Federalism Has Shifted, is it time to shift back?
As an aside to an ongoing conversation that started at The Emancipator, moved here, and was redefined there, I’d like to continue in a different direction.
I certainly did not mean to simply “side step” the morality and ethical foundation of slavery…instead, I attempted to flat-out dive out of the way of it.
Over at The Emancipator, he is certainly correct about the differences between my described “pseudo-slaves” and actual slaves. I did not mean to downplay the horrible atrocities the happened; no, I meant to illustrate why the South could possibly want to hold onto an idea (slavery) that clearly violates all of the ethical boundaries that led to the establishment of this country.
If people fled their homelands, traveled thousands of miles by ship, all for freedom from religious oppression, how in the hell could anyone justify traveling thousands of miles by ship to enslave a people, then travel back here to systematically dehumanize, humiliate, and torture them? The answer, obviously, was these people did their best to ensure they didnt think of the Africans as “people” at all. How they managed to convince wholly 50% of a brand new country of this, I’ll never know. Yet it happened.
And why, after over a century, people still cling to one side or the other is still beyond me. Not having read the aforementioned book, I can still state, without hesitation, that there are far more people in the South trying to cling to the notion that they SHOULDN’T have lost, and their cause was just. Here, another mind-numbing idea.
Onto the subject of State’s rights. It was not my intention to use the term ’states rights’ as a euphemism for ’segregation’, as is commonly done. Instead, I want to contrast the need for States Rights in current times. Federalism, where states share governing power with a centralized government, is largely believed to be essential to ensuring human rights, as evidenced in the Civil War. Opponents who favor confederation, stronger states rights, and a weaker central government, generally have the view that an individual dissatisfied with one state can just pack up and move to another. Well, if you have the ability to do that, of course.
Largely, Federalism has worked, and it has been a back and forth pendulum of power between what the Feds can do and what the States can do. The primary concern about stronger Federal powers is two fold:
First, a centralized government is far removed from its people. While this has many real and perceived truths to it, the underlying perception is at its core. People tend to want a responsive state government, but with a federal government there as a safety net, a system of oversight.
Typically, federal distribution of funds to states is very efficient. Hell, they only have 50 states to worry about, as opposed to hundreds of thousands of residents. Think about tax refunds. Of course, e-filing and direct deposit has helped many people get their money more quickly…but not nearly everyone e-files and has a bank account for direct deposit. So disbursement of money that is rightfully yours takes weeks. Contrast this with homeless shelters, TANF programs, and other charities. Typically much faster. State aid is typically much faster than federal aid.
That being said, real problems arise in times where the infrastructure for this fast distribution is collapsed. The most recent illustration of this I can remember is Hurricane Katrina. While the states afflicted most certainly need the Federal collection and distribution of money, the bottleneck happens when the states can’t connect to its people. Unfortunately, the federal government is no more efficient than this, even in good times.
The second concern is checks and balances to centralized governmental powers. This is a fundamental crux of democracy…well the American version of democracy.
I have heard mention that the Fed’s should or shouldn’t be involved in this or that. But one subject seems to stir the pot quickly: Gay marriage.
Since this subject is not clearly defined in the American Constitution, the governing body that decides the outcome is also largely undefined. Thus raising the issue, again, of states rights.
Let’s suppose there were a national vote on gay marriage. And this vote would decide, once and for all, whether it’s legal or not. Well, just take a look at the polls recently, and you can pretty much see what a conflict we have. I don’t predict a clear winner in the argument. Now, we all know what happens when there isn’t a clear winner, right? If you get a 48% yea to a 51% nay, there is a winner; however, you’re going to be pissing off “nearly” half of the country…or at least half of the people that voted. There isn’t a clear majority.
This is an instance where it may be better, perhaps, to leave the issue to the states. If this vote happened in a single state, the actual number of the pissed off minority would be less than if we had the previous situation in a nation wide vote.
Flashing back to previous, the whole issue of “well if you don’t like it, then move” rears its ugly head again; however, in this situation, at least there would be somewhere to move to, instead of a nation wide vote resulting in the only option of moving to a whole other country.
I don’t pretend that I know an easy solution; in fact, my proposed solution has may drawbacks as well. I will, however, default to popular opinion (ahem, comment already, will ya?) to offer different ideas.