The Demonization of States' Rights

[Mott the Hoople]

I too think the term "State Powers" is really more accurate and appropriate to their proper function, but that is not the language that is common in our country.

I don't know that rebranding itself will assist in spreading the idea of decentralization. People have to recognize the value of the idea on an individual level, no matter what it's called.

Adam, that argument was settled too. Before we had the US Constitution. It was called "The Articles of Confederation". Guess what? It didn't work. We found out we needed a strong central government. You think the central government is bad at eroding individulals liberties? Well you aint seen shit like the erosion of our rights and liberties that you would see with the kind of parochialism that always occurs when to much power is decentralized away to the States. Historically the Central Government has done a far superior job of safe guarding our civil liberties and rights then State Governments have done.

 

[Cypress]

The single most evident theme that runs through all this revisionist nonsense and state rights crapola is when Conservatives (far right republicans/ corportists/ wingnuts) lose power, they go bonkers. How many remember the same mood when Clinton won? Same thing - they spent millions investigating him every time he farted.


This BS isn't about states rights and too big federal government, it is about losing power. .

snip[/url]

That might be partly true, but the "states rights" mantra is also about race. There's no doubt about it. It's just an uncomfortable fact of history that is beyond dispute.

I don't doubt there's an infintesimally small group of college educated white dudes, who sit around sipping chardonnay, and concocting some benign theories of an egalitarian libertarian world of limited government and bootstraps. A world which has never really existed, and for which there's not a shred of evidence ever can, or will, exist.

But the fact is this "states rights" crap is code word, and it's linked to race and xenophobia. Why did Ron Paul attract the attention and support of Aryan Nation, the Klan, Stormfront, the Southern Citizen's Council, or whatever those fuckers call themselves? This isn't rocket science. The far-right libertarian brand attracts the aryans for the same reason the dixiecrats attracted the klan. And everyone know what the reason is. There's no way to put lipstick on a pig, and pretend this isn't reality. It's because states rights was and is code for keeping civil rights laws, the courts, and other communist institutions out of the business of southern states.


I agree that the national-security state and the confluence of government-corporations-and the military industrial complex is a grave threat to a democratic republic.

but, in reality, outside of the national security state, I have hardly any interaction with the federal government at all. And neither does anyone else. Outside of the national security state, There' s not a single person on the board who, in their day to day lives, experiences any interaction from the federal government. Other than old people who receive social security checks, or medicare, everything in our day to day lives is implmented at the state and local level.

The roads, the courts, the parks, the water systems, the electrical systems, the schools, the zoning laws, the property laws, the police, the fire service. 99.999% of everything that we interact with in the public domain is managed and implemented at the state and local level. Outside of the national security state (which I agree, needs to be dismantled), where exactly is this massive intrusion of federal government into our day to day lives? It isn't there. It's just a slogan, and a rhetorical device employed by the states rights crowd, and the crowd who want to do away with the New Deal, and return to the glory days of 1892.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Adam, that argument was settled too. Before we had the US Constitution. It was called "The Articles of Confederation". Guess what? It didn't work. We found out we needed a strong central government. You think the central government is bad at eroding individulals liberties? Well you aint seen shit like the erosion of our rights and liberties that you would see with the kind of parochialism that always occurs when to much power is decentralized away to the States. Historically the Central Government has done a far superior job of safe guarding our civil liberties and rights then State Governments have done.

We've already talked about this. Nobody is talking about doing away with the Federal government and its powers and responsibilities.

All we're asking for is Federalism.

I am just sick and tired of hearing these half-baked reasons why the Constitution is not good enough for America. If the Constitution isn't good enough, for goodness' sake, change it!

Why are we pretending that dismissing one article or section or amendment of the Constitution doesn't jeopardize the security of all the others? It is the Supreme Law of the Land, and it instructs us to have Federalism.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That might be partly true, but the "states rights" mantra is also about race. There's no doubt about it. It's just an uncomfortable fact of history that is beyond dispute.

I don't doubt there's an infintesimally small group of college educated white dudes, who sit around sipping chardonnay, and concocting some benign theories of an egalitarian libertarian world of limited government and bootstraps. A world which has never really existed, and for which there's not a shred of evidence ever can, or will, exist.

But the fact is this "states rights" crap is code word, and it's linked to race and xenophobia. Why did Ron Paul attract the attention and support of Aryan Nation, the Klan, Stormfront, the Southern Citizen's Council, or whatever those fuckers call themselves? This isn't rocket science. The far-right libertarian brand attracts the aryans for the same reason the dixiecrats attracted the klan. And everyone know what the reason is. There's no way to put lipstick on a pig, and pretend this isn't reality. It's because states rights was and is code for keeping civil rights laws, the courts, and other communist institutions out of the business of southern states.


