Replies

The phrase "states rights", as you have pointed out, is a term that can be readily demonized. Perhaps we should use a term that predates it - Federalism

fed·er·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fdr--lzm, fdr-)
n.

A. A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units.
B. Advocacy of such a system of government.

Is this not an example of the principle of "he who owns the language, controls the argument"?

I have no problem with using the term federalism if one uses it to distinguish one's view from centralism, perhaps the most value-neutral term for the sort of state-socialist wholistic social engineering espoused by the left today.

Here, too, historical usage is unhelpful, as federalism morphs easily in the mind into federalist, the partisans of the centralization of state power in the early Republic. Whereas modern 'federalists' would be more at home, I think (save for on defense) in a more Jeffersonian republic, than in Adams' court.

Language is important, as you rightly point out. Finding language that is not negatively charged is hard. I've always liked classical liberal myself, but that really speaks to a subset of modern conservatism and embraces views that, in popular terms, are more 'liberal' on social matters than many conservatives today as well as views that are very 'conservative' on economics. Part of the problem reflects the tension among 'conservatives' between the religious conservatives whose views on economics are suspect (e.g. many Roman Catholics, given Rome's notorious hostility to capitalism and some fundamentalist Protestants) and more secularly oriented 'conservatives' who still regard themselves as children, if not the the entire Enlightenment enterprise, at least of Locke and the English Enlightenment.