Dove Federalists?

In his article, “The Late, Great States”, Steve Chapman discusses the notable reversal of policy roles between “conservatives” and “liberals” in regards to the support of states’ rights in the federal system of the U.S. government. In recent years, so-called conservative politicians, and their constituents, who have in the past endorsed a smaller national government and supported the sovereignty of states, have seemingly reversed their position, to support the supreme authority and duties of t he national government, and the exact converse reversal has occurred with so-called liberal politicians and their constituents.

Chapman cites several recent issues, mostly court cases, to support his claim. In recent years, a mostly conservative Congress and executive branch have actually been pushing for solutions and action on a national level, rather than simply through the acts of individual states. On issues such as physician-assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, and medical marijuana, conservatives have often pushed for the national government to take action, such as former Attorney General John Ashcroft suing to stop Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide, on the grounds that it violated federal regulations on controlled substances; or the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution; or the Gonzales v. Raich ruling which banned the use of medical marijuana, on the grounds that interstate commerce allowed the federal government to apply medical marijuana to the restrictions of the Controlled Substances Act. In each of these cases, among many other issues that have been debated recently, many conservatives have chosen to support the supremacy of a national government over state decisions, and have advocated for resolution by national action, rather than that of individual states. At the same time, liberals cling to the states’ rights argument, arguing that each state should have sovereignty in marriage, right-to-die, and medicinal cases, and that national government has no right to interfere.

There are a multitude of causes which could account for this seeming shift in policy. As Chapman correctly describes, perhaps the most obvious factor is the temptation to exercise power. As conservatives have slowly gained conservative majorities in Congress, and elected conservative administrations to the executive branch, the power available at the national level becomes a tool that can be used to achieve conservatives’ goals – a tool much more effective and wide-reaching than simply allowing states and the populace to decide. In the same vein, as liberals have become the minority in the American political body, the argument for states’ rights becomes an effective check against conservatives’ exclusive wielding national power. The same situation was reversed several years ago, with liberals holding a majority, and conservatives holding the minority. In any case, each side tends to cling steadfastly to those powers which serve most effectively to advance their views. The majority has a tendency to exercise national power, because it allows them to advance their views; attempting to pass legislation through individual states would likely encounter stiff dissent from certain localities, a problem that wouldn’t be encountered with a single, swift federal action. The minority, on the other hand, tends to support states’ sovereignty, not because it is a more effective method of advancing legislation, but because it is more realistic; with a minority in Congress and no executive leadership, the chance for legislation passing at the national level is slim, so states’ rights provide the next best thing, in at least advancing that legislation where the localities support it, and protecting that legislation against national infringement by the majority.

In this, it is always the power in majority which retains its core values; they may pass whatever legislation and advance their views in complete accordance with their beliefs. It is the minority, which has no real power, that is then forced into a compromising position where it cannot advance its views as it sees fit; their legislation can only be advanced in localities where it has majority support, and even then, only if it is protected from a national majority opposed to it, either of which might require a compromisation in the legislation itself. The belief, then, in a unitary or confederal system, is completely ambiguous, or apathetic in the intents of many of today’s politicians; the invocation of “states’ rights” or “national supremacy” rarely indicates an actual belief in those principles, but rather their simple use as justification for whatever a politician intends to advance. This is readily proven by the flip-flopping of methods by political groups to suit that which provides the most effectiveness in achieving goals. For example, most liberals who are in support of same-sex marriage argue for it on the basis of equal rights – yet to defend such a principle would necessitate the charge that it is a violation of basic civil right (not marriage itself, but being treated equally), and thus same-sex marriage should be imposed throughout the nation. However, many liberals, as the minority opinion on this issue, cannot hope to pass such a national provision, legislatively or through public opinion, and as such, many liberals, politicians especially, have resorted to simply arguing that it is the right of states to decide, while avoiding the violation of equal treatment. In this, they do not take up states’ rights as a true belief – one cannot believe that the restriction is a civil rights violation, yet simultaneously concede that it is perfectly acceptable for some states to exercise such discrimination – states’ rights are merely used as a justification to protect those localities that do support same-sex marriage. If liberals were to ever gain a majority, conservatives would likely take the same approach – even if they believe same-sex marriage should absolutely not be allowed anywhere in the nation, a minority would concede that it is acceptable for some states, as long as other states’ retained the right to reject it. Thus, conservatives’ belief in national supremacy is by no means concrete nor genuine; they may just as easily endorse states’ rights if the opportunity presents itself as more beneficial and realistic.