I agree that the national-security state and the confluence of government-corporations-and the military industrial complex is a grave threat to a democratic republic.

but, in reality, outside of the national security state, I have hardly any interaction with the federal government at all. And neither does anyone else. Outside of the national security state, There' s not a single person on the board who, in their day to day lives, experiences any interaction from the federal government. Other than old people who receive social security checks, or medicare, everything in our day to day lives is implmented at the state and local level.

The roads, the courts, the parks, the water systems, the electrical systems, the schools, the zoning laws, the property laws, the police, the fire service. 99.999% of everything that we interact with in the public domain is managed and implemented at the state and local level. Outside of the national security state (which I agree, needs to be dismantled), where exactly is this massive intrusion of federal government into our day to day lives? It isn't there. It's just a slogan, and a rhetorical device employed by the states rights crowd, and the crowd who want to do away with the New Deal, and return to the glory days of 1892.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

The suggestion that only white, college-educated people care about Federalism is really paternalistic and central to the reason I started this discussion.

It's not a small number of people who care about these issues, and the vast majority are not motivated by bigotry. This kind of arrogance is why you're going to get your asses handed to you in November despite the fact that based solely on performance in office, the conservative movement in this country should be dead.

There are many people of color who care about liberty, limited government, and the Constitution, and they don't want to be told by white liberals what they have to believe.

You can't tell the next generation of this country what to believe. Identity politics might be the turf of the left, but there will be many new leaders of color who reject that station you want to assign for them, and I look forward to the day you have to look them in the eye and call them racists and bigots for defending the Constitution.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

We've already talked about this. Nobody is talking about doing away with the Federal government and its powers and responsibilities.

All we're asking for is Federalism.

I am just sick and tired of hearing these half-baked reasons why the Constitution is not good enough for America. If the Constitution isn't good enough, for goodness' sake, change it!

Why are we pretending that dismissing one article or section or amendment of the Constitution doesn't jeopardize the security of all the others? It is the Supreme Law of the Land, and it instructs us to have Federalism.

And conversely know one here is advocating expanding the power and influence of the central government or eliminating the States sovereignty.

What were concerned about is this niave point of view that your "written in stone" literalist interpretation of the Constitution? Isn't that what our courts are for?

I mean come on Adam. We exist now in a time of the greatest degree of personal freedom then has ever existed for the masses of people in human history. Sure we need to be vigilinte and gaurd those freedoms and our constitutional form of government but the surest way to wreck it is to form an unworkable and impracticable "If it aint completely spelled out by the Constitutions to our satisfaction you can't do that" purest ideology. Not only is it ideological extreme and niave but it doesnt' work!

The Constitution was meant to be a living, flexible, working and evolving frame work for a democratic republic to affectively govern. Why can't you see this? Why the ideological purity and intransigence?

 

[Adam Weinberg]

And conversely know one here is advocating expanding the power and influence of the central government or eliminating the States sovereignty.

This has been precisely what you're proposing. You can't have it both ways. Either you want the Federal government to expand in its responsibilities or you don't.

Either you want the Federal government to do whatever it wants when it suits you or you want the Federal government to adhere to specific rules in our contract with them...the Constitution.

You want the document flexible to the circumstances of the time so you can accomplish any new expansion you might desire at the time.

Does any contract you sign in your life just magically change with the times without an appropriate amendment or re-negotiation?

I am not being ideologically pure at all. I'm just defending the spirit of the law, if not the letter of it. The law means what it means. The Constitution is not the Bible. It's not up for such a diverse range of interpretations. We know who wrote it and why they wrote it.

We objectively know what regulating commerce means to the authors. We objectively know what general welfare means to the authors. We objectively know what they meant when they wrote "a well regulated militia".

These are not flexible statements meant to be corrupted for any contemporary political purpose, any more than calling torture enhanced interrogation techniques makes it not torture!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

This has been precisely what you're proposing. You can't have it both ways. Either you want the Federal government to expand in its responsibilities or you don't.

Either you want the Federal government to do whatever it wants when it suits you or you want the Federal government to adhere to specific rules in our contract with them...the Constitution.

You want the document flexible to the circumstances of the time so you can accomplish any new expansion you might desire at the time.

Does any contract you sign in your life just magically change with the times without an appropriate amendment or re-negotiation?

I am not being ideologically pure at all. I'm just defending the spirit of the law, if not the letter of it. The law means what it means. The Constitution is not the Bible. It's not up for such a diverse range of interpretations. We know who wrote it and why they wrote it.

We objectively know what regulating commerce means to the authors. We objectively know what general welfare means to the authors. We objectively know what they meant when they wrote "a well regulated militia".

These are not flexible statements meant to be corrupted for any contemporary political purpose, any more than calling torture enhanced interrogation techniques makes it not torture!

You just contradicted your self here Adam.

 

[Timshel]

I too think the term "State Powers" is really more accurate and appropriate to their proper function, but that is not the language that is common in our country.

I don't know that rebranding itself will assist in spreading the idea of decentralization. People have to recognize the value of the idea on an individual level, no matter what it's called.

