Dodging Federalism

Posted on | September 2, 2010 | 34 Comments

by Smitty

I don’t dispute Andrew Ian Dodge’s point about fiscal vs. social conservatism here in the Examiner:

In order to retain those in the middle, non-commital and of other parties that have become part of the tea party movement its essential to produce a spectacular event, or rather events, on 9/12 in DC, St Louis & Sacramento. The tea party movement needs to show that fiscal conservatism is an even stronger force in the American politics than social conservatism.

It’s a battle over who speaks for the grassroots of the county, and its one the fiscal conservatives need to win lest they lose all those moderates, Democrats and independents who have been attracted to the non-partisan, non-religious and non-denominational nature of the tea party movement.

Let’s make the point though that the question isn’t so much what as where. Fiscal conservativism is the obvious Federal thrust because money drives Federal over-reach. A proper chain of command has the Federal government dealing primarily with the States, and leaving to the States the concerns about citizens, insofar as the States aren’t abusive. Given sufficient money and power, debacles like Fannie and Freddie follow.
Social conservatives, and I am one, need to grasp that worrying about private behavior at the Federal level (e.g. variations of marriage) sets the precedent for much evil, like abortions and the Department of Education, but I semi-repeat myself.
Of course, the root of this foulness is the 16th Amendment and Federal Reserve in 1913, subsequent to which the District of Columbia has become the Distributor of Cash. Granted, that gravy train is going to make restoration harder, but it has to be done.
The Founders wrote a Constitution to delegate certain powers to a central government for specific reasons. The time has come to work the wisdom of that Constitution in reverse, to return the Federal government to its intended bounds. Social conservatives really need to ponder this point.

Category: Conservatism 101

Comments

34 Responses to “Dodging Federalism”

Jack Okie
September 2nd, 2010 @ 2:11 pm

Smitty:

1. Although repealing the 17th Amendment is going to be challenging, it is the most direct route back to the Founders’ federalism. If the state legislatures of California, Michigan, New York etc could be shown how much money they would have for themselves if they had senators who danced to THEIR tune, I’d bet they’d get on board for repeal.

2. There seems to be some (mistaken) angst about the 8/28 rally among secular Tea Partiers. I see 8/28 as an affirmation for believers in the fundamental commitment we have to God and country. It goes much deeper, and encompasses much more, than just politics. We each have our own reasons for participating in things like the Tea Party. Glenn has referred to “the third Great Awakening”, which for me implies a God-centered civic life embracing much more than simply government. We have been conditioned by the left, even the social conservatives, to reflexively look to government to accomplish our goals. That support for abortion has steadily declined shows other means can be effective. I think many social conservatives have caught on to this and no longer seek to achieve their objectives through government. Simply, for me, the Tea Party is part of HOW to achieve my political objectives. 8/28 addresses WHY. It makes no difference if secular Tea Partiers have a different “why”; we make common cause.
Jack Okie
September 2nd, 2010 @ 10:11 am

Smitty:

1. Although repealing the 17th Amendment is going to be challenging, it is the most direct route back to the Founders’ federalism. If the state legislatures of California, Michigan, New York etc could be shown how much money they would have for themselves if they had senators who danced to THEIR tune, I’d bet they’d get on board for repeal.

2. There seems to be some (mistaken) angst about the 8/28 rally among secular Tea Partiers. I see 8/28 as an affirmation for believers in the fundamental commitment we have to God and country. It goes much deeper, and encompasses much more, than just politics. We each have our own reasons for participating in things like the Tea Party. Glenn has referred to “the third Great Awakening”, which for me implies a God-centered civic life embracing much more than simply government. We have been conditioned by the left, even the social conservatives, to reflexively look to government to accomplish our goals. That support for abortion has steadily declined shows other means can be effective. I think many social conservatives have caught on to this and no longer seek to achieve their objectives through government. Simply, for me, the Tea Party is part of HOW to achieve my political objectives. 8/28 addresses WHY. It makes no difference if secular Tea Partiers have a different “why”; we make common cause.
smitty
September 2nd, 2010 @ 2:22 pm

@Okie,
For point 1, I don’t think the 17th Amendment, while necessary, is sufficient. Because of the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve. Hence my “Distributor of Cash” line, which I think should go viral in the discussion.

