Posted by
Andrews on Sunday, February 10, 2008 1:06:16 PM
I have a simple analogy that may help show the benefits of federalism.
In the past, when arguing with those who supported a UN-led "one world" government I made a simple argument. Currently, there are two-hundred plus nations. If you live in a nation and the government changes to something you find detestable, you can always flee. You may have to do so illegally, you may have to seek asylum in another nation, you may need to be smuggled, but you still have the hope that somewhere better exists. If we impose a single government on the whole world, where do you flee when it turns bad?
I think the same can be said of federalism.
Right now, there are many matters which the federal government sees as its sole province. For example, states have very little leeway in deciding questions about drugs or abortion, those policies are set almost entirely by the federal government, and if you don't like the policy, you have no choice. That is the reason these matters become so acrimonious, as there is a single policy and it is a winner-takes-all debate. If you want abortion illegal, you need to win on the federal level or you have nothing.
If we were to adopt true federalism, with the federal government solely responsible for national defense, foreign affairs, removing trade barriers between the states, and providing courts to settle civil disputes crossing state lines, we would have a quite different situation. If your state passed laws with which you disagree, you could remain within the United States, but move to a state with a more congenial set of laws.
In addition, the arguments over these matters will not be quite as nasty as they are today. When there is only one arena for conflict, and the battle is win-or-lose, with only one side emerging victorious, of course the sides will become quite polarized and see each other in a very negative light.
With federalism, there will be 50 arenas for settling disputes, and 50 different winners and losers. The battle will no longer be a single all-or-nothing conflict, but a back and forth as various states shift from one side to the other. In short, it will once again set up a situation where the two sides can slowly influence the public, winning or losing some states, and, best of all, where the outcomes in various states can be compared to provide weight to the arguments of one side or the other.
In short, by returning these decisions to the states, we callow people to vote with their feet. But we also allow for a more responsive government. Just as a UN-led one world government would be so huge that any individual would have little hope of changing anything, a national government is much less responsive to the average voter than a state or even local government is. The more decentralized governmental powers are, the shorter distance one has to move to find an acceptable set of laws, and also the more power a single voice has in setting policy.
So, if someone starts to say that true federalism is outdated, or is an idea that is no longer workable, point out that if federalism is not valid, then there is equally no argument against a world government, as both federalism and national sovereignty rest on the same principles, that government is best when decentralized and local.
-------------------------------------------------------
Note: I have written on this topic before, and would normally link those articles in this one. However, Townhall's blogs are having their usually server issues today, so I cannot find the links for the articles I hoped to link. Once the "no nodes" message goes away I will return and provide links for the relevant earlier articles on federalism.
UPDATED 02/10/2008
As soon as I wrote the above, the blogs began working again. So here are the links to the relevant articles:
A New Record (Partly on taxation, partly on federalism)
What We Need (My main essay on federalism)
Why I Am Not A Libertarian (Why top-down imposition of libertarianism won't work)
Standing By My Principles (Mainly on drug laws and federalism)
Corrected 02/17/2008 - The first link in the list above was to the wrong post.