Texas Governor Rick Perry has become one of the most vocal opponents of Washington’s wasteful spending and unconstitutional projects, in recent days. He is trying setting himself as the most new spokesman for strict federalism, the kind of federalism the founding fathers had in mind when they founded the union.

You have to wonder, however, whether the old kind of federalism – the kind of federalism Perry wants – is not lost for eternity. I think it is. America has changed too much, and so have the American people. The people expect different things from the federal government these days. Perry and other Republicans should keep that in mind.

Having said that, there is nothing wrong with having a powerful, influential voice for federalism criticizing Washington, D.C. Federal lawmakers and the White House are constantly thinking and talking about how to ‘improve’ the nation. They do not even look at the constitution when they agree to do this or that. As such, Perry’s work is of vital importance: it may serve as a reminder to national leaders that they cannot just do whatever it is they want to do. No, they need to keep the rights of states and the limitations the constution puts on the federal government in mind.

Speaking in Austin, Texas yesterday, Governor Perry railed against Washington’s wasteful spending, interference in state-business, and uncontrolled growth. During his speech, some participants called for secession. These individuals were rather obviously a bit too passionate – and if they meant what they said they cannot be taken too serious – but Perry got the message nonetheless. After his speech he spoke to reporters and told them that “there’s a lot of different scenarios,” possible. “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.”

He has received quite some criticism for his rather blunt words, but – when push comes to shove – it is difficult to disagree with anything he says. He makes clear that he believe “there’s absolutely no reason to dissolve” the union but that if Washington continues doing what it has been doing for the last years, even decades, Texans may – in one way or another – revolt. Perry went on to say that the agreement between the state of Texas and the United States in which Texas agreed to join the union allows for the state to regain its independence if it wants to. That’s also an acceptable interpretation. If not of the agreement between Texas and the U.S. then of the Constitution itself.

Still, was it a useful thing to say? I think not. He knows that he and all tea party protesters will be called “loons” for even mentioning the word ’secession.’ And rightly so, perhaps. These are extreme thoughts – this is not about tearing the union apart, it is about pushing Washington back to where it belongs, defending one’s rights, and making sure that future generations are better not worse off than those living and working today. These are all normal and acceptable political goals. Secession is not. Perry says he agrees with the aforementioned, but why then use the word and explain how it could – in his opinion – be done? It was not useful at all.

On the other hand, I can also agree somewhat with this post at Red State. The author explains that the use of the ’s-word’ is indeed a bit over the top, but that Perry is Texas’ governor – not a federal lawmaker. He should defend his constituents’ interests. If doing so means he has to stand up to Washington, well, so be it. His words are not meant to be politically correct nationally; they are meant to protect his state.

A governor should indeed serve his state. The federal government is not his concern. In fact, the founding fathers wanted powerful states with decisive governors who would tell Washington to stuff it when it would act in breach with the constitution. There certainly is a lot of truth to that – I just think that he could have done so without mentioning the ’s-word.’