How liberals learned to love federalism.

[WarGamer]

An older article from 2019... but a great argument for "States Rights" from the Left...

People in states like California can tell you all about how a State can defend it's residents against a disagreeable Federal Gov't.

Now look at California, trying to establish a Statewide Universal Healthcare system outside of Federal control.

We should ALL be intellectually consistent and certainly NOT long for an all powerful Federal Gov't.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-liberals-learned-to-love-federalism/2019/07/12/babd9f52-8c5f-11e9-b162-8f6f41ec3c04_story.html

But in the Trump era, many progressives are rediscovering the merits of federalism. They are finding that state and local governments can serve as an important check on a president whose policies they deplore, and — even more striking, given the history of the debate — that states and cities can provide valuable protection for vulnerable minorities.

[dpibel]

1. I think it's intellectually consistent

to say that states should be free to expand citizens' rights beyond some federal baseline, but should not be able to restrict rights below that baseline.

This seems to me not a hard concept, nor one that is intellectually inconsistent.

Are you really arguing that California deciding to provide health care for all its residents is just the same as Mississippi deciding that only white people who own land should be able to vote.

Because that seems to me to be what you're arguing.

[WarGamer]

2. What a ridiculous comparison.

[dpibel]

3. Not a well-developed argument

It appears to me that your OP posits that libruls should like states' rights just like righties do.

Am I wrong about that?

If I'm not, then explain to me, please (and "what a ridiculous comparison" doesn't do it) why I should "NOT long for an all powerful Federal Gov't." if it is in the business of protecting rights.

This isn't really very hard.

[WarGamer]

4. Just read the WaPo article

Saves me the time of arguing with you.

[dpibel]

6. I did!

To my surprise, it was not paywalled.

And it is, in fact, a rightie scolding lefties about what he claims is inconsistency on the issue of federalism.

And it is, in fact, subject to the precise criticism I originally leveled: It pretends that there's no difference between states claiming to exercise their 10th amendment rights in service of restricting rights and states doing the same to expand rights.

The WaPo writer is saying, "All the states should be free to experiment as they see fit. There is no difference between CA offering universal health care and GA denying blacks the right to vote. Intellectual consistency, man."

If you're good with that, well, bless your heart.

[WarGamer]

7. Well my purpose of posting the article...

Was to promote DISCUSSION on a discussion forum.

So, Mission Accomplished, I guess.

I assume you're asking for MY opinion, not the writer of the WaPo article?

Well, I'll tell you how I feel.

I remember the feeling of watching an out of control Trump Federal Gov't and I hoped that States would be able to fight back.

But let's look at the purpose of the Federal Gov't with regard to this topic.

The Federal Gov't has a duty to secure and defend basic rights for Americans. Obviously a State Law giving voting rights only to property owners is a gross violation of basic rights.

But I also feel States are a "macro-Community" and I like how some States seek "carve-outs" from Federal Laws. Things like legal pot.

If Abortion is regulated by a SCOTUS decision, I'd like the State to be able to protect Abortion Rights.

See where I'm going?

I'm arguing for the ability of a State to counter a Federal Gov't that might not represent the people of "my community".

I've lived in California for 40+ years and I don't want a DJT or future DJT to change the way we live here. Our community, as a State tends to run a little more progressive than an average State out of 50... and I like that.

And hold on... I also believe in Communities deciding things like education.

I like how our local schools give Middle and High School books that provoke thought and empathy for others, particularly historically abused classes of citizens...

But I also believe that I can NOT create the Semester "Reading List" for Spearfish, SD or Plano, TX.

That's the job of that community.

Think of it this way.

American society/culture is a bowling alley. The Federal Gov't installs "bumpers" that prevent bowling balls from going in the gutters but the player can still throw a hook, a straight ball, fast pitch, slow...

The Rights of the Community, meaning State in my example... exist within a framework established in a Constitutional manner by the Federal Gov't BUT are largely autonomous.

All good?

[dpibel]

5. Maybe I missed your point

And if so, I do apologize.

It wasn't clear to me what part of your OP was your opinion and what part was WaPo.

If you are, in fact, arguing that there's nothing at all intellectually inconsistent about the feds not interfering with a CA universal health care program and blocking an Alabama voter suppression measure, then we're cool.