Shifting Standards
I’ve been following Jonathon Taplin’s recent blog series exploring today’s complex geo-political and economic landscape. Though Taplin is a proud Progressive from the Left, I’ve found his recent post making the case for “New Federalism” fascinating. This article drew my attention to how dramatically the American political scene is changing.
What has interested me in our present election cycle is how some of the old “party lines” are slipping. I’m of the opinion that this slippage began years earlier. In some ways, the present Bush administration seems to echo the Johnson administration as much as it does Reagan’s. Also, Bill Clinton’s economic programs would not have come from a McGovern or a Mondale administration. It is as though our Baby Boomer presidents are one step removed from the political standard bearers of the late 60s through 80s. It was during those tumultuous days that the Goldwater/Reagan revolution took hold of the Right and the Great Society gave focus to the Left. Now, it seems that the current crop of candidates (with the exception of Hillary) are another step or two removed from yesteryears political battle lines.
This is not to say that we’ve entered some utopian middle ground. Rather, we are beginning a time of shifting political definitions. While the philosophical foundations that define the political positions are standing firm, the campaign-required wrappings are changing shape. This forces us to dig deeper than slogans and sound bites. This is not a new phenomenon. In academic circles, the basis of modern day conservatism is known as classical liberalism (a la libertarianism). The terms are fluid, but the underlying concepts surrounding society and the role of government are permanent.
It would be more helpful for me to understand the candidates’ views on the role, rights and responsibilities of men and women operating within a free republic, than it is to hear about their latest concoction to cure health care or our failing schools. This doesn’t mean that the details aren’t important, but their policy positions will flow from their philosophical foundations. The challenge with our current election rhetoric is the focus on tactical issues allows the candidates to slide by with sound bites to sum up their strategic and philosophical underpinnings. Twenty years ago, there was little need to question the political philosophy of a candidate. It was stuck on them as securely as a campaign sticker. Today, things are different.
Mr. Taplin suggests that we need to return to Jefferson’s belief that “The true theory of our Constitution is that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations.” This is strange talk coming from a Progressive Liberal. You won’t find Ted Kennedy or Gary Hart pushing for state’s rights, but Mr. Taplin sees it as the best defense against the take-over of our national government by Big Business and corporate self-interest. Of course, he’s right. The point of Federalism (as professed by small-government conservatives and libertarians) has always been to protect the American people for unstoppable centralized power. The bravado of the Bush administration has awakened the Left to the dangers of a centralized bureaucracy holding all the meaningful reigns of power. Our national elections should be our opportunity to form the team of representative leaders who will collectively govern this nation, and should not degenerate into a crowning of the Philosopher King that will reign for the next four years. As Taplin explains, states (or I’d submit even local communities) are better able to address the issues and interests applicable to their citizens and region without the corrupting influence of “others.”
Now, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that Federalism faded from fashion for a good reason. The Civil Rights conflict of the 60s illustrated vividly the dangers of provincialism run amuck. Indeed, it could be argued that the inspiration for “state’s rights” has always flowed from the division created by the slave-holding, then racially-segregated, South. Certainly, using the power of state government to persecute and defend a deeply-flawed social order was an abdominal use of local control; however, this abuse does not necessitate the end of an entire concept of government. It does, however, clearly demonstrate the need for true checks and balances and a watchful eye.
With some claiming that John Edwards and Mike Huckabee have more in common than do either to their inter-party competition, its becoming clear that seismic changes are underway. With the Republican’s “big tent” falling down around their ears, and “counter-culture” democrats running–and profiting–from today’s culture, I believe the old political standard bearers are becoming largely symbolic.