States’ Rights for Progressives?

Professor Heather Gerken of  Yale Law School wrote an interesting article called, A New Progressive Federalism for a journal called Democracy: A Journal of Ideas ,which was picked up by the Huffington Post.  The article makes a progressive argument for federalism.

The article makes several excellent points about the importance of state and local control, breaking away from the more nationalistic view which is held by many progressives.

One argument she made: dissenters can force an issue they feel passionately about on the local and state level, which in return forces it to become a national issue.  She used examples of Arizona passing their controversial immigration bill and San Francisco issuing gay marriage licenses.  She pointed out that in both cases, locals were frustrated by lack of action by the federal government on these issues, and by taking actions in their hands have made immigration and gay marriage national issues.

Gerken also addresses the problems in the past, where state rights was used as a means promoting racial inequality.  However, she points out how states rights can also be used in promoting racial equality.  As minorities gain control on the local and state level, they can help promote racial equality being in these positions.

On this point, she wrote:

Critical distinctions get lost when we treat these issues as debates about segregation versus integration. The most obvious is that these institutions may be different from the racial enclaves of Jim Crow. The less obvious is that, viewed through the lens of federalism, we might imagine these sites as opportunities for empowering racial minorities rather than oppressing them.

Gerken also addresses problems of both local and national rule:

It would be silly to argue that minority rule is without costs. But the model currently favored by progressives—a strong nationalist system—has costs as well, as the discussion above makes clear. (examples she cited in her article) Eliminating opportunities for local governance to protect racial minorities and dissenters also means eliminating the very sites where they are empowered to rule.

Pushing the point even more, she wrote:

It would be foolish to insist that every state and local policy must be progressive for progressives to favor federalism. Decentralization will produce policies that progressives adore, and it will produce policies that they loathe. The same, of course, is true of a national system.

This article is interesting read, I do agree with many of the points she made.  Since this published in a progressive journal and later picked up by The Huffington Post, I do hope more progressives will read it and consider her arguments.

However, there are some problems as well.  Gerken does a great job making the case that local rule must be considered, but I do sense an implication that she still favors a stronger federal government more so than most Tenthers could support.

Her suggestion that San Francisco’s  and Arizona’s efforts on their issues has made gay marriage and immigration national issues for which the Feds will need to act.  Tenthers here could ask, “Why?”


11th Hour Missouri Sound Money Action Needed!

Liberty loving Missouri citizens, Senators, and Representatives continue to battle for sound money.  House Bill 1637 (HB1637) states, in part:  “The Missouri Sound Money Act of 2012 is established which changes the laws regarding legal tender as follows: (1) Specifies that gold and silver issued by the federal government is legal tender in Missouri;” After…