Urban Independence and Federalism

David:

Before we get started, I recommend all of our readers take ten minutes to read this article. It has an obvious liberal slant, which should make the arguments just that more compelling.

Politico Magazine: A Declaration of Urban Independence

Welcome back. Federalism has been the cry from half of the country from it's founding. Even during the first (and only) Constitutional Convention, there was debate over how to power share between a centralized, national government, and the independent state governments. (Trivia note: It was only after the civil war that Americans began describing our country as the United States instead of these United States.)

Doug:

Why does your trivia always sound like you got it off of a cereal box? It only takes a second using Google Ngram Viewer to check out your trivia claim (below). Nope, not true. You can see that the phrase "these united states" hardly ever had a bump. Even if you limit the search to just American English sources, it is not true. The phrase "these united states" gained some popularity around 1800. But compared to "the united states" it is barely distinguishable as a phrase unto itself.

David:

You are nothing if not predictable. Almost without exception, you always jump on the most trivial portion of any comment I make, usually as a diversion.  In this case, it is actually trivia. The US Constitution lists these United States. But the thirteenth Amendment, which came after the civil war, lists the United States in it's phrasing. It is also well documented that before the civil war, Americans used the United States are, rather than the United States is. Even this article, which intends to point out this status didn’t happen immediately, does note that the change came after the Civil War.

But, we seriously digress. Seriously. Let’s get back to talking about federalism and state’s rights.

Doug:

You missed my point entirely, and missed some interesting actual data. The first point was that you heard something, reported it, but didn't check it. It turns out that you remembered it slightly wrong: it wasn't that there was a change in the article, but a change in the verb. It is true that there was a change in "is" versus "are" and you can check that yourself using the same tool as I attempted to show you how to use above:

As you can see, there actually was a change in the verb from "is" to "are" after the civil war. But you can also see that it didn't stick as the predominate form, but is used roughly at equal parts since about 1915. But combine that with the first chart we get the additional bit of information that people use "the united states" before "is" or "are". A bit of cognitive dissonance (one form is used to indicate singular, the other to indicate plural.)

I don't explore this as "trivia" by the way. This gives insight into how people think about things over time. And I think that it is very appropriate to bring into this discussion. I just want to understand the actual data rather than your misremembered version, because it matters.

David:

As I said, and you ignored, the wording used within the Constitution itself changed. It changed from “these” to “the”. That’s an important distinction, and also is factual.  But if you and Jenny McCarthy would rather trust the University of Google rather than the Constitution, and call it factual, go ahead. I also find it interesting that you feel a need to "fact-check" even the most trivial things I say in an attempt to refute them, but you often repeat things within the blog that you hear from Rachel Maddow without giving it a second thought. If only you were as skeptical of your own information sources. Now, back to the actual subject.

Federalist were on the side of maintaining states, rather than a centralized government, as the ultimate protector of the people's rights. The last amendment in the Bill of Rights lays out this division of power, with a clear statement that the founders wanted to limit the power of a national government, and keep most power in the hands of the people.

Doug:

Of course our Constitution (and amendments) is a carefully drafted balance between many competing forces. The Politico Magazine article only has an "obvious liberal slant" in that it uses actual factual data.

David:

Spoken like a true liberal: “All of the views written by another liberal are true and everything he says is factual. My brother's opinion that the author is biased is wrong because I don’t see the facts as he does”.  Perhaps you need to review the article again. If you were going to try to be unbiased and open-minded, you’d admit that he has a liberal slant to what he is saying.

Doug:

He may have a liberal slant in his goals, but it seems his data is 100% accurate. I just want to make sure that we are clear on what is "slanted."

David:

I understand what you believe. But I think you’re wrong. Adding some facts to a biased article does not make the article, or the opinions, less biased. For example, he starts off stating the election of Donald Trump to be worse than Canadiens electing a "dysfunctional and retrograde" mayor. He believes cities are "under assault" by the Trump administration. He believes journalists and academics to be "the creative class", while those who voted for Trump to be followers of crazy drug addicts. He even notes his belief that those who voted for Trump show resentment for women, minorities, immigrants, and the gay and lesbian community. This could not be further from actual truth, represents his inherent bias, and does not represent any "facts".

Doug:
Strange that you gave us this as an assigned reading. In any event, I think that there is evidence for all of the above, and I am glad you highlighted them.

David: 
Of course you believe there is evidence for all of the above. You're biased.

