Fred's Federalism

Here is a post from Curt of Flopping Aces about Fred’s Federalism. Curt was disturbed about the report of Spencer Abraham (a Christian Arab/American who has been a lobbyist for Islamist regimes and organizations) as Fred’s Campaign Manager. I was disturbed by that report as well.

Curt has read some recent writings from Fred about Federalism and has convinced himself that Fred’s Campaign Manager does not necessarily reflect Fred’s policy views.

I am still on the fence as I read the pros and cons of Fred’s controversial choice of Spencer Abraham as his new high roller Campaign Manager.

JRH 7/29/07

**********************

Fred's Federalism

Posted by Curt

Flopping Aces

July 28, 2007 at 10:35 AM

On the heels of Fred's perplexing choice for campaign manager we get a editorial written by him that puts me back into his camp. Fred's Federalism

The Framers drew their design for our Constitution from a basic understanding of human nature. From the wisdom of the ages and from fresh experience, they understood the better angels of our nature, and the less admirable qualities of human beings entrusted with power.

The Framers believed in free markets, rights of property and the rule of law, and they set these principles firmly in the Constitution. Above all, the Framers enshrined in our founding documents, and left to our care, the principle that rights come from our Creator and not from our government.

We developed institutions that allowed these principles to take root and flourish: a government of limited powers derived from, and assigned to, first the people, then the states, and finally the national government. A government strong enough to protect us and do its job competently, but modest and humane enough to let the people govern themselves. Centralized government is not the solution to all of our problems and – with too much power – such centralization has a way of compounding our problems. This was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007.

The federalist construct of strong states and limited federal government put in place by our Founders was intended to give states the freedom to experiment and innovate. It envisions states as laboratories in competition with each other to develop ideas and programs to benefit their people, to see what works and what does not.

He then notes how, over the last few decades, our government has ignored the ideals of federalism, even though federalism responds better to the will of the people:

Federalism is not an 18th century notion. Or a 19th century notion. It retains its force as a basic principle in the 21st century, because when federalism is ignored, accountability, innovation, and public confidence in government at all levels suffer.

It is as true today as it ever was: the closer a government is to its people, the more responsive it is to the felt needs of its constituencies. Too often, however, state and local leaders have to answer to federal bureaucrats first and their constituents second. When the federal government mandates a program that states and localities are forced to implement, or when a federal grant program is created to fund a specific state or community need, it blurs the lines of accountability.

[...]I’ve been saying it for years, and it bears repeating: what works in Tennessee may not work in Nebraska and may be different from what succeeds in Oregon. That’s why President Ronald Reagan compared federalism to letting a thousand sparks of genius in the states and communities around this country catch fire. It’s not a perfect system, but it works a lot better than the alternative of central planning.

We need to allow local authorities to apply their own good ideas and use their own good judgment. Each state can find its own way, learning from the successes and failures of the others. There is a wealth of creativity and initiative out there in the states, and often the best ideas in Washington started out as state initiatives.

[...]When you hold firm to the principles of federalism, there’s another advantage: our federal government can better carry out its own defining responsibilities – above all else, the security of our nation and the safety of our citizens. Sometimes I think that our leaders in Washington try to do so many things, in so many areas, that they lose sight of their basic responsibilities.

He then lays out how we can go back to the way it should be:

A good first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. It was a fine idea that should never have been revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected.

The man gets it. The federal usurpation of state powers is at the root of many of our problems today and his fix is quick and easy.

SlantRight Editor: You really need to click to the Flopping Aces link to this post. The comments about Fred’s Federalism are well thought out responses (as of the time I read them anyway). Some of the comments agree with Curt and some do not: all of the comments were perspectives to dwell on.

I am still on the fence about Fred. Until yesterday, I was firmly behind Fred. I still need to read some more input on how Spencer Abraham will influence Fred.