Violence or Federalism Are Increasingly the Only Options

Federalism is not a cure all. It is not a panacea. But it sure beats Americans turning violently against each other.

The political left is quite upset now that the Senate is deeply unrepresentative of the mob. Our founders chose the House of Representatives to be that house of Congress that represents the people. But the Senate represents the states. Under our constitution and history, the states matter. They are not semi-autonomous subdivisions of Washington, but are actually sovereign states with powers not replicated in Washington. And they also cannot lose their Senate representation.

The only portion of the entire United States Constitution that cannot be amended is the portion related to the make up of the Senate. Each state gets two senators and no amendment to the constitution can affect that representation unless the state losing its senators agrees.

So if the left is truly, genuinely upset about this they can either push for some sort of revolution, which will undoubtedly turn violent, or they can embrace federalism.

Instead of trying to find one size fits all solutions for culture issues, economic issues, etc., truly let the states be the laboratories of democracy. The whole reason the left is in meltdown over Kavanaugh is because they have spent more than a generation using the federal courts to take away power from state legislatures to make democratic decisions. As the left has declared a particular issue a right, it has found activist judges to read that right into the fourteenth amendment. The right responded by systematically putting judges on the bench unwilling to divine new rights that were never intended by the founders or its amenders to be there.

The right, for now, is ahead in the game. That will not last forever. But in the meantime, instead of turning to violence, both sides should really work to embrace our differences and embrace federalism. It is not a cure all. It will not solve every problem. But if we can let California be California and Texas be Texas without calls for economic boycotts of those states and people with which we disagree, we can probably keep a good thing going for another century and put off or stop altogether the violence that more and more people seem to think is going to happen.

Comments
No. 1-19
californiarepublik
californiarepublik

im a Californian leftist and i strongly agree with you Erick. i think its been one of the key mistakes of the US left to try and force more conservative parts of the country to follow the diktat of the central govt, this is what has led us to where we are today. Fortunately the US has the Federal/state division that we ought to be able to fall back on to defuse things, let's hope for leaders that can help us negotiate this transition effectively without letting current tensions get further inflamed.

Paul1719
Paul1719

The best way to reestablish federalism is to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the election of U.S. Senators to state legislatures as the Founders intended. Senators used to be primarily advocates for their states' interests in Congress until that amendment was ratified; now, they are subject to the same public pressures that are members of the House - and, I believe that's to the detriment of the states whose interests they were originally intended to represent.

DavidMKern
DavidMKern

It would be great if our country could have mainstream news programs that presented unbiased facts with clearly separated opinion segments. But the reality of the political divide in America is that the mainstream news sources are propaganda dominated because the progressive left has their ears shut and they scream at the top of their lungs to avoid hearing anything but leftist propaganda. Consequently, even the mild mannered abortion-supporting, Dr-Ford friendly speech of Senator Collins is classified as being worthy of death threats for its right-wing extremism.

In contrast, people who follow right-wing websites and talk radio programs are typically knowledgeable about the views of the progressive left, because that is what political commentators on the political right discuss and debate. The talking points of Democratic party spokesmen as well as the raging outbursts of Hollywood celebrities are not missing from the political knowledge of typical right wing conservatives. But how many people in the progressive left mobs know anything about what Erick believes, or take the time to read any conservative articles, or listen to a talk-radio show, or watch Fox News? If the news sources you place your trust in serve only propaganda, that is what you will believe.

I am not an opponent of Federalism, as that is clearly what the US Constitution supports. But if one looks past the Kavanugh outrage over abortion, it is obvious that the real issue driving the puppet masters behind the progressive left mobs is that Kavanaugh supports the US Constitution, while they wish to subvert the US Constitution. To paraphrase Jesus advice, if your eye or your right hand causes you to sin, it would be better to cut off these vital body parts, then end up in hell because of them. On that basis, if the progressive left enclaves insist on subverting the Constitution, and reject Federalism, the best choice may be to let them peacefully leave what used to be the United States.

jdelaney3
jdelaney3

With Lincoln's victory over the South in 1865, the foundational doctrine of dual federal-state sovereignty effectively ended. With the 17th Amendment, passage of which was fervently supported by big government Progressives, state sovereignty disappeared altogether. In truth, states have been reduced to vassals--no longer proud, viable sovereignties which created the federal government. Now it's Leviathan and 50 subservient political entities. Nothing more and certainly nothing like our founders intended. So, to appeal to the Left to accept federalism as an alternative to violence is unachievable. Without sovereign States, federalism is irrelevant and inapplicable anyway. So, how do we prevent a violent clash along chasmic cultural/ideological differences? Founder remedies are clear: civil disobedience, revolution, state nullification of federal usurpations (most unlikely today since states have been bribed and seduced by generous federal handouts), and secession. We must face the unvarnished truth. Absent sovereign States, a constitutional republic as envisioned by our founders is an impossibility and, frankly, an illusion. So where will this cultural/ideological divide take us? Disunion, of course. We can only hope that such disunion is peaceful. Perhaps that's where both sides can come together around this proposition.

Finally, 50 ideologically/culturally dissimilar states do not make for a viable union. Socialism/Progressivism and capitalism/free enterprise are utterly incompatible. We must deal with that reality. Compelling these ideologies to exist under the same roof is a recipe for civil strife and political instability. And that's where we are today, which, with each passing day and protest, make very little sense. So, we may as well start talking about how best to rationally deal with the division in a manner which will be beneficial to all. Establishing independent sovereign States, some or all of which may well choose to remain militarily allied is not a frightening proposition at all. Sure beats needless and preventable civil war. The real point is that Texans, for example, don't like socialism/fascism, but vassal states like California and others do. Fine, to each his own. We needn't get heartburn over these political differences, and those differences needn't lead to bloodshed. Secession is the correct solution. In all honesty, no nation is immutable. And why should we believe that America will magically dodge this historical truth. So, let's get a jump on inevitability and start seriously talking like adults about peaceful disunion/secession. Nothing to fear and everything to gain.

jdelaney3
jdelaney3

A union of states, each with its own starkly different cultural/ideological identity, is not a viable union. At best, it is a loose cultural/ideological alliance with little substance and shared values holding it together. It can only end in disunion which, n fact, may be the only way those differences can be peacefully accommodated.