For point 2, the real issue isn’t so much any individual’s belief, but rather that the Federal government wants to be God, and exhibits substantial jealousy.
smitty
September 2nd, 2010 @ 2:22 pm

@Okie,
For point 1, I don’t think the 17th Amendment, while necessary, is sufficient. Because of the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve. Hence my “Distributor of Cash” line, which I think should go viral in the discussion.

For point 2, the real issue isn’t so much any individual’s belief, but rather that the Federal government wants to be God, and exhibits substantial jealousy.
smitty
September 2nd, 2010 @ 10:22 am

@Okie,
For point 1, I don’t think the 17th Amendment, while necessary, is sufficient. Because of the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve. Hence my “Distributor of Cash” line, which I think should go viral in the discussion.

For point 2, the real issue isn’t so much any individual’s belief, but rather that the Federal government wants to be God, and exhibits substantial jealousy.
Live Free Or Die
September 2nd, 2010 @ 2:37 pm

This is kind of ‘the chicken or the egg’ theorizing, with RINOs always taking the,’we can’t attract moderates/independents/etc…,
with social conservatives running things’ position.

Fiscal conservatism never happens without moral conservatism, for they go hand-in-hand. Those that preach ‘fiscal conservativism only’ are wolves in sheeps clothing, scheming how to get their next meal.

Maybe these ‘fiscal conservatism only’ preachers need to take their preaching to the Democrat Party, for the Democrat Party are ‘The Inclusive Party Of Acceptance’.

Republicans, fiscal conservatism only is a Faustian Bargain. Or better yet, Fiscal Conservative Only might be the name of one of the people Christian meets on his journey to Celestial City. Like Pliable, Fiscal Conservative Only seeks to bring Christian back to City of Destruction. Surely, Screwtape would approve of Fiscal Conservative Only’s methods.
Live Free Or Die
September 2nd, 2010 @ 10:37 am

This is kind of ‘the chicken or the egg’ theorizing, with RINOs always taking the,’we can’t attract moderates/independents/etc…,
with social conservatives running things’ position.

Fiscal conservatism never happens without moral conservatism, for they go hand-in-hand. Those that preach ‘fiscal conservativism only’ are wolves in sheeps clothing, scheming how to get their next meal.

Maybe these ‘fiscal conservatism only’ preachers need to take their preaching to the Democrat Party, for the Democrat Party are ‘The Inclusive Party Of Acceptance’.

Republicans, fiscal conservatism only is a Faustian Bargain. Or better yet, Fiscal Conservative Only might be the name of one of the people Christian meets on his journey to Celestial City. Like Pliable, Fiscal Conservative Only seeks to bring Christian back to City of Destruction. Surely, Screwtape would approve of Fiscal Conservative Only’s methods.
Lewis
September 2nd, 2010 @ 3:11 pm

Those that preach ‘fiscal conservativism only’ are wolves in sheeps clothing, scheming how to get their next meal.

Hey look, kids: it’s how to lose friends and influence nobody!

I’m a registered Democrat who can’t stand the Democratic Party. They’re Nanny-State lunatics who’ve never seen a problem that can’t be solved with more government money and control.

I also happen to be pretty socially liberal.

Right now, I’m firmly aligned with the Republicans, and am dedicated to voting straight R down the line to send a damn message.

The social conservative wing of the Republican Party has precious little appeal for me, though, and if I find that they’re getting more agenda juice than the fiscal conservatives, I may just rethink some of my votes.
Lewis
September 2nd, 2010 @ 3:11 pm

Those that preach ‘fiscal conservativism only’ are wolves in sheeps clothing, scheming how to get their next meal.

Hey look, kids: it’s how to lose friends and influence nobody!

I’m a registered Democrat who can’t stand the Democratic Party. They’re Nanny-State lunatics who’ve never seen a problem that can’t be solved with more government money and control.

I also happen to be pretty socially liberal.

Right now, I’m firmly aligned with the Republicans, and am dedicated to voting straight R down the line to send a damn message.

The social conservative wing of the Republican Party has precious little appeal for me, though, and if I find that they’re getting more agenda juice than the fiscal conservatives, I may just rethink some of my votes.
Lewis
September 2nd, 2010 @ 11:11 am

Those that preach ‘fiscal conservativism only’ are wolves in sheeps clothing, scheming how to get their next meal.

Hey look, kids: it’s how to lose friends and influence nobody!

I’m a registered Democrat who can’t stand the Democratic Party. They’re Nanny-State lunatics who’ve never seen a problem that can’t be solved with more government money and control.

