In America today, conservatism's one clear fault line, cutting across cultural and socioeconomic schisms, aligns conservatives based on their views about the relationship between government and its citizens.
On one side are born-again libertarians, like supporters of perpetual presidential candidate Ron Paul. Believing that governmental power and personal freedom are always and everywhere inversely related, born-again libertarians are hostile to government at all levels: national, regional and local. (And don't get them started about multinational entities like the IMF.)
On the other side of the line are federalist conservatives, by far the larger group, who are selective in their anti-government animus. Federalist conservatives, exemplified by Mitt Romney, don't hate all government. They fear and loath the federal government, which, in their view, can do nothing right, while they simultaneously favor, even wax nostalgic over, state and local governments, which, purely because of their smaller scale and proximity to individual citizens, can do no wrong.
This division is illustrated by the debate over President Obama's health care reform. To Democrats, health care is a national issue that can only be managed by forcing all providers, consumers, employers and third-party payers (insurance companies) into a single national market, with the feds creating uniform standards and policing all participants.
To born-again libertarians, any government mandate is anathema: citizens should be free both to forgo insurance and to suffer the consequences of their stupidity. (Ron Paul has been nothing if not consistent in this regard, saying during one presidential debate that hospitals should not be forced to rescue critically-ill citizens who opt not to purchase health insurance.)
Federalist conservatives also oppose the federal mandate -- the requirement that all citizens have insurance, whether individually or through their employers. However, their argument against it is not that government in general is without authority to force citizens to buy insurance, but that the federal government has no such power.
This is how Romney rationalizes his opposition to Obamacare with his authorship of "Romneycare" in Massachusetts, which, like the federal program, mandates citizen participation in the state-managed health care system. It is also the ideological tap dance of the Supreme Court's conservative justices.
They have questioned whether Congress infringes state sovereignty by dictating that citizens purchase medical insurance. By implication these same justices are saying -- and may, in fact, rule later this spring -- that, while the feds lack power to impose the disputed mandate, state governments do not. State governments, according to this view, may do whatever they wish in the healthcare arena.
The federalists' blind faith in state governments is naive in the extreme. Sixty-five years ago, this deference to state government, championed then by another Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, ignored the tenacity and insidiousness of racism in state legislatures and judiciaries (and not only in the South). Today, this faith ignores the corruption in state governments across the country.
By corruption, I don't mean the hard crimes of bribery and extortion -- although there's no shortage of those, as revealed again and again in undercover investigations mostly conducted, notably, by the FBI (not state and local police, who tend to look the other way). I'm referring to the soft corruption of legislators and regulators who are bought and paid for by special interest groups, which are able to operate openly and with impunity at the state level.
The truth is that state legislatures and regulatory agencies are sewers compared to Washington, D.C.; Washington is an Athenian idyll compared to Sacramento (or Albany, Trenton, Boston et al).
Washington may have the highest concentration of lobbyists in the world, but their comings and goings are observed by the largest concentration of national and international news media in the world. In Sacramento, by contrast, the press corps, never big in the best of times, has been decimated by cutbacks in staffing levels at all the major news organizations.
While special interests in Washington are well represented, well funded and not shy about wielding influence in the legislative process, they are also held in check by competing special interests. The predations of Wall Street investment banks are countered by Main Street banking interests. Hollywood's campaign for laws to stop online movie-pirating is offset by the high-tech industry's fear of increased regulation of the internet. Big Pharma is neutralized by generic drug manufacturers. Health insurers, forever seeking higher rates, are blocked by Fortune 500 corporations that have to pay their policy premiums.
At the state level, however, entrenched special interests always prevail because they stand to gain more from a given change in the law than the costs imposed on any competing special interests -- the costs, at the level of a single state, are dispersed too broadly to generate effective opposition, even though those costs, cumulatively, may be crippling to the state.
This is why public employee pensions in California and other states are unsustainable, while pensions for federal employees are not. This is why prison guards, public school teachers, insurance companies, police and trial lawyers are able to dictate their legislative agendas in Sacramento and other state capitols, but have have far, far less clout at the federal level.
Federalist conservatives love shifting power from the federal government to states because they believe that the closer government is to its citizens, the more responsive it is to those citizens. They could not be more wrong. In today's America, the closer government is to its citizens, the more responsive it is to special interests (and indifferent to citizens' interests).
=====
Peter Scheer, a lawyer, is executive director of the First Amendment Coalition (FAC). The views expressed here are his alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of FAC's Board of Directors.
Follow Peter Scheer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/1stamendmnt
Robin Koerner: It's Romney's to Lose: Here's How He Does It
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld5tERIBvsg
You will NEVER see this in the MSM..Get some street smarts folks....
Ron Paul on the other hand, is what you should call a "statesman", born again libertarian smacks of prejudice against religion, and too much love for big government. Ron is a true believer in the constitution and the restrictions it puts on the Federal government, that big government federalists hate oh so much. He also believes that the states have been enumerated the remaining powers that the federal government is restricted from controlling.
