Taking a page from Prager, I've already noted that big government makes for small citizens. Let us also note that government expansion exacerbates political divisions and sets citizen against citizen.
Suppose we get to the point where Washington bureaucrats dictate what types of cars and trucks will be manufactured. Then you can be sure that there will be more lobbying, more corruption and the buying of votes, more fighting. Or suppose the czars of Obamacare begin dictating how many cardiologists we need, how many gastroenterologists, etc. Do you think medical students, physicians, and their patients will take that lying down? Hell no, they will organize and fight and protest and lobby. They will be justified in doing so because of the constitutionally protected right to a redress of grievances.
Do you like contention and division? Then support bigger government. We are coming apart as a nation as Patrick J. Buchanan documents here. The rifts are deep and nasty. Polarization and demonization of the opponent are the order of the day. Do you want more of this? Then give government more say in your life. Do you want less? Then support limited government and federalism.
Federalism, roughly, is (i) a form of political organization in which governmental power is divided among a central government and various constituent governing entities such as states, counties, and cities; (ii) subject to the proviso that the central and constituent governments retain their separate identities and assigned duties. A government that is not a federation would allow for the central government to create and reorganize constituent governments at will and meddle in their affairs. Federalism is implied by the Tenth Amendment tothe U.S. Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Federalism would make for less contention, because people who love high taxes and liberal schemes could head for the People's Republic of Taxachusetts or the Left coast state of Californication, while the conservatively inclined who support gun rights and capital punishment could gravitate toward states like Texas.
The fact of the matter is that we do not agree on a large number of divisive, passion-inspiring issues (abortion, gun rights, capital punishment, wealth redistribution . . .) and we will never agree on them. These are not merely 'academic' issues since they directly affect the lives and livelihoods and liberties of people. And they are not easily resolved because they are rooted deep in fundamental worldview differences. When you violate a man's liberty, or mock his moral sense, or threaten to destroy his way of life, you are spoiling for a fight and you will get it.
Recognizing these facts, we must ask ourselves: How can we keep from tearing each other apart literally or figuratively? I am floating the suggestion that federalism and severe limitations on the reach of the central government are what we need. Example: Suppose Roe v. Wade is overturned and the question of the legality of abortion is returned to the states. Some states will make it legal, others illegal. This would be a modest step in the direction of mitigating the tensions between the warring camps. If abortion is a question for the states, then no federal monies could be allocated to the support of abortion. People who want to live in abortion states can move there; people who don't can move to states in which abortion is illegal.
Recent Comments