I also happen to be pretty socially liberal.

Right now, I’m firmly aligned with the Republicans, and am dedicated to voting straight R down the line to send a damn message.

The social conservative wing of the Republican Party has precious little appeal for me, though, and if I find that they’re getting more agenda juice than the fiscal conservatives, I may just rethink some of my votes.
Kojocaro
September 2nd, 2010 @ 3:55 pm

yes so you’ll vote for the dem then you do realize it is possible to be both a fiscal and social conservative?[This coming from a social moderate]
Kojocaro
September 2nd, 2010 @ 11:55 am

yes so you’ll vote for the dem then you do realize it is possible to be both a fiscal and social conservative?[This coming from a social moderate]
Live Free Or Die
September 2nd, 2010 @ 4:37 pm

Why do the heathen rage, and people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against His anointed, (saying),
Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us…..
Live Free Or Die
September 2nd, 2010 @ 12:37 pm

Why do the heathen rage, and people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against His anointed, (saying),
Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us…..
Adobe Walls
September 2nd, 2010 @ 5:03 pm

There will be no successful social conservative movement that doesn’t lead with fiscal conservatism. Most of the muddled middle have a live and let live attitude but don’t really have any really strong views on anything but economic well being. If fiscal conservatives principals are correct and we deliver everything else will fall into place. However if the independents think “real conservatives” care more about taking away some one’s dildo than making way for economic growth they’ll vote back in the communists.
Adobe Walls
September 2nd, 2010 @ 1:03 pm

There will be no successful social conservative movement that doesn’t lead with fiscal conservatism. Most of the muddled middle have a live and let live attitude but don’t really have any really strong views on anything but economic well being. If fiscal conservatives principals are correct and we deliver everything else will fall into place. However if the independents think “real conservatives” care more about taking away some one’s dildo than making way for economic growth they’ll vote back in the communists.
Jack Okie
September 2nd, 2010 @ 5:15 pm

Smitty:

I agree on the 16th and Federal Reserve, but repealing the 17th should make it easier to deal with the other two. If we can get an article V Constitutional Convention off the ground, should we restrict it to say, the 17th, or go for broke in the fear it will be our only chance.

Lewis:

In some ways the social/fiscal thing is a false dichotomy. This social conservative agrees with Adobe Walls; even more I will fight tooth and nail to restrict political action to fiscal matters. Politics / government is not the venue to address social conservative concerns, and I think many social conservatives have figured that out.
Jack Okie
September 2nd, 2010 @ 1:15 pm

Smitty:

I agree on the 16th and Federal Reserve, but repealing the 17th should make it easier to deal with the other two. If we can get an article V Constitutional Convention off the ground, should we restrict it to say, the 17th, or go for broke in the fear it will be our only chance.

Lewis:

In some ways the social/fiscal thing is a false dichotomy. This social conservative agrees with Adobe Walls; even more I will fight tooth and nail to restrict political action to fiscal matters. Politics / government is not the venue to address social conservative concerns, and I think many social conservatives have figured that out.
Roxeanne de Luca
September 2nd, 2010 @ 5:43 pm

Good points. Unfortunately, the federal government does stick its nose into social conservative areas – the Department of Education, nominating Supreme Court justices, giving hundreds of millions to Planned Parenthood, etc. Obviously, Art. I, Sec. 8 does not allow them to do that, but they do it anyway.

Now, my one problem with libertarians is that they seem to not live in reality, as in, fiscal conservatism and letting people live their lives is great, but in reality, if a 15-year-old heroin addict is having her mother’s live-in-boyfriend’s baby, there’s all sorts of screaming about how we need welfare for the mother and baby, a Department of Social Services for the live-in-boyfriend issue, clean needles for the heroin, and socialised medicine for the baby born six weeks early and with birth defects. Reality is that there is a huge social cost to not having stable family structures, and reality is that a lot of voters then want us to pay for it.
Roxeanne de Luca
September 2nd, 2010 @ 5:43 pm

Good points. Unfortunately, the federal government does stick its nose into social conservative areas – the Department of Education, nominating Supreme Court justices, giving hundreds of millions to Planned Parenthood, etc. Obviously, Art. I, Sec. 8 does not allow them to do that, but they do it anyway.