There you have it. A proper definition of terms, that may help to better guide your readers. No need to thank me!
While I agree that ANY level of government is susceptible to corruption, local governments ARE more accountable to the people. It is much easier geographically and procedurally to approach local government officials. You can also have special elections, file petitions and get measures on the ballot. You cannot do this at the Federal level. Possibly the most important is that local governments to not have the power of the purse as the federal government does. A state cannot print its own money out of thin air, it must either tax or borrow.
California is a deep blue state, which suggests its voters tend to be progressive. Texas is a deep red state suggesting it's fairly conservative. Having one federal government dictating 1 size fits all policy is just wrong. A majority in a state and/or a municipality should have the ability to determine its own fate within the constraints of the Constitution.
Maybe voters need to change and organize around local issues. The gridlock at the federal level necessitates this approach.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a6bQVsZS2_18
The BEST place to foster crony capitalism and maximize corruption based profits is at the Senate and House of Representatives; basically another "Trickle down" gimmick...
Google, Verizon, Boeing, GE, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, etc, etc, etc pay no tax.....Yet the Federal Goverment does NOTHING to change this; and says my "entitlement" to Social Security cannot be afforded.....THAT WAS MY $$$ AND THAT OF MY EMPLOYER that went into Decades of contribution solely for the reason to allow "pilfering" by the Federal Government..do the math of 7% of your salary contributed and matched by your employer over your lifetime; and even at a menial 4% compound iterest figure see what you should have after even 30years of employment at a steady $30K per year....The amount will STAGGER you .....What about all the folk that died before age 65? Did that $$ get returned to "We the People"..Of course not...It was looted and robbed by lobbyist bribed Federal politicians.....Please explain how this strategy can "protect masses of people"
However, most Republicans are not political intellectuals. In fact, Republicans have a noted anti-intellectual attitude that undercuts the premise of this argument. The public mindset of Republicans is much simpler: Republicans *like* government that enforces what they want, and they *dislike* government that enforces anything else. They don't care whether they get what they want from the federal, state, or local level; They don't care how much it costs; They don't care about unintended consequences or collateral damage. Most Republicans are anti-government because they see government providing services they dislike for people they dislike, therefore they think governance and spending is bad. But if the Republicans were to take control of the government (as we can see historically), they will govern with draconian intensity and spend money with wild abandon, and they will think that is good.
The intellectual divide exists, but the problem here is attitude, not intellect.
It is a ridiculous exaggeration to say that conservatives have a “blind faith” in state government because they believe (with just cause) that the federal government is limited in what it can do by the constitution. Your implication that conservatives aren’t apprehensive of state and local government or that they accept every facet of them is absurd.
It is an obvious conclusion that government at all levels has its share of corruption but it amounts to a mere assumption that it is worse at the state level. Your example comparisons of pensions and various groups dictating “their legislative agendas” is more appropriately called lobbying, rather than corruption, and of course they are more prevalent at the state level because that is where a majority of the laws and regulations pertaining to their agenda are made.
I disagree that there is a bright line between 'lobbying' and corruption. There can be no doubt that the Repubican Party is 100% owned by big business. If big business didn't spend so much money keeping them in office, they might take into account the interests of the working class. That's pretty close to corruption - trading their votes for the privilege of staying in office.
For examples look to Wisconsin, FL and Ohio as examples of how corporate-owned state governors behave....even when the majorities oppose their policies
Dude. People masquerading as federalist conservatives love to trot out a story line in which they claim that they love shifting power from the federal government. Bush said he was a "federalist conservative"--did he reduce the federal government's power in any way? "No Child Left Behind" actually represented a vastly increased assertion of the federal government's power.
These guys, and there's a million of them, these guys who write these scholarly things like this article are paying attention to a lot of theoretical academic mumbo jumbo and are paying absolutely no attention to what's really happening. Republicans aren't "federalist conservatives"--not ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM (excepting Ron Paul, and ONLY Ron Paul). They are corporatist tyrants who increase the breadth and reach and power of the federal government, and it's size, and it's expenditures, whenever they are given the chance. And SO ARE THE DEMOCRATS.
I wish one of these scholarly guys would start writing about the actual USA and stop jerking us around with more of this nonsense in which our politicians EVER act in accord with their rhetoric. Democrats don't act in accord with their rhetoric, and neither do Republicans.
The original Federalists, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Adams, were advocates for a strong federal government. Heck, Hamilton advocated for a monarchy instead of a republic.
The states and local governments were more concerned about donations, jobs, and "hurting industry", so they did nothing.
Better said, they were cowed into doing nothing.
Last night I got a shock, though. Exxon-Mobile is apparently too big to respond to the United States.
Our movies worry about SkyNet when they should be worried about global corporations. They have the power to make or break any country.
Including the US.