Sullivan: Today's Conservatism = Yesterday's Liberalism

I got this from Kurtz's Media Notes at the Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/columns/kurtzhoward/

Andrew Sullivan:

"So it is now the federal government's role to micro-manage baseball and to prevent a single Florida woman who is trapped in a living hell from dying with dignity. We're getting to the point when conservatism has become a political philosophy that believes that government -- at the most distant level -- has the right to intervene in almost anything to achieve the right solution. Today's conservatism is becoming yesterday's liberalism."

I've noticed this as a trend lately. And this trend has consequences every time it happens.

The end result of reactionary national politics: The Federal Government is continually growing more invasive.

Since states' rights became synonymous with segregation, we seem to have abandoned a few important principles that were meant to keep our government loose, adaptable, and free of tyrannical tendencies.

I'm speaking specifically of the 10th Amendment.

This current matter is one example. Another would be Bush v. Gore, where the Supreme Court intervened in what was clearly a state matter.

Is it time to seriously examine the federal monster that we have collectively created over the past century?

I know states' rights has been used to do some pretty horrible things in the past, but now the Federal Government is proving just as adept at perpetuating suffering.

Does anyone know what we can do to restore some balance to what was intended to be a relationship between equals?

Yesterday's liberalism if perpetuating harms on all but the top 1% was part of the party platform.

And I appreciate the sentiment.

I'm not sure I accept the premise that yesterday's liberalism was quite as reactionary and destructive as the current conservatism.

But I think the idea merits discussion.

I can see the point of Sullivan's argument. The trouble, for me, is that I don't believe in states' rights and I think the 10th amendment is a truism. Well, I should qualify that. The states are convenient political units for taking care of certain issues that would be too cumbersome to deal with on a national basis. The trouble is that effective states' rights died in 1863 when Congress admitted West Virginia into the Union in violation of the constitution.

Maybe the author means yesterday's liberalism was overly centralized. If so, the guy could stand to learn a little about programs like the Great Society, which were very decentralized. Or maybe he means rule by judicial fiat, which was a result of state and local communities being unwilling to enforce the law.

All in all, I have no idea. But it is interesting to note that most of the actions taken by government that hurt individual liberties were state-oriented or state-inspired.

You seem to have a better grasp of this issue than I.

The battle of federalism seemed to get resolved by the Civil War. Perhaps what I'm talking about here rips that old wound open again. That's not really my intent.

My question is: How to tame the Federal Government now that it seems to see its role everywhere?

Is there any way to expect people who are in a position to affect change not to?

Some restraint, and maybe even a few steps back, are what I'm asking for here.

I remember there was talk of California raising its emissions standards for vehicles a while back because the Feds were stalling.

That is the kind of thing I'm thinking of...state action that imposes checks on a Federal Government that seems to have lost a sense of where it belongs.

edit to note: Yeah, the California thing seems like a self-contradiction, but it works in reverse too...states act to show the Feds both right and wrong ways to do things, and the Feds can nationalize things that ultimately are decided to be agreeable, like higher fuel efficiency standards.

Instead, they tend to want to not bother with the standards, but drill for oil in ANWR. States can influence the equation in my ideal scenario.

Even though I don't believe in states' rights as in terms of sovereignty, I can get behind the idea that some issues really are better handled on a more limited basis.

Property rights are a great example. First, there's limited basis for the federal government to regulate these. They either have to use the commerce clause, which requires a showing of economic impact, or some federal right has to be violated (or they can shoot for the middle ground with the spending power, like the drinking age). Second, the sheer diversity of the various regions' history in regards to the regulation of property would likely make a federal regulatory scheme arbitrary at best. It would be legitimate to ask why a Senator from Mississippi had any say in New York's treatment of tenant issues. Plus, the state courts and legislatures have about 300 years' worth of expertise in this area.

States' rights is a convenient means to check certain intrusive powers of the federal government, but it should be remembered that the constitution was written, in part, to check the power of overweaning states.

A great book on the Constitutional Convention is Original Meanings. I forget the author's name but it's a very good insight into the thinking of the time, especially in regard to Madison.

I've been thinking about this too - everything is topsy turvy, isn't it?

when did liberals force-feed a 15-year brain-dead woman against her husband's wishes? When did they try to legislate the definition of a family? When did they say that the first amendment is only available in barbed-wire cages? I have been alive for a 1/2-century. Why haven't I heard of all these things? :shrug:

I've been thinking about this too - everything is topsy turvy, isn't it?

and the other proto fascists who treat states like they treat congress like they treat laws and treat the voters--as objects to be ignored when possible, pushed around if not, and in the last restort dupes to be lied to.

IMHO they lie first.

WTF? Check your calendar Andrew. It seems to have steamrolled as we entered THIS century. Right around...oh, December 1999 or so.

Check the quote marks.

doing. Yes, liberals want to use government to fix social wrongs. But no liberal of any age would agree with the Republican handling of Schiavo's case. Republicans want to use Big Government to further the interests of Big Business. Liberals want Big Government to further the interests of all people. Big Difference.

the most invasive thing in history that i can think of is the McCarthy hearings.


and umm...mccarthy was a conservative.

But God knows Andrew Sullivan, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and the rest like to think so.

I think they blame liberalism for our taxation system, which is much fairer to the wealthy than most other industrialized nations to my knowledge.

i was jsut in a healtchare convo on another board and got a chance to look at canada's tax brackets.

They like to think gun safety laws are an imposition on the 2nd Amendment.

Funny how it's all about the Constitution until it's not.

That's the part you neglected to include when you came to your conclusion.

Yesterday's Southern Democrats were touting states' rights, and back then that was not a good concept in their hands. Now - even worse - as Republicans they want Big federal gov't overreach - provided they're in power, of course.

My conclusion? "States' rights" and "Big government" have their place with that crowd, and either one is disastrous in their hands. A matter of opinion, of course, but today's Big Government is far worse than that of yesteryear, and yesterday's states' rights/local control was far worse than that of today.

running it.

The 'Yesterday's Liberalism' that he speaks of doesn't seem to be very well thought out, but I think I see what he's getting and I disagree. I'll begin at the beginning of my thinking.

The liberalism, or progressive movement, of the past century was largely aimed at protecting the individual from abuse by large groups of people (institutions and corporations), so we ended up with civil rights, worker safety, etc. The other part of it was to limit rights where there was damage to the many -pollution control, land use, anti-trust, and so on.

So at this point I agree with you, we ended up with a large institution (the federal government), which could deal with other large institutions (states and corporations) on our behalf.

The 'Today's conservatism' has simply tried to reverse that trend, to turn the clock back to 1901, but with two important differences. They want individual rights and choices to be limited in law and as determined by that odd bunch of radical Christian clerics. And despite their claims, they want the federal government to stay large. They just want it to do their bidding.

Anyway, that's a long way of getting to my point: there is no relationship of equals. The last part of the 10th, the "or to the people." part, will never be equal and it requires a large institution to act on our behalf. And the same can be said of instances where the individual is at odds with any large corporation. I think you could even make a reasonable argument that states have less power than corporations.

I know that laws and the courts are meant to even things out, but it's not working. If anything, it goes to show that it's all about political power and right now we don't have very much.