Now, my one problem with libertarians is that they seem to not live in reality, as in, fiscal conservatism and letting people live their lives is great, but in reality, if a 15-year-old heroin addict is having her mother’s live-in-boyfriend’s baby, there’s all sorts of screaming about how we need welfare for the mother and baby, a Department of Social Services for the live-in-boyfriend issue, clean needles for the heroin, and socialised medicine for the baby born six weeks early and with birth defects. Reality is that there is a huge social cost to not having stable family structures, and reality is that a lot of voters then want us to pay for it.
Roxeanne de Luca
September 2nd, 2010 @ 1:43 pm

Good points. Unfortunately, the federal government does stick its nose into social conservative areas – the Department of Education, nominating Supreme Court justices, giving hundreds of millions to Planned Parenthood, etc. Obviously, Art. I, Sec. 8 does not allow them to do that, but they do it anyway.

Now, my one problem with libertarians is that they seem to not live in reality, as in, fiscal conservatism and letting people live their lives is great, but in reality, if a 15-year-old heroin addict is having her mother’s live-in-boyfriend’s baby, there’s all sorts of screaming about how we need welfare for the mother and baby, a Department of Social Services for the live-in-boyfriend issue, clean needles for the heroin, and socialised medicine for the baby born six weeks early and with birth defects. Reality is that there is a huge social cost to not having stable family structures, and reality is that a lot of voters then want us to pay for it.
Ric Locke
September 2nd, 2010 @ 6:48 pm

Be very, very wary of those urging that the tea parties develop leadership and spectacular events.

What most of them are looking for is a head they can cut off.

Regards,
Ric
Ric Locke
September 2nd, 2010 @ 6:48 pm

Be very, very wary of those urging that the tea parties develop leadership and spectacular events.

What most of them are looking for is a head they can cut off.

Regards,
Ric
Ric Locke
September 2nd, 2010 @ 2:48 pm

Be very, very wary of those urging that the tea parties develop leadership and spectacular events.

What most of them are looking for is a head they can cut off.

Regards,
Ric
Adobe Walls
September 2nd, 2010 @ 7:14 pm

Some of the fiscal solutions such as abolishing the Dept. of Edu. take care of at least part of the other problems. Conservatives have to prove that they can govern without getting caught in the power traps that produce stupid non conservative ideas like no child left behind from people who are supposed to be conservative.
Adobe Walls
September 2nd, 2010 @ 3:14 pm

Some of the fiscal solutions such as abolishing the Dept. of Edu. take care of at least part of the other problems. Conservatives have to prove that they can govern without getting caught in the power traps that produce stupid non conservative ideas like no child left behind from people who are supposed to be conservative.
Adobe Walls
September 2nd, 2010 @ 7:30 pm

Add the Federal Trade Commission to my list of must abolish government.
From Moonbattery
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/09/federal-bureauw.html#comments
Adobe Walls
September 2nd, 2010 @ 3:30 pm

Add the Federal Trade Commission to my list of must abolish government.
From Moonbattery
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/09/federal-bureauw.html#comments
Can't We All Just Get Along? | The Lonely Conservative
September 2nd, 2010 @ 9:58 pm

[…] blog. I come down on the side of the fiscally conservative – on the side of the Constitution. Smitty, who acknowledges that he is a social conservative, made a great point. Social conservatives, and I am one, need to grasp that worrying about private behavior at the […]
Randy Rager
September 3rd, 2010 @ 3:05 am

Thank you, Mr. Locke. You’ve put into words a thought I’ve had for some time.
Randy Rager
September 2nd, 2010 @ 11:05 pm

Thank you, Mr. Locke. You’ve put into words a thought I’ve had for some time.
Randy Rager
September 3rd, 2010 @ 3:09 am

On topic, I’m a fiscal con only, and don’t give a damn what you do in the privacy of your own home, so long as it harm no one else. For that matter, I define harm for public actions a bit looser than most social cons would be comfortable with.

Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser’s, and unto God what is God’s, isn’t that the verse? Well, start taking it seriously!
Randy Rager
September 2nd, 2010 @ 11:09 pm

On topic, I’m a fiscal con only, and don’t give a damn what you do in the privacy of your own home, so long as it harm no one else. For that matter, I define harm for public actions a bit looser than most social cons would be comfortable with.

Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser’s, and unto God what is God’s, isn’t that the verse? Well, start taking it seriously!
Labor Day Robo-Love
September 4th, 2010 @ 1:31 pm

[…] Social Conservatism? […]