Will Democrats rally to "states' rights"?

[PSU84]

THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE November 21, 2004

A States' Rights Left?

By JIM HOLT

When George W. Bush was re-elected, people in some of the bluer states were so angry and sad that they talked of moving to Canada or seceding from the Union. How else, they felt, could they escape the intensifying red-state control of Washington? But there is a less drastic survival strategy available to liberals in the coastal and Great Lakes states, one that involves neither emigration nor civil war. It is based on the venerable doctrine of states' rights. And the oddity is that President Bush himself is determined to give the blue states a rather generous gift to help it succeed. The phrase "states' rights" has a nasty ring to it for liberals, given its historical associations. During the civil rights era, it was the proud slogan of Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond and George C. Wallace, who fought tooth and nail against desegregation. A century earlier, it was invoked by the slave states of the Confederacy to justify their secession from the Union.

<snip>

One of the most striking differences among states is in their levels of wealth. Liberals tend to live in more economically productive states than conservatives. The top five states in per capita personal income (Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland and New York) all went to Kerry; the bottom five (Utah, New Mexico, West Virginia, Arkansas and Mississippi) all went to Bush. Since the blue states are generally richer than the red states, they must bear a greater portion of the federal tax burden. Most of them pay more to Washington than they receive, whereas most of the red states receive more than they pay. Some liberals in blue states must wonder exactly what they get in return for subsidizing the heartlanders, who are said to resent them.

<snip>

The more conservatives succeed in reducing the size and scope of the federal government, the more fiscal freedom the blue states will have to pursue their own idea of a just society. There are already signs that this is happening. Senators Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Jon Corzine of New Jersey are rumored to be contemplating gubernatorial runs in their respective states, convinced that there is now more to do in the governor's mansion than on Capitol Hill. Meanwhile, blue-state liberals should stop despairing and start thinking locally. Instead of saying, "The United States is. . . . " try saying, "The United States are. . . . " See? You feel better already.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/magazine/21WWLN.html?oref=login

Comment:
One thing we should focus on is taking back the governorships and Senate seats in the Blue States. Maryland voted for Kerry and it has 2 Democratic Senators, but it has a Republican (and a particularly nasty, underhanded, devious, dishonest one at that) as governor. He has got to be defeated in '06. Likewise Rick Santorum in PA. He MUST be targeted for defeat in '06. Why do solidly blue states Like New York and Massachusetts have Republican governors? The DNC and other Democratic groups need to devise credible, realistic strategies to defeat Republicans who run for statewide office in the blue states. That should be the party's number one priority between now and 2008.

[Selwynn]

1. I couldn't possibly disagree more.

In fact, I disagree so viscerally - I don't even think this subject is where I even want to spend my DU time.

Just another example of the "we should start being more like the republicans" mentality that has dominated the democratic party for more than a decade -- how many times do we have to lose before we abandon this loser strategy.

[PSU84]

3. That's not a critique, just a complaint.

First, how is this a "loser strategy"? And second, what's your better idea?

If you want all the power to be in the hands of the Republican President, Republican House of Representatives, Republican Senate, and Republican Supreme Court, why not just vote Republican?

[Selwynn]

4. I never said it was otherwise.

Like I said, I don't even have enough interest to spend time here discussing it. But you go right ahead.

[struggle4progress]

14. The Repubs have set out to smash all government authority ...

... that has sufficient power to challenge corporate rule.

As a general rule, I have no objection to doing at the state level what can be done at the state level.

But a blanket policy of "devolving power to the states" essentially means that the real power in the country will be corporate.

[tk2kewl]

2. This may very well work

for social issues. But for economic and environmental issues that do not know borders, we're still screwed.

[progressivedancer]

6. i was thinking that too

Social issues can be contained in borders not the air we breath or our security from terrorists. Nevertheless, i find solace living in Illinois.

[tk2kewl]

8. not to mention going to war

in the name of blue as well as red states

[Mackenzie]

5. Ha ha ha ha ha!

"The more conservatives succeed in reducing the size and scope of the federal government,"

That is just soooooo funny!

They just raised the debt limit by almost a trillion dollars. I think this, combined with a few previous increases, represents a total increase of something like about 37% just since Bush entered office 4 years ago.

Corporate welfare. The Patriot Act. A bloated military that tries to be the world's policeman. Cozy government relationships with Enron and Halliburton. Steel tariffs. Canadian lumber tariffs. Airline bailouts. Agribusiness subsidies. Oil subsidies. Wrecking the environment for corporate interests. SUV tax credits. The war on drugs. Trying to pass a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Supporting the use of tax dollars to pay for private schools. Trying to put social security tax dollars into the stock market. A national sales tax. Trying to teach creationism as "science." Putting the 10 commandments in public buildings. Tax subsidies to "faith based" organizations.

Republicans LOVE big government.

Now, regarding the issue of states' rights. Yes. I believe in states rights for things such as medical and recreational marijuana, assisted suicide, etc. It's actually the Bush administration that has fought very hard against the states that have legalized these things.

If we can't have states' rights, then what's the point of even having states in the first place? What, is it just a bunch of lines drawn on a map that don't mean anything?

Remember, the federal government was created by the states, not the other way around.

[HuskiesHowls]

7. Its a good idea

We need to remember the histories of the presidents who have been elected recently.

4 out of 5 (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, W) have been governors. Only BushI was not a governor. It can't be a bad place to start!!

Also, about states right, Abraham Lincoln (a Republican who was nothing like those who now claim the same party affiliation) in his first Inaugural Address stated: "That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend..."

[lcordero]

9. New Mexico is one of the states that are in dispute

[gordianot]

10. State Rights sound good today, get your rights where you can.

In order for Democrats to advocate States Rights Blue States they need to get rid of Republican Governors like the Austrian wannabe in California. This is one of the best post election questions I have seen on DU!

Living in Misery in the Red State of Missouri. You have to remember we were a border State and never could make up our mind. Thank God for St. Louis and Kansas City. Strange how history has a way of turning.

[The Zanti Regent]

11. Here's the California Secession Web Page.

I'm ready to go!

http://moveoncalifornia.org/index.html

[gordianot]

12. Say can't you recall the Governator?

Now we know it is possible. In some ways I find him scarier than Bush. His speech at the Republican convention was pure demagoguery and bad history.

This nut is a Republican moderate?

[corporatemedia]

13. SANTORUM facing possible JAIL TIME??? read all about it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=175&topic_id=2676&mesg_id=2676

[depakid]

15. This presumes that Republicans care about ANY law

doctrine or tradition. They don't. They are utterly without integrity.

States' rights- federalism and comity- are only meaningful to them when they are useful as means to an end.

As soon as states use "independent state means" or inherent powers granted to them under the 10th Amendment that the far right doesn't like- they find a way to preempt it- usually under the Commerce Clause, but there are a multitude of ways to overturn state laws.

Get it through your head people- Republicans are lawless and they will stop at nothing to impose their twisted morality and allow thier crony coporations to steal from you with impunity.