Writer Stephen Hand has a curious solution to the ongoing culture war, one that would amount to a truce: "I have been brought to the proposal almost against my will, kicking and resisting all the way, but ultimately yielding to its logic as possibly the only hope for this country, unless the gov't gets real and reasonable again which seems too much of a stretch... The regionalist solution proposes that there is nothing at all wrong that birds of a feather should want to flock together even in this country; to the contrary it is only natural. Therefore as with the Amish in Pennsylvania, the Mormons in Utah, or legalized prostitution in Nevada it is desirable that people of similar values (or the lack of them) flock together in regional majorities run by their own elected legislators while adhering to a loose federalist renewed constitution.".
1 comment:
David;
This is my first time at your weblog, and I came across it through the Stoney Creek Digest.
To the point of your posting and the author you referenced, while I agree on one level I strongly disagree on another. While I was working on my masters in public administration I had the opportunity to research regionalism and regional issues. During the course of the research I noted that there is a strong under-current of discussion from public administrators, policy makers, and academics pushing for regional government. These folks are actually proposing regional governments being established through out the US. In actually, this has already begun on some level through government agencies like FEMA and the Justice Department. Regional department offices are one thing, but establishing another level of government is maddening, Could you imagine another level of government between the state and national government? Besides, anyone with a good understanding of the US Constitution would see that this goes against the foundation of our country. We are a collection of states under one national umbrella.
However, this is where the whole 10th Amendment movement comes into place. Many believe that the national government has taken over too much of our lives and the removed power from the state governments. If we return to the point of the article, which would then be the best way top return to a situation as proposed by the author is to return the individuality back to the states. If Vermont, God help them, wants to be socialist, then they should be able to, as long as it does not violate the US Constitution. The only draw back to this resonates in the post civil war era in which the Deep South prevented American’s of African decedents their Constitutional rights. I have noted that this is the argument made by the left leaning. They tend to fear reducing the power of the national and federal governments and returning to the states.
But I on the other had welcome the idea that one state could be libertarian, as the Free State movement is doing New Hampshire, Vermont moving toward socialism. People would then migrate to the areas they believed best supported their life style.
Post a Comment