Two weeks ago I suggested that if those on the political Left wanted to retain some modicum of power and influence they should follow their Southern forefathers and embrace state’s rights. Apparently, some of them are starting to come to that same conclusion:
Having lost any say in how the nation is run, liberals may be about to discover states' rights -- for better or worse.
[snip]
Liberals have long opposed the growth of state power, and for good reason. The century's most significant clashes over federalism have been over civil rights, with the national government forcing the South to submit to desegregation. Since then, fights over everything from abortion to school prayer have pitted Northern liberals, who want to use the federal government to enforce individual rights, often in the face of hostile majorities, against Southern conservatives, who believe that communities should be free to set their own norms.
Now, though, it's liberal enclaves that feel threatened by the federal government, and who will likely need to muster states' rights arguments to protect themselves from Bush's domestic policies.Most significantly, the states may be the last line of defense for abortion rights. If Bush is able to appoint Supreme Court judges who overturn Roe vs. Wade, the abortion question will likely revert back to the states. If that happens, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, 30 states are poised to ban abortion. Almost undoubtedly, there would then be a push to make abortion illegal nationwide, which would leave pro-choice states relying on the doctrine of federalism, or states' rights, to defend themselves.
If you are intent on making sure that women can get abortions, you're going to lobby your state legislature," says Marci Hamilton, a constitutional law scholar at Benjamin Cardozo School of Law who argued the landmark 1997 federalism case, Boerne vs. Flores, before the Supreme Court. (That case invalidated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 law that exempted religious groups from some state and local ordinances.) "The decision to go to the state rather than the federal government is federalism."
Such an embrace of federalism would be opportunistic and even hypocritical. But that's nothing new. "It's all about power," says Hamilton. "That's the only criterion."
Indeed it is. Paradoxically, by losing the election the Blue state liberals may be able to implement more of their agenda than would have ever been possible under a Kerry administration. If a reversion to federalism – a measure long advocated on the Right -- really does catch on, it could be Bush’s greatest legacy -- and his most valuable gift to the Left.
See also: The Way of the Dixiecrats: How States’ Rights Can Save the Left
1
If a reversion to federalism – a measure long advocated on the Right
Well, it was advocated right up to the moment that they took control of the federal government, at which point federalism kinda got trampled in the mad rush to pass legislation they like (the D&X ban; Head Start; the law allowing cops to carry-and-conceal; etc.).
posted on 11.16.2004 8:27 AM2
As my sociopath brother (a card-carrying Concerned and Compassionate Democrat) always used to say:
"When you're In Power, you get to do Anything You Want. ANYTHING."
posted on 11.16.2004 11:53 AM3
I don't think it will happen. And by the way, neither party really favors "States' Rights." Not really, anyway. They think the states should have a right to override the federal government where they themselves disagree with the federal government, but will quickly use federal power to quash uppity states that do things they don't like. Need examples? Oregon's euthanasia law, California's medical marijuana law, Bush v. Gore 2000, etc. In all of these cases, the GOP (the "party of States' Rights") at least tried to use federal power to override a state doing something they didn't like.
posted on 11.16.2004 11:56 AM4
The scenario has plausibility; because it is true, historically, that as issues of great importance changed, and regional power waxed and waned, this or that region would muse with furrowed brow about "states' rights" and secession. So, if long-term trends hold, it's time for another round of that.
If it really were to happen, it is hardly only a boon to the LEFT. Movement Conservatives (I mean those who have a philosophical commitment to the movement, not those who happen to embrace this or that conservative position) will rejoice as well.
This is for several reasons. First, many, many Conservatives (along with Libertarians) see this sort of development as a good in itself, apart from any policy implications. (I am one of them.) Yes, I want all abortions outlawed. I am working toward that end. But I also believe in states' rights; and if I can win an abortion ban in my state, and help see that happen in many, even most, states, that is success, even if not "total" success.
Also, many of us believe in the "competitive advantage" of conservative policy. Thus, states' that tend to pursue big government and libertine policies will tend to suffer as a result, and states with more conservative policies will do better. We see this now in relative tax burdens, and issues such as "Right to Work" (laws making union dues voluntary rather than compulsory): states with more conservative economic policies such as these can point to more job creation and ability to weather downturns. At some point, Massachusetts has to notice what these other states do, if only to remain competitive.
Third, this would tend to attract people to various states based on their political, social and economic policy preferences. Thus, "red" states would tend to stay red, or get redder, and vice-versa. I suppose some would fret over such things, but what's so bad about this? If people who want civil unions, or gay marriage, can find a haven, is that so awful?
