0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
. . . If we’re speaking about the post-FDR form of American government, with power increasingly centralized in Washington, then Gross is on to something: American political dysfunction will only increase so long as our leaders remain committed to that kind of government. But if one goes further back and defines “traditional means†as government ordered according to the vision of the Founders, then there’s hope for us yet. True federalism (and only true federalism) can match American government to the larger religious, cultural, and political trends that are pulling Americans apart.In other words . . . it’s time to get busy decentralizing or get busy dividing.. . . How is the continued consolidation of governmental power remotely compatible with this geographic, cultural, and religious fragmentation? Indeed, doesn’t it inevitably increase alienation and bitterness? After all, the consolidation of American power isn’t just in the hands of the federal government, it’s in the hands of one man: the American president . . .. . . [E]ven leaving aside the presidency, there is nothing healthy about the idea that Nancy Pelosi can loom large in Tennessee or that Ted Cruz can loom large in California. The very idea of Cruz’s potential power in San Francisco or Pelosi’s power in Franklin can cause politically engaged Americans to live in a state of near-constant agitation and misery.The solution is staring us in the face. Ironically enough, 18th-century federalism is more compatible with the Information Age than 20th-century centralization. It is not, however, compatible with the will to power that darkens all too many political hearts.There are an immense number of partisans who look at the facts of American decentralization and polarization — who examine the reality of our religious, cultural, and political diversity — and decide that the answer to American division is, quite simply, to win, to crush the opposition.Each side has its theory of ascendancy. For Democrats, demography is destiny. As the nation looks more like California, it will be more like California. For Republicans, geography is destiny . . . Both of these theories are barely plausible enough to give the permanent partisans hope for permanent triumph. But their will to power conflicts with everyone else’s pursuit of happiness . . . America is indeed too big (and far too divided) to govern — at least according to the 20th-century model. To go forward, we must go back. Federalism’s time has come again.
Wasn't that the idea behind federalism? States? The 10th Amendment?