I introduced this article because I believe many of his conclusions are spot on. Federalism has been argued for by the tea party for a decade. States should have much more power, and the federal government less, on a whole host of issues. The states are a check to federal power and authority. They were when Obama was in office, and they are now. I just find it amusing that this guy, a professed liberal, is just now realizing the tea party was right, and it took the election of Donald Trump to help him see the light. His goals are not liberal or biased goals, but federalist goals.

Doug:

Let me just make a few points from my personal perspective:

1. I am not concerned about "federal government overreach." I didn't believe in that idea during Obama, and I don't believe that it exists now. It is a meaningless phrase. But I try to be consistent across presidents.
2. I have been concerned about too much power in the hands of the President for many years. I wish we would get back to congress declaring wars, for example.
3. There isn't a "red America" and a "blue America"... there are just people. There are many more than two sides to every issue.

David:

Sometimes I truly wonder what kind of bubble you live in. You think it's a good idea for the federal government to regulate whether you can build a pond on your own property? They can regulate a mud puddle in your front yard after it rains? Should you have to give up your religious beliefs if you choose to engage in commerce? Can the IRS target groups based on their political beliefs? Of course, if you don’t believe the government has limits, then you would not believe it could be guilty of overreach.

Doug:

Where did you get these hyperbolic examples? I was merely reacting to the well-written article, not crazy extremes in your imagination. I do this to make it clear where my opinions differ from the author's. But don't get confused: just because I don't put stock in the notion of "overreach" doesn't mean that I believe that the federal government doesn't have limits. Of course it does. That was what we just described as a "carefully written balance of powers."

David:

Thanks. You have clarified things more than I ever could have with that last comment. Perhaps you have not heard of The Waters of the United States rule from the EPA. Or perhaps you just choose to ignore it (as the EPA can do no wrong, and has no overreach). It’s a real rule, with actual consequences for farmers across the parts of the country that Democrats have lost touch with. But I do hope the Democrats continue to believe these issues are just Republican’s crazy overactive imaginations.

I am amused, however, that you claim you were so terribly concerned with President Obama having too much power. I must have missed it when you said that when he waist office. Can you tell me any examples of him wielding too much power?

Doug:

Again, I am referring to points in the article regarding Presidential power. My point #2 refers to too much power in the position of the President, regardless of who is President. Luckily, President Obama didn't use all of the power that congress appears, often, to give the position. For example, when Obama wanted to bomb Syria, he requested congressional approval. There are many in congress that would like to abdicate that responsibility, leaving it to the President. So, luckily, he didn't wield the power that other Presidents have wielded. Trump has united Congress into actually curbing some of that power: just recently Congress has started to move power from the President in areas of national security, and in controlling sanctions.

David:
Good point, but you're steering us away from the actual topic of federalism. The President has certain powers, and Congress has certain powers. Bush got approval for the Iraq war from Hillary Clinton and the other Senators in Congress, and that is how it should be. But that is not part a discussion about federalism or the federal government usurping the powers reserved to these United States.

Doug:
I'm not sure I would boil the Iraq Resolution down to just "give Bush approval for the war." It did, indeed, provide the authorization to use force defined in the 1973 War Powers Act. But it also required that sanctions and diplomacy be used before declaring war.

David:
Still, it was Congress maintaining their authority in the system of balances. Today, we're talking about federalism.

You completely overlook Obama’s use of the executive branch agencies to enact rules and regulations that many states, companies, and individuals found to be excessive and overreaching. Putting coal out of business through regulation was one such effort that ended up hurting Democrats. Obamacare regulations that have doubled the cost of insurance for most Americans is another. These are examples of the federal government creating burdens on the states that the Constitution does not provide for.

Doug:

Uh huh. Anyway, I do believe that progressives have relied on a centralized, strong, smart federal government to make most of the progress that we have made for the last 70 years. And that has largely worked! After all, this has been the easiest way to bring the entire country into the modern era on a variety of issues, including women's rights, LGBT rights, civil rights, and health care. Who would have thought that we could have let someone as backwards as Trump become president? But it can happen. Partly because we have neglected local politics and let Republicans gerrymander their way to local domination. But that seems to be about to change, judging from who is gearing up to run in the next local elections:

David:

Ah, and there we have it: All of the liberal greatest hits have been accomplished not by convincing American’s that it was the right thing to do, but by big, runaway government forcing the issue. The Constitution was designed to make huge, social contracts difficult, not easy. The fact you celebrate the easy course (laws created by agencies rather than Congress) Obama took indicates you really don’t understand a balance of powers. Remember when Obama (who is a lawyer) said numerous times that he did't have the authority to create law regarding immigration, until he didn't get what he wanted. Then, he just created rules that changed the laws to suit his needs. The courts have all agreed that he overstepped his authority.

“I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen."  ~President Obama 10/25/2010

Then, he decided he was king.

Doug:

Such fictional narratives would be funny during any other presidency other than Trump. But I think most people have long enough memory to compare what actually happened to the current administration. At least I hope they do.

David:
Perhaps you should google-research your last statement. DACA is back in the news because Obama illegally usurped the powers of Congress. You may think that's fictional, but the courts have not.

Doug:
But these aren't just Liberal's Greatest Hits, these are America's Greatest Hits. This includes all of our programs to take care of all of our people, such as social security, minimum wages, medicare, medicaid, civil rights, and our federal highway system, to name just a few. I agree that our constitution makes it hard to make any change. Which makes the changes that we have made all the more impressive, and indicates that they were not instituted by a small, radical group, but by a majority of the people from all sides of government.

David:
Unless a small number of radical people bring a court case, which is then decided by a small number of judges. When Roe vs. Wade was decided, forty-eight states had laws preventing abortion.

You're actually mixing and equating programs that worked for Americans with ones that didn't, and are forcing the debt our children will be forced to deal with into atmospheric levels. Obama doubled the debt by expanding medicaid to anyone who wants it, not just for the poor who need it. Perhaps we can evaluate the recent minimum wage fiasco, which just re-enforces my belief that minimum wage decisions should be a local decision, not a national one-size-fits-all mandate. If a city wants to decrease the number of jobs with a minimum-wage hike, they can certainly go ahead and do it. Obama spent 1 trillion dollars for "shovel-ready" highway infrastructure jobs back in 2008, right? To fix the federal highway system, right? Yet no projects got done despite the money being spent. And here we are in 2017, trying to spend another trillion dollars to fix what? The federal highway system, again. These are all big-government failures.

Are you placing all of your hope on retaking the House? Remember, Hillary Clinton outspent President Trump by more than a 2:1 margin, but fell short of winning. With the same message, Democrats across the country will fare no better if the economy continues to improve.

Now that “backwards” Trump is in charge, federalism will be the way to fight him? Yes! That is the message that I have promoted for the past ten years. I'm happy that liberals are belatedly finding the truth in that message.

(And perhaps you might need to temper your hopes. Democratic fundraising has been pretty dismal this year. The DNC isn’t in the red, exactly, but it’s barely above water.)

The Democratic National Committee’s abysmal fundraising

Doug:

It is still pretty early in the 2018 election cycle (most people, other than Trump, wouldn't start campaigning until next year). But thank you for bringing up donating money to the DNC: it is a good cause. I'm not worried about the lack of funding, yet.

For many decades, if not centuries, we have elected (by and large) smart people to be our Federal leader. That includes people that I have serious political disagreements with, such as George W. Bush, and who was not among the set of smartest Presidents. But they had a certain level of intelligence that kept them within modern parameters of doing their job. For too long progressives have relied on this singular position to help keep our country on the progressive track. That has resulted in local decay, including allowing the local districts to be gerrymandered into "safe" districts.

David:

I suppose that is how you’d see things and interpret the outcomes. Republicans are stupid, and follow stupid people like sheep, but Democrats are smart. (You do realize that Obama never released any of his educational records, so he may actually be the dumbest person ever elected to the office? Bush got a BA in history from Yale, Obama got a BA in political science from Occidental College, and then Columbia, after transferring. Neither of them would appear to be dumb.) Perhaps Democrats have lost so many elections because people actually saw the outcomes of progressive policies, and voted to end them. Republicans offer better policies that work better for more people, and the people have responded.

There is gerrymandering ongoing, to be sure. As this article discusses, racial gerrymandering, which Democrats legislated and sued for, has recently worked against them as progressive groups have coalesced into dense urban areas, and have minimized their respective voting power. Not to mention that Democrats controlled the House for 40 years due to their own gerrymandering. Only now do they want to change the game. That’s true hypocrisy.

Democrats are wrong about why Republicans control the House

Doug:

Stephen Bannon is now out. He was truly an evil person, but he was not stupid. He was correct that much of our progress over the last century is embedded in the "administrative state" and he has helped orchestrate the dismantling of those organizations. But I don't see this as a perspective that will live long past this administration, especially once people feel the effects on their own lives.

One of the complexities of the administrative state, however, is that it is inextricably tied to the Military Industrial Complex. So, with Bannon's ouster, also comes the prospect of increased military action, specifically in Afghanistan. It isn't so much that Trump's perspective on military action in Afghanistan has changed (it has), but the people in position to effect his opinion has changed. Sources say that Trump changed his mind by being shown a picture of what Afghanistan was like:

David:

“Evil” is an unusual term to use just because someone disagrees with your political views. Some might say that doubling the nation’s debt and saddling future generations with that debt is evil. Some might say raising energy costs, which hurts the poorest Americans is evil. Some might even say that opposing school choice, insisting poor children remain trapped in failing schools is evil. “Evil” is a very subjective term, and one I’m surprised to find you using. Bannon is abrasive, but he isn’t evil to want to curb big government (the administrative state), and promote a return to federalism as the dominant form of American government.

Doug:

I find him evil because he abuses people's trust. He is a manipulator. For example, he claims he is not a Nazi, but his paper spreads white-nationalist rhetoric.

David:
You just called him a Nazi. Did you do any fact-checking or google searches to reach that conclusion? Or are you getting your information from a cereal box? That seems to be over-the-top and very inflammatory rhetoric. While you claim that Breitbart is racist, I'm going to guess that you've never actually been to the site or read any articles on the actual site. You've probably read plenty about Breitbart from other liberal sites, however. And according to Rachel Maddow, the Huffington Post, and MSNBC, everything conservative or Republican is racist.

Doug:
If your newspaper is Nazi-sympathising, then you're a Nazi. It really is as simple as that. I don't need to read anyone else's opinion to understand that dynamic. Maybe he does it just to make money. Maybe he does it to get access to the Republicans. It doesn't matter to me what his motive is. In fact, if he truly doesn't believe in the white supremacy that his paper advocates, then that would seem to make him even more evil than those that do.

David: 
President Obama famously stated that we'd all be able to keep our doctors after Obamacare passed. He lied and he knew he was lying. Therefore, he abused our trust, and manipulated us to get the bill passed. So according to you, Obama is evil.

Doug:
You can try to make that false equivalency, but people can very plainly see the clear marks of Nazi propaganda in Breitbart's headlines. You don't even need to read the words. Consider that Breitbart started putting globes around Jewish names. Or that it routinely provides over-the-top, inciting headlines:

David:
So, an opinion piece about one side of the confederate flag issue makes the publisher a Nazi? That seems to be a false equivalence. It also illustrates why liberals don't understand the entire other side of the flag story for people in the South. For many, the flag doesn't represent slavery or the confederacy, but a sense of rebellion and freedom. Remember, the confederate flag was on the Dukes of Hazard's car, which was also the "General Lee". They were not racists. Or Nazis. They were rebels. And, I'll wager most folks who would wave the confederate flag would also support federalism, right along with you.

Perhaps Donald Trump listened to his military advisors, which he indicated he would do from the very beginning of his presidency, and agreed this is the best way to secure a safer future for America. Although it certainly fits your narrative that he, like all other imbecilic Republicans, is easily manipulated by picture books.

Doug:

Your words, not mine.

David:
No, those are actually your words, reinterpreted to be a little more plain. Your comment just confirms that.

Doug:

Yes, that is what the phrase "your words, not mine" mean. But you said it, and then I can quote you: "imbecilic Republicans...easily manipulated by picture books." You made it very plain.

David:

What I do find potentially interesting, is now that Democrats have found federalism to be helpful to their cause, which appears to just be obstructing Trump and the Republicans, their lawsuits against the federal government will set precedents that will make it harder for them to reinstate their big government administrative powers once they regain power. (And of course, they will eventually regain power.) A decrease in the size, scope, and reach of the federal government, and a return of state's powers may be just what Americans have really been asking for.

Doug:
You are partially correct: they will regain power. The strategy is to move the smart politicians to the state and local levels to enact the progressive agenda. Urban independence. That would be a good title for a picture book, I think.

David:
I'm just happy liberals are finally grasping an understanding of how the Constitution actually works, and that local government is the cornerstone. Now, would you like some tea?