep the government out of my medical decisions! which is pure libertarianism.

I can be a libertarian without favoring a strong federalist system (though i do like federalism)

Roe needs to be OVERTURNED

You dont 'rewrite' bad SCOTUS decisions, you either affirm them down the road or you overturn them.

Roe is at this point so outdated from medical reality, so unmoored to proper constitutional textual understanding, and dangerous and poisonous to a proper understanding of our rights, that overturning it is the only sane thing to do.

Alas, Obama's appointments will be litmus-tested in the direction of judicial activism of the worst sort and wont do that.

We've just gotten locked in to further years of bad court decisions.

Here they are:

1) Abolish Jimmy Carter's Department of Education. Local communities should have control over their education policy. Federal bureaucrats are unaccountable and the average person has no access to them;

2) Abolish the ATF and DEA;

3) Abolish all Federal subsidies of any kind;

4) Abolish the department of energy. We don't want Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid setting energy policy; and

5) Earmark reform. All earmarks must be accompanied by the following language: "I 'Sponsoring Congressman's name' believe this money going to my home district is more important than paying off the national debt"

 

This has an "indirect" way of forcing States to set their own policies.

Uninformed Conservatives

How am I an uninformed conservative?  The example you provide pre-dates the 13th Amendment by a decade and a half, yet you simply throwing out the phrase "Thirteenth Amendment, my friend, Thirteenth Amendment" is somehow supposed to refute me?

My intention wasn't to embarrass, but to simply point out a flaw in logic.  Despite your invocation of a constitutional amendment passed 15 years after the Fugitive Slave Act, the flaw still remains.

That doesn't mean your argument is without merit, but I would find another example that actually proves your point, rather than one that demonstrates a problem some have with Federalism.

Give us a more recent example

Than an issue that was settled in the 1860s.

Yes, fundamental issues are decided at the national level. Federalism is NOT "do-nothing-ism".

But many matters, like education, would benefit from the Federalist approach of seeing what works and what doesnt work in 50 states and following the best approaches. Education is not a matter of fundamental human rights like ending slavery is.

The challenge is on YOU to "find another example that actually proves your point".