Perhaps the best example of strong advocation, yet insincere belief in states’ rights, is the Nullification Crisis, in which Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina claimed his state’s right in nullifying a federal law (the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832) which he believed to be unconstitutional. In such a case, the principal issue is the unconstitutionality of the law, something which, if believed in, can not be allowed to exist anywhere. In nullifying the law solely within South Carolina, Calhoun and the South Carolinian legislature neglected to push for national repeal, allowing a supposedly unconstitutional law to continue application. Thus, the invocation of “states’ rights” to nullify a federal law does not serve as the genuine belief in invalidating it – it is simply a justification used by Calhoun and South Carolina to nullify the law within South Carolina, after the realization that national consensus could not be built to repeal tariffs on issue of unconstitutionality.

What then, of the great debates between state sovereignty and national supremacy? Early in the conception of the nation, it was undoubtedly one of the most debated issues, and to this day remains a source of great controversy. To the dismay of government teachers everywhere, however, the truth is that states’ rights and national supremacy has never been a true issue in and of itself for the American populace. In what times it has been invoked, it has almost always been as a tool to advance some secondary, unrelated position. Those who have fought the hardest on either side of a states’ rights debate, have always been those with an interest vested in the final outcome – not the outcome of the states’ rights validity itself, but the outcome of the issue being debated – same-sex marriage, drug regulation, euthanasia, etc. In the Eysneck Model (horizontal axis, liberal or conservative methodology; vertical axis, authoritarian or libertarian methodology), they are often on the left or right of the spectrum, but always towards the center vertically – they have little or no dedicated belief in governmental power, and so may readily adapt and switch sovereignty arguments to suit their view.

No doubt, there are those who have genuine beliefs in the range and limits of government power – those on the far vertical ends of the Eysneck Model. However, most of the populace tend toward the vertical center, as lack of education restricts the strength of opinion one may have, and those few that do have beliefs in sovereignty rights tend toward the horizontal center. Thus, those who do have opinions on federalism are likely not to have a large vested interest on any particular issue, and the populace is thus influenced more by the demagoguery of the passionate left/right wing extremists. The national opinion and debate then, is focused predominantly on the liberal and conservative aspects of an issue, and little attention at all is ever focused on the actual issue of federalism and state sovereignty.

In discussing any alleged “shift” in “conservative’s” views, or the same with “liberals”, we must define four separate groups in modern American society: socioeconomic liberals, socioeconomic conservatives, political libertarians, and political authoritarians. Socioeconomic liberals and conservatives are well known in the public perception – they are who we generically label as “liberals” or conservatives”, and they are those who have little or no genuine belief invested into federalism. Thus, the role reversals of socioeconomic conservatives and socioeconomic liberals are nothing surprising, and can be expected with the continual shifts in the proportion of political power delegated to each (who is the majority, who is the minority), as Chapman has stated. Political libertarians and authoritarians, on the other hand, have staunch views on the limit of political power, and in our case, views on the limits of national jurisdiction. Political libertarians tend to favor the rights of localities, while authoritarians support the supremacy of national government over that of localities, and these views are concrete. In the context of Chapman’s articles, we may provide labels for each group, with political libertarians as traditional conservatives, and political authoritarians as traditional liberals, but this would be utterly incorrect. While political libertarians genuinely believe in states’ rights, traditional conservatives are only related in that they, as a minority, happened to employ states’ rights as justification for many of their views, many times in the past. In the same vein, we only perceive liberals as political authoritarian because they have so long employed national supremacy as justification for their views, and also the tendency to expand government duties for citizens (which relates to political power, but in the context of federalism, is completely ambiguous as to whether it is the states or national government which has jurisdiction for expanded powers).

Do political libertarians and authoritarians still exist? Quite certainly. Almost all judges serving on federal courts must ponder the question of federalism, and possess not only opinion on such, but impartiality on general socioeconomic conservatism or liberalism. In such cases as United States v. Lopez, United States v. Morrison, and Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court repeatedly struck down common sense laws, such as restrictions on firearms in schools, and violence against women – the reason not being that the laws were unsound, but that they violated the rights of states in determining such laws for their own. Since the mid-90’s, federal courts have ruled against the encroaching power of national government, in favor of state sovereignty. Opinions – and debates – of the balance of federalism certainly exist.

To answer Chapman’s tagline question, “Where have all the federalists gone?”, federalists are still very alive and thriving – mostly in the court system reversing decades of legislation by politicians and a public who have fallaciously employed federalist arguments to advance unrelated goals. “Conservatives”, as he defines them – modern socioeconomic conservatives – certainly have, as Chapman writes, shifted away from states’ rights, to the use of national power – but they have not shifted from an endorsement or protection of states’ rights to national supremacy, so much as they have shifted from an employment of states’ rights to national supremacy as justification of actions. As Chapman and others may wonder what has happened to federalists who may believe in state sovereignty or national supremacy, the truth is that socioeconomic conservatives and liberals – practically the entire populace – have never been federalists in the first place.