I am not suggesting rebranding. I reject the term and the ideals it represented.

States rights is the brand chosen by racist and bigots to support something offensive to the rights of individuals. Our founders never spoke of states' rights. The phrase comes from the Civil War period and was advanced by people who had little concern with the proper division of power.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

You just contradicted your self here Adam.

You make a regular habit now of pointing out my contradictions without indicating where I have made them.

And you usually do so when you yourself want to have it both ways.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

I am not suggesting rebranding. I reject the term and the ideals it represented.

States rights is the brand chosen by racist and bigots to support something offensive to the rights of individuals. Our founders never spoke of states' rights. The phrase comes from the Civil War period and was advanced by people who had little concern with the proper division of power.

The phrase signifies an idea about division of power that is in our Constitution, however. And just because the means were used by the wrong people for the wrong reason does not mean it cannot be used by the right people for the right reason.

Especially since it requires no unjust expansion of power and only a proper division of it.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The Constitution was meant to be a living, flexible, working and evolving frame work for a democratic republic to affectively govern. Why can't you see this? Why the ideological purity and intransigence?

do you have any documentation from the framers of the constitution where they say that was what the constitution was supposed to be?

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Hey look, a brown person defending limited government:

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2010/01/31/top_stories/doc4b6654236d7ba971324119.txt

http://www.votepia.com

 

[midcan5]

The suggestion that only white, college-educated people care about Federalism is really paternalistic and central to the reason I started this discussion.

You can't be serious, the average minority is out there trying to find work. This federalism interest is pure BS since Obama won, where were you when Bush helped destroy the economy? I tired to find a black person in the tea party conference and could not find one. And I don't even think most white educated people care about federalism they care about who they dislike and that is the end of it. Behavior in this instance ain't related to diddlyshit.



"Regular Harper?s and Financial Times contributor Barry C. Lynn paints a genuinely alarming picture: most of our public debates about globalization, competitiveness, creative destruction, and risky finance are nothing more than a cover for the widespread consolidation of power in nearly every imaginable sector of the American economy.

Cornered strips the camouflage from the secret world of twenty-first-century monopolies—neofeudalist empires whose sheer size, vast resources, and immense political power enable them to control virtually every major industry in America in an increasingly authoritarian manner. He reveals how these massive juggernauts, which would have been illegal just thirty years ago, came into being, how they have destroyed or devoured their competition, and how they collude with one another to maintain their power and create the illusion of open, competitive markets."

remove space

h ttp://www.amazon.com/Cornered-Monopoly-Capitalism-Economics-Destruction/dp/0470186380/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266264782&sr=1-1

Here's a conservative who gets it.

Amazon.com: The Death of Conservatism (9781400068845): Sam Tanenhaus: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41SoJL9eqwL.@@AMEPARAM@@41SoJL9eqwL

 

[Adam Weinberg]

You can't be serious, the average minority is out there trying to find work.[/url]

I am serious, and thank you for your input, but the average ethnic minority, disparities and the difficulties of our time all considered, still has a job and economic interests to defend.

This is more of the same paternalism.

I don't know where you've been, but I wasn't exactly on the George W. Bush bandwagon, and I'm certainly not going to assist in your Obama cult of personality as he simply accelerates most of the same policies.

 

[midcan5]

I am serious, and thank you for your input, but the average ethnic minority, disparities and the difficulties of our time all considered, still has a job and economic interests to defend.

I'm not sure what that means, and I sure as heck ain't no Obama worshiper. I use him as avatar cause I know it irritates the wingnuts and he 80% better than McCain lol. He is much too tied to the establishment for my tastes, I had hoped he could really do change, and maybe he still will, but so far he is stuck in the rut called politics in America.

The republicans are out of power and now the government ceases to be about governance but about target practice and he is the biggest target. Evan Bayh's words further confirm my initial point, it ain't about federalism it is about power. Do you really think the tea party would have developed had McCain won? Nope!

 

[Minister of Truth]

Irony is midcan calling people wingnuts.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Do you really think the tea party would have developed had McCain won? Nope!

I agree with that statement, but not your statement that it is not about Federalism. The Tea Party movement is very much about the principles of its members.

There is no inherent connection from the Tea Party to the GOP. There are some Tea Partiers who even think they should be a third party.

So, John McCain and his ilk are not behind the Tea Party movement. The Republicans are not behind the Tea Party movement. It happens there are many, many, independent conservatives, libertarians, and Republican Party members involved in it now and some affiliates of the GOP are getting friendly to the Tea Party.

It is a third faction and it is a right of center movement, so it is being incorporated to some extent by the allegedly right of center party.

So is it about power? Unquestionably because the people involved want to organize the necessary power to reverse the current policies. But is it about power more than principle? Probably only to a select few who would like to use the Tea Party and are not interested in its basic goals.

Most of these people are genuine, and as much as they want to throw Obama out, they have a definite idea of what they want to replace him with, and it's not George W. Bush.