I agree with tgirsch in this: it's unlikely to happen; but only partly for the reason tgirsch cites. I think it's true that there are plenty of people "on the right" who would like to use big government as much as the "left" -- but that's not entirely the case. I think there would be genuine debate over this "on the right."
However, a larger reason it won't happen is that the left would be throwing in the towel on their great march "forward." While the Right is sometimes pro-big government, the Left almost always is. For them to recede to state power would be akin to how the papacy reacted to the loss of the Papal States. They may eventually embrace the idea, but not until there really is no alternative. And, despite Republican euphoria and Democratic depression at present, that is far, far from being the case now, or anytime soon.
posted on 11.16.2004 1:10 PM5
i presume my concurrence with the foregoing is the reason so few people have bothered to comment on this one.
indeed, national vs. local conflict will always be favored in a setting where national power is concentrated in a camp other than local power.
again, the blue staters, will CERTAINLY oppose federal authority for the near future.
what else would you expect from us?
the argument Joe seems to raise:
"Two weeks ago I suggested that if those on the political Left wanted to retain some modicum of power and influence they should follow their Southern forefathers and embrace state’s rights."
contains an unspoken alternative. namely, the left could make efforts to court moderates. that is, the left could soften its stance on gays (done by kerry this time) and abortion (god---again presuming such a figure exists--i hope not).
but, i agree that federalism is the natural conclusion.
red staters can't possibly expect blue staters are gonna compromise with them. from yesterdays debate, we base our views in principled value-rich head space, that we aren't likely to abandon any more easily than you do.
did you see this cnn artible:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/11/15/canadian.welcome.ap/index.html
essentially i describes a possible american exodus north, to escape from you people and your politics.
for those who read, good for you. for those who don't, the essential point is that Canada's immigration info site is getting an extra 100,000 hits per day since Nov 2, from IP addresses inside the states from cranky Americans who don't want to live with evangelicals, and others of their ilk.
posted on 11.16.2004 1:14 PM6
I'm sure you can find red state folks who will cheerfully help you pack some warm clothes, Doc.
In a few years when you are tired of regressive VAT taxation and the wonders of socialized health care, we may even welcome you back, if you've learned your lessons. :-)
You are quite right; if the left wants to court moderates, they will have to soften their stance on abortion. The current Democratic party is positively hostile to pro-life people. They are so insistent on "choice" that they cannot abide the thought that maybe abortion is a Bad Choice.
They will have to soften their stance on gay marriage. Yes, the candidates speak platitudes about "family values" but they use clear codes to indicate that the expressed will of the people should be subordinated to the whim of activist judges.
The will have to excommunicate George Soros and Michael Moore, and tell their buddies in the media to stop shilling for them.
IOW, they can attempt to rejoin the mainstream of America.
Or they can just bug out for the Great White North.
posted on 11.16.2004 2:48 PM7
They are so insistent on "choice" that they cannot abide the thought that maybe abortion is a Bad Choice.
Nah. This is a prima facie silly claim, so absent supporting evidence, I'll chalk it up to hyperbole.
Yes, the candidates speak platitudes about "family values" but they use clear codes to indicate that the expressed will of the people should be subordinated to the whim of activist judges.
See above.
posted on 11.16.2004 2:51 PM8
Sorry, forgot to add:
The will have to excommunicate George Soros and Michael Moore....
Nah. We just need to hide them more effectively the way the GOP does with Santorum.
posted on 11.16.2004 2:53 PM9
Joe,
I would say we have already had something of a preview of this in CA. It now has a Republican governor, after 62% of the State voted for previous governor's re-call. Granted, what ever party the guy came from, he would have been a terrible governor, but he also expanded government to new heights while CA was in a recession.
If the Left is going to take the path of States' rights, they will have to tread carefully, as State politics can get interesting from time to time. I expect to see at least a few spectacular failures of their part, if they go all out with this plan.
posted on 11.16.2004 3:03 PM10
joining mainstream america won't be necessary, not will auto-exile.
the reality is that the values your suggesting are so errant (gay policy and abortion policy) ARE the mainstream. true, not so here. but we'll always have Paris--and the rest of the developed world too for that matter.
example, Spain: catholic--very. also with a socialist government currently underfire from the church, but which enjoys 80% approval ratings. articles at www.zeit.de for those who can read german, or www.lemonde.fr for those who can read french. or www.nytimes.com for those who can read english and are willing to pay a subscription fee for information--the american way.
and, as for the costs of VAT and socialized medicine. i already bank at deutschebank because the euro has been whalloping the dollar in recent years, and i got tired of paying for banking. did you realize atm's in the states are free if you don't bank here. no buck fifty from me thanks.
