Will Democrats rally to "states' rights"? [View All]

THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE November 21, 2004

A States' Rights Left?

By JIM HOLT

When George W. Bush was re-elected, people in some of the bluer states were so angry and sad that they talked of moving to Canada or seceding from the Union. How else, they felt, could they escape the intensifying red-state control of Washington? But there is a less drastic survival strategy available to liberals in the coastal and Great Lakes states, one that involves neither emigration nor civil war. It is based on the venerable doctrine of states' rights. And the oddity is that President Bush himself is determined to give the blue states a rather generous gift to help it succeed. The phrase "states' rights" has a nasty ring to it for liberals, given its historical associations. During the civil rights era, it was the proud slogan of Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond and George C. Wallace, who fought tooth and nail against desegregation. A century earlier, it was invoked by the slave states of the Confederacy to justify their secession from the Union.

<snip>

One of the most striking differences among states is in their levels of wealth. Liberals tend to live in more economically productive states than conservatives. The top five states in per capita personal income (Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland and New York) all went to Kerry; the bottom five (Utah, New Mexico, West Virginia, Arkansas and Mississippi) all went to Bush. Since the blue states are generally richer than the red states, they must bear a greater portion of the federal tax burden. Most of them pay more to Washington than they receive, whereas most of the red states receive more than they pay. Some liberals in blue states must wonder exactly what they get in return for subsidizing the heartlanders, who are said to resent them.

<snip>

The more conservatives succeed in reducing the size and scope of the federal government, the more fiscal freedom the blue states will have to pursue their own idea of a just society. There are already signs that this is happening. Senators Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Jon Corzine of New Jersey are rumored to be contemplating gubernatorial runs in their respective states, convinced that there is now more to do in the governor's mansion than on Capitol Hill. Meanwhile, blue-state liberals should stop despairing and start thinking locally. Instead of saying, "The United States is. . . . " try saying, "The United States are. . . . " See? You feel better already.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/magazine/21WWLN.html?oref=login

Comment:
One thing we should focus on is taking back the governorships and Senate seats in the Blue States. Maryland voted for Kerry and it has 2 Democratic Senators, but it has a Republican (and a particularly nasty, underhanded, devious, dishonest one at that) as governor. He has got to be defeated in '06. Likewise Rick Santorum in PA. He MUST be targeted for defeat in '06. Why do solidly blue states Like New York and Massachusetts have Republican governors? The DNC and other Democratic groups need to devise credible, realistic strategies to defeat Republicans who run for statewide office in the blue states. That should be the party's number one priority between now and 2008.