I hope you enjoyed the birthday break (see below). This is the continuation of my earlier post on Constitutional right and law...although I actually wrote this post about two days earlier.
Most of you who read this blog (all eight of you) are aware of my opinions on the Constitution and our relationship as We the People to our municipal, state and federal governments. I have been slowly forming a preference for strong local government (municipal and state) and weak federal rule. Amar's The Bill of Rights did a lot to inform that preference and solidify it knowing that a.) those who drafted the Constitution did as much as possible to limit the federal government's power without making it so weak that it couldn't support itself (like the failed Articles of Confederation) and b.) the drawbacks to such a locally focused Constitution opens the door to problematic issues like slavery. The abolitionist movement and, really, everything from Reconstruction up through the 1960s and 1970s reiterated that, when states misbehave a federal government is needed to bring them into line.
So it has been interesting to see in the last few months since Obama has started pushing through his economic recovery plans that there is a visible mobilization against an increasingly large and powerful federal government. Obama is clearly going the FDR route towards economic recovery with massive spending and federal programs. He and his administration are also throwing their weight around in the business world. A report of his meeting with the US's top banking CEOs stated that he was the only thing that stood between them and "the pitchforks." Most banks, it seems, are keen to return whatever TARP funding they got due to the amount of control it would give the feds (you can correct me where I'm wrong here). I am not really in a position to judge the rightness or wrongness of TARP funding and all that it entails, so I will digress.
Interestingly enough, there has been something of a grassroots reaction against the growing influence of the fed. You have probably read or heard about the "Tea Parties" that are being held in different cities in the US. Drawing their inspiration from the Boston Tea Party where the Sons of Liberty, a sometimes-violent revolutionary group in New England, raided a British cargo ship loaded with tea and dumped it into Boston Harbour as a protest against British taxation of tea imported to the Thirteen Colonies.* The modern tea parties are not nearly so radical. They are basically just public protests against the encroachment of the federal government on people's (or The People's) lives.
- - I continue to dispute the merits of this protest. It's really a subject worthy of its own post, but suffice to say, the idea that the Colonies were unfairly taxed is far more debatable than our history textbooks would have us think. Thank you Mr. Hall for allowing me to come to that conclusion.
Its kinda funny that I actually wrote the above paragraph two days before Tax Day and had no idea that there would be a huge blossoming in Tea Parties across the country. I think the fact that they are a pretty grassroots and loosely-led movement is really cool and amazing and was pleased to hear that the participants were well behaved. My only minor criticism is that "big government" and "reckless government spending" should not be equated with "Obama." As my dad has often said, Bush did not veto a single spending bill during his 8 years in office, a total anathema to classic conservatives. Big Government knows no party bounds. So I was a bit cynical to hear that the Tea Parties are in reaction to Obama's economic recovery plan and that such voices were more or less silent during Bush's time in office. I have heard that participants were also disenchanted with Bush's fiscal policy and that Obama's budget is simply the straw that broke the camel's back.
This could simply be the fact that Republicans are jumping on the bandwagon and trying to use the tea parties to reestablish themselves after their crushing loss in the elections. I find this pretty sick and hypocritical, but totally unsurprising. I really really hope that the tea parties continue and that they stay grassroots and non-partisan....but this is America, so that probably won't happen. For myself, I am inclined to agree in part with the Tea Parties. I am not in favor of high federal taxes and certainly not when the money is used to bail out large companies. I think a few big companies going bankrupt is healthy for the market and saying that you want to save jobs is a short-sighted solution to a long-term problem. If states charged high taxes and that money went towards education and state-run social programs I would be willing to pay that, especially since States can use that money more efficiently. Again, I digress....
Then the other day I came across two stories. One was published in two online papers: WorldNetDaily (a conservative/libertarian paper) and the Washington Times (at the least non-liberal) [note - the story has since been run on the BBC]. The story was on a recently released report from the Department of Homeland Security on right-wing extremism in the US. According to the DHS, there is a small, but growing movement of violent right-wing extremists who are active in issues of illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty. The report expresses concern particularly over the recruitment of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Granted a lot of these organizations, which are referred to as right-wing terrorist organizations, are probably worthy of condemnation and surveillance. Many are white-supremacist or seek to, ironically, instill Christian values through violence. Really what interested me, and which wasn't really touched on, was the idea of anti-government groups or organizations and militias which desire more power to state and local governments. This, to me, is a constitutional dilemma. Does the federal government have the right to subdue state militias that seek to protect the sovereignty of states? It seems to me that this is EXACTLY what the Bill of Rights guarantees.
The other was a press release from the Office of the Governor of Texas (admittedly a state that has always done things its own way) announcing Gov. Rick Perry's support of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in favor of states' rights as laid out in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. The resolution condemns federal regulations that threaten civil or criminal penalties to states that do not comply. Perry and the legislators who drafted the resolution state that the federal government has overstepped its bounds and is becoming "increasingly oppressive in its size." Now granted, this is Texas we're talking about here and I'm sure there is some perfectly good reason why states should be compelled to comply with certain federal regulations. But I have to say that it is quite something to see a state of the Union actually trying to wield its 10th Amendment rights. When was the last time you saw that happen? [note - since I wrote this, Perry has really been out and about with this 10th Amendment rhetoric and spoke before one crowd that even started chanting, "Secede! Secede! Secede!" This could just be Texas being Texas.]
All in all I think we are possibly seeing the beginning of a backlash against Big Government...though it may lead to a rise in Little Big Governments. Really its probably too early to tell, but still with "Tea Parties," concern over pro-state government organizations, and now state governments trying to flex their muscles, who knows what will happen in the next few years.
Leave a comment