and as far as healthcar goes: come on, doctors are rich enough. so, the questions really ought to be about quality. so, you ask, what value do we extract for the most expensive healthcare system in the history of the world?? well, in studies matching, life expectancy, child mortality, days missed from work/school, days in hospital the American health care comes in at #33 in the world--just below cuba.
www.nytimes.com
www.hsph.harvard.edu
www.who.int
www.worldbank.org
so, yea, I may very well move back to Berlin with my boyfriend (also a doctor) were our earning power will be at least as strong as it is here. and America is of course, cheapening itself everyday with it's deflating currency.
and it's promising economic doom as well. did you notice outsourcing? did you notice that our major industries are suffering because business need to pick up the cost of healthcare, and pensions.
i know you're looking for evidence. so, take the auto industry. on oct 21, 04 Market place section of the new york times (www.nytimes) you'll find an article in which GM is described as being crushed by foreign competitive products from, yes Germany, but also Japan where the costs of healthcare and pensions are built into the state. In America, GM is having a tough go of it because it must pay health care and pension to a hundred or so thousand people.
and shall we begin with education? true, doctors are paid well, but my education (200,000k) vs. my boyfriends education (O euro) are universally recognized as similar in quality (lots of germans here at Yale), but what is it costing us??
my arguments her are fundamentally functional. but Ameicans need to ask themselves if they're getting good return on their investments.
To me, at least, it doesn't look like it. Health, and Education are expensive (and not better). and our industries are being sunk by poor social policy. i'll admit outsourcing is going to be a problem for everybody in the first world.
but, as long as europe can keep abusing us (forgive me, liberal friends, it's true) by refusing to invest in military operations, and keep cheapening the cost of living for people, by investing their GDP in health, and schools, and commerce, then reversals in livability for Americans will keep shrinking.
you realize right that the generation of cheap europe where we back-packed in college ar gone?? these days, a strong euro brings loads of euro-trash (yes, my boyfriend is eurotrash--but we met in Congo during med school three years ago) to the states for similar expeditions, but we can't afford to travel like that anymore.
come on, you may not like gays, or abortions but they have a powerful moral argument on their side, and you guys and the republicans your installing are breaking the back of our children--mine's gonna be four this year. i want her to live somewhere safe, and with lots of opportunity. and i think that may be europe.
and how can it hurt her to speak english, french, and german (our household languages)??
posted on 11.16.2004 3:09 PM11
corrie:
You are quite right; if the left wants to court moderates, they will have to soften their stance on abortion.Probably, but not as much as you might think. Some 84% of Americans believe abortion should be legal at least in some circumstances, and something like 55% believe it should be legal in "most" circumstances. Many Democrats have already expressed support for late-term and partial-birth abortion bans given the appropriate health-related exceptions (the precise ones that O'Connor has called for in declaring previous bans unconstitutional), and these have been rejected by the GOP in favor of stricter-but-unconstitutional bans. Witness 108th Congress HR 809 as one such example.
They will have to soften their stance on gay marriage.Not really. The only difference in Kerry's position versus Bush's position was that Kerry didn't want to amend the constitution to explicitly forbid it. Neither man wanted to make it legal. And in time, I expect gay marriage to be about as controversial as interracial marriage is right now, i.e., not very.
The will have to excommunicate George Soros and Michael MooreWhy? The Right has no trouble surviving (even thriving) despite such hate-mongers as Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh. The Left can certainly survive Michael Moore.
IOW, they can attempt to rejoin the mainstream of America.See above on mainstream views of abortion. On issues like education, the environment, health care, fair trade, and (suddenly) fiscal responsibility, the mainstream of America is generally much closer to Democratic positions than it is to Republican ones. Even on tax cuts, the GOP isn't exactly mainstream. Given a choice between getting a tax cut and balancing the federal budget, Americans chose balancing the budget by better than a two-to-one margin. Which is why the GOP had to pretend that the tax cuts wouldn't result in deficits (i.e., they had to lie) in order to sell them.
This is why the GOP focused in on the one-two-punch boogeymen of gay marriage and terrorism fears this election cycle: to avoid having to address those issues where they're out of the mainstream.
posted on 11.16.2004 4:23 PM12
Flushing out my gay marriage point above, Kerry's position was the same as Dick Cheney's original stated position -- leave it to the states to decide. It was the GOP that wanted to use federalism to quash states' rights, as a reaction to Massachusetts' court decision.
posted on 11.16.2004 4:26 PM13
The Left can certainly survive Michael Moore.
posted on 11.16.2004 4:49 PM