This week this blog will be discussing the concept of conservative government which centers on the notion of states' rights over federal authority, and why it leads to more prosperous and harmonious society.
In the last four years we have begun see a great deepening
of the natural rift between men both on a political and sociological level that
is unprecedented. While most have lamented that Barack Obama is most divisive
President in US history, good argument can be made that there are much deeper
reasons to the increasing level of violence, angst and general unrest in the
nation.
Accusations that the President has directly contributed to
this national rage are somewhat true. He has fanned the flames of wealth envy
and race hatred in an effort to ‘divide and conquer’ politically. The
supporters of the President have accused people that are opposed to his
policies as racially motivated—any direct challenge to his actions are termed racists
by many on the left. The President’s ideology of increasing taxes on wealthier
citizens and then redistributing the wealth down to the lower classes through
both direct entitlements and corporate re-regulation has also been a major
factor in unrest, as corporate interests dug in their heels and laid off
workers and cut benefits in order to maintain margins.
The real division, however, has come from a long standing
and well known cause of civil strife that has largely gone unnoticed in the
modern era. This is the concept known as ‘federalization’, or an increase in
federal powers over the powers of individual states rights. During the
development of our nation and the writing of the Constitution in 1787, the
founders understood this risk well, and strove to achieve a balance by the
concept of ‘citizen-states’ who would join together for the common good for
such things as national defense and commerce.
This concept of federal vs. states’ rights is what gave us
the two party systems today, and was the central revolving point around which
our nation was built. Should we be one nation under one government, or a
confederacy of individual states?
It was Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe that were strong
proponents of states’ rights over the ideals of Alexander Hamilton’s and James
Madison’s Federalist ideal. Yet, even
Hamilton recognized the need for state sovereignty in order to maintain balance
in government and to keep the peace between the states. Hamilton on the issue of state sovereignty:
The proposed
Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes
them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct
representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive
and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in
every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.- Alexander
Hamilton, 1787.
As our government today exerts more authority directly from
the federal government, and more power is consolidated in the bureaucracy under
the power of the White House, more and more citizens are forced to live under a
national standard of law, rather than the natural and historical tradition of
differences between the states. This has ultimately led to more people being dissatisfied
with their government, and commerce less able to play the field economically. Many
businesses now use overseas labor rather than simply relocate to another state because
federalization of the economy has also hindered the natural competitiveness
between the states.
The net result of the massive federalization of laws and
economy thus has led to a break with the original intent of a unionized
confederacy of states—the concept of individual rights under localized
protections. Hamilton again:
Except as to the
rule of appointment, the United States has an indefinite discretion to make
requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by
regulations extending to the individual citizens of America. The consequence of
this is that though in theory their resolutions concerning those objects are
laws constitutionally binding on the members of the Union, yet in practice they
are mere recommendations which the States observe or disregard at their option.-Alexander
Hamilton, 1787
Even Federalist Hamilton recognized the need for local and
state superiority of law. Had controversial topics such as abortion, environmental
law, health care, and other subjects, been left to state jurisdiction, the citizenry
would be far less hostile to the policies of Barack Obama and indeed to each
other.
The concept of Progressivism, and centralizing power in the
federal state is a grave threat to the harmony of this nation, and why the fundamental
strength and argument of Conservatism has been lost in all the rhetoric.
America needs to get back to basics, and listen to the words
of our forebears and their enlightened wisdom.