Governor Rick Perry and Jon Stewart debate the merits of federalism in this interview. Perry says the merit is that on controversial issues like medicinal marijuana and gay marriage each state can have their own laws. This allows people to leave the state which they disagree with.
Stewart replied the states are not monolithic so there is a minority who does not support the existing laws. For example, there are citizens in Texas who support the two issues mentioned above. Federalism leads to a Tyranny of the Majority which endangers basic rights.
But Stewart is begging the question. He is assuming these things are basic rights. The fact that people disagree about them is the reason why federalism is being proposed as a way to resolve the impasse. States are a “laboratories for democracy” which allow citizens to test a hypothesis.
Of course, Perry did not say that. Which makes you wonder how he will do if he does pursue a Presidential bid.
All the hullabaloo over Sarah Palin’s resignation reminded me of an interesting debate between David Brooks and Stephen Hayward on her ability to rule. Their debate is really a debate that goes back to terms of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist discussion: What is a representative’s role in a republic?
David Brooks took the Federalist view. Representatives should be grounded in “classical education, hard-earned knowledge, experience and prudence.” Prudence is acquired by “experience. The prudent leader possesses a repertoire of events, through personal involvement or the study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who can’t, what has worked and what hasn’t.” Brooks tells us the word “experience” is in the Federalist Papers 91 times.
In the justly praised Federalist No. 10, James Madison argues that representatives should be ‘enlightened statesmen’ who will provide a check on the people by filtering their views. While the people are not a mob, they can be. This is not argument for aristocracy because the people will elect their leaders and can remove them from office. Madison’s idea of a filtering effect signifies the idea that the representatives should lead, not be led by, the people. In opposition to the Brooks’ Federalist position, Stephen Hayward puts forward the Anti-Federalist position. He says Brooks and others are “affronted by the idea that an ordinary hockey mom--a mere citizen--might be just as capable of running the country as a long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations.”
The Anti-Federalists espoused what I like to call the ‘sameness’ principle. Representatives should reflect the views of the people themselves. When I vote for a candidate, it is based on the belief that he or she will vote the way I would have if I had been in Washington. Representatives are the people’s proxies.
The debate between Brooks and Hayward occurred nearly a year ago, but it is still underlying the hostility over Palin today. Ross Douthat reiterated Hayward's argument in a recent column: “…Sarah Palin represents the democratic ideal — that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard.”
Charles Kesler, editor of Claremont Review of Books, was interviewed by Peter Robinson on Uncommon Knowledge. He argues there are three waves of liberalism: political, economic, and cultural.
Political Liberalism, championed by Woodrow Wilson, seeks to supplant the Founders' Constitution with a living one. The belief is institutional devices such as federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances impedes government activity. This might have been necessary in a previous age, Wilson and Progressives contend, but it is harmful in a complex, modern society.
Economic Liberalism emerged during the New Deal era. FDR believed the natural rights the Founders described in the Declaration of Independence were meaningless unless the government actively provided materials to exercise those rights. What use is my rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness if I don't have a job? This is the rationale for public unemployment insurance and social security.
The final stage is cultural liberalism which came to fruition during the Sexual Revolution of the 1960's. Like the earlier stages, a rejection of the Founders' views sets up the new framework. The repudiated claim is found again in the Declaration of Independence which says there is a "law of nature and nature's God." Since we no longer defined by that, the logic goes, we are now free to define ourselves. We are no longer "one nation under God" but a collection of individuals who "express ourselves."
Kesler's presentation of classical (the Founders) versus modern liberalism seems spot on. What is not brought up in the interview is that Kesler's framework is borrowed from the political philosopher Leo Strauss who taught at Claremont. The difference between the two is Kesler's three waves are within the last stage of American liberalism while Strauss saw the three waves in terms of liberalism or modern thought per se. Let me put it another way: Kesler sees the dividing line as between the Founders and Progressives while Strauss argued the line is actually further back, between the Ancients and the Moderns. For Strauss, John Adams and Ted Kennedy would be on the same side of the line. Kesler, like other thinkers from Claremont, have incorporated and revised the ideas of their late great mentor in a subtle but provocative way. Patrick Deneen discusses this revision in greater detail; the difference is he is not as sanguine about it as I am.
