The Return of Federalism

April 15th, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags: , ,

perry's federalism

Dan Riehl:

In what could conceivably be seen as an opening salvo in Election 2012, Texas Governor Rick Perry has opted to take a very visible stand on a sovereignty resolution (text) passed by the Texas legislature.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It’s a move every bit as populist as the Tea Party movement.

While the consistent headline refreshing nature of today’s 24 hour news cycle won’t permit it in coverage of the Tea Party protests tomorrow, this is the battleground we’re moving into for the next couple of years.

By putting an uber-liberal agenda above simply shepherding America through tough times, he has opened the door to a vigorous debate those on the Right should welcome and engage.


Although Riehl’s post may greatly encourage conservative bloggers like Riehl, I don’t think that we will see major return of the principles of federalism. Americans have become too dependent on Washington, D.C. – Democrats and even Republicans have seen to that.

However, the tea parties and Perry’s federalist attitude could be the opening salvo for a new, a modern battle: strict federalism is never coming back, but that does not mean there can be no conservative revival. There can be.In fact, I think there will be.

To me, the present situation is comparable to that of the 1960s when JFK won the elections, Barry Goldwater caused a conservative revolution in the Republican Party four years later, LBJ won the elections nonetheless, only to be succeeded by Richard M. Nixon who ran on a conservative agenda (although his style of governing was more right-of-center). Nixon would not have won if it was not for Goldwater’s revolution. And then things got even better, from a conservative perspective at least: Jimmy Carter beat Ford because Ford had pardoned Nixon, but lost four years later to Ronald Reagan – perhaps the most conservative president of the 20th century. Reagan and Nixon both were conservatives, and Reagan was deeply influenced by libertarian principles, but they did not do away with government altogether, nor did they restore strict federalism as it was originally meant. But they did govern like conservatives, and accomplished a great deal for their nation.

That is, I think, what conservatives should hope and aim for. Not to go back to the 18th century – it’s impossible, the world and America have changed too much.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Melissa
    April 16th, 2009 at 04:15
    Reply | Quote | #1

    While they do not have the right to do this outright, there are certain paths they can take to get this goal. Come on, you know this is possible because this is the same country which gives exceptions to tax cheats through cleaver legal
    maneuvers.

    Really it is just using the legal system creatively.

    Texas probably has the best chance at success. Here is just one way how it can work. The annexation agreement made when Texas joined the union provided that Texas would be able to divide into 5 states. This would create 8 more conservative Senators.

    If Texas were to try to divide and be rebuffed, the US would be in violation of the agreement and Texas should be able to go free.

    It is not all that far fetched. More here:

    http://tinyurl.com/texasmayleave

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.