Tags
C, Donald Trump, Election 2016, Jim Langcuster, Sanctuary Cities, Sanctuary States, States Rights
Photo Courtesy of Mister-E.
The editorial chutzpah of the mainstream media – The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN, in particular – never fails to amaze me.
Earlier this week, a New York Times editorial writer discussed the “last ditch effort” that would involve electors stepping up to deny Donald Trump the presidency – remarkable talk in the pages of a news entity that purports to be the national newspaper of record.
Imagine for a moment if the tables were turned and Hillary had won the presidency under similar circumstances – an Electoral College victory but with a popular vote deficit. Any talk of denying her the presidency through some Electoral College ploy would be laughed right out of an NYT Editorial Board meeting as muddle-headed right-wing idiocy and condemned as the rankest expression of hate mongering and authoritarianism.
But there seems to be a lot of surprising talk among the mainstream media in recent weeks, notably regarding state sovereignty issues.
Today, for example, the NYT Editorial Board expressed its solidarity with California’s desire “not to be an accomplice to deportation.”
Amazing, isn’t it? Now that the tables are turned, frank discussions about federal power are remarkably in vogue – in the “national newspapers of record, of all places – but only so long as they relate to the grievances of blue states. I caught myself simultaneously laughing out loud and shaking my head in disbelief watching California Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren bemoan the Electoral College outcome in a recent congressional hearing. She even conceