Replies

I often shudder when I hear conservatives extolling the virtues of “local control” or “local authorities” — as if local officials are somehow inherently more virtuous than the feds

It is curious how often those who defend localism as the lesser of evils are so purblind to the virtues and power of localism under Article V to reform the evils of overgrown central government.

As to this author, he fails to place federalism and democracy in context. He rails against corruption, against government by and for elitists, and quite properly so, but he does not place the failures of "democratic" or representative government in context as the least dangerous and oppressive of governments. The true context is to acknowledge that representative government is not perfect and it cannot be perfect but it can be corrective. In other words, representative government will make almost all the mistakes totalitarian governments make but has a much better chance of reform and invoking a process which will put government on a different track in a better direction which will cure or at least mitigate some of its mistakes.

A totalitarian government, especially a centralized totalitarian government like the Soviet Union (or like the government the United States is increasingly becoming) is definitionally incapable of identifying mistakes, correcting them, and changing course. Gorbachev tried it in the Soviet Union and the whole system crashed.

A representative government, in theory, can modify mistakes and, the smaller the government, the easier the course change is to effect and tolerate. Every reform breaks someone's Rice bowl and will understandably be resisted bitterly. When the system entrenches interests other than individual voters interests in places like K St. or Wall Street, elitist government becomes inevitable and all the more difficult to reform.

This author rails against entrenched interests which he identifies as elitist interests at the local level and well he should because that is the implacable destiny of democracy. Ted Kennedy (gasp) at least had the rhetoric right, the struggle never ends.

I do not believe that local politicians are intrinsically more virtuous than Washington-based politicians. I believe they have a different set of self-interested motives, some of which favor a reform fit for modern times. Other selfish interests which we cannot even now anticipate will emerge later and will present a challenge later.

Meanwhile, the struggle goes on because it never ends. If it ever actually ends, we have something different, something much worse than representative democracy to reform we will have another Soviet Union. But at that point reform will not suffice, because "reform" will mean revolution.

In my opinion, the fundamental difference between a locally controlled government and a centralized federal government is that an overbearing centralized government (which is, by definition what it must become) slow, overbearing, clumsy and wrong.

It is the difference between a 150,000 ton supertanker and a frigate.

Both federal and local have a place, but having federal government take the place of local government is going to, by necessity decrease its effectiveness and increase dramatically its bureaucratic burden on the citizenry.

A federal government 3000 miles away controlling what should be done in your community will not work. They don’t understand your problems, your resources, your climate, your customs, etc.

And getting them to respond to change is nearly impossible.

But most of all, as another poster put it, you can’t move away from an overbearing federal government.

That has always been the great thing about America. It was, at one time, more like a thousand separate laboratory experiments in government, policy, education, etc. If a school system in a community tried to do something radically different to teach its children, failure only meant the failure of that one school system and the poor education of its own children. People who cared and didn’t want to participate could either move to another community, or stay and enact local change.

If a federal policy directive (such as Common Core) is enacted and enforced (for example, via disbursement of federal monies such as highway funds to compliant states and denied to those who don’t toe the federal line) and it fails, the entire country will suffer, and generations could be poorly educated. You cannot move away from it. And good luck changing it.

Having both Federal and Local government is not an intrinsic evil, and is good...if they both stay within the defined boundaries. That ship sailed a long, long time ago.

"...I do not believe that local politicians are intrinsically more virtuous than Washington-based politicians..."

They aren't. They are just easier to get your hands on.

And at the heart of conservatism is a healthy awareness that people are flawed, and are susceptible to temptation, corruption and power, and you allow yourself to be governed while knowing man is imperfect. Liberals don't see it that way, hence people like Obama in government. The founders surely saw it that way, and it is why the Constitution was created as it was. A wonderful document when followed, a great cover for people to wrap themselves in for protection when they deliberately flaunt it, and profess to abide by it. And aren't called out on it.