Post by Don on Feb 5, 2017 4:48:19 GMT -5
I've long believed the real split facing the US isn't between races, or regions, but between rural and urban. David A. Graham, writing for The Atlantic, sees the same trend, and sees that war as already being fought between state houses and city councils across the country. The subheading presents the question the rest of the article attempts to answer.
"The United States is coming to resemble two countries, one rural and one urban. What happens when they go to war?"
While I'm personally delighted to see the left rediscovering federalism, the ninth and tenth amendments, and even talk of the once "clearly-racist" concepts of jury nullification and secessionism, the author points out that implementing those concepts may prove problematic to those enclaves of progressivism which have suddenly discovered the virtues of more-localized coercion.
After providing copious examples of those failures of decentralization, the real irony is explored.
As a long-time fan of decentralization of power, I find the sudden about-face by both wings of the Republicrat Turkey both highly amusing and extremely telling of the hypocrisy that underlies the political system today.
So how will this all play out? Even more concentration of power at the Federal level, or a true renaissance of federalism?
My money's on increasing federalism fed by protests, violence and local nullification of higher-level laws that will weaken state governments and devolve power to more-local units of government, right up until the day that the cities seize control of FedGov, at which time they will once again decry federalism and seek to reign in the (by then) less-regulated rural areas once again. Assuming the cities haven't burned to the ground in the meantime.
What's your take?
"The United States is coming to resemble two countries, one rural and one urban. What happens when they go to war?"
With Republicans controlling the presidency, both houses of Congress, and most statehouses, Democrats are turning to local ordinances as their best hope on issues ranging from gun control to the minimum wage to transgender rights. Even before Inauguration Day, big-city mayors laid plans to nudge the new administration leftward, especially on immigration—and, should that fail, to join together in resisting its policies.
But if liberal advocates are clinging to the hope that federalism will allow them to create progressive havens, they’re overlooking a big problem: Power may be decentralized in the American system, but it devolves to the state, not the city. Recent events in red states where cities are pockets of liberalism are instructive, and cautionary. Over the past few years, city governments and state legislatures have fought each other in a series of battles involving preemption, the principle that state law trumps local regulation, just as federal law supersedes state law. It hasn’t gone well for the city dwellers.
In this context of increasing rural-urban division, people on both sides of the political aisle have warmed to positions typically associated with their adversaries. The GOP has long viewed itself as the party of decentralization, criticizing Democrats for trying to dictate to local communities from Capitol Hill, but now Republicans are the ones preempting local government. Meanwhile, after years of seeing Democratic reforms overturned by preemption, the party of big government finds itself championing decentralized power.
So how will this all play out? Even more concentration of power at the Federal level, or a true renaissance of federalism?
My money's on increasing federalism fed by protests, violence and local nullification of higher-level laws that will weaken state governments and devolve power to more-local units of government, right up until the day that the cities seize control of FedGov, at which time they will once again decry federalism and seek to reign in the (by then) less-regulated rural areas once again. Assuming the cities haven't burned to the ground in the meantime.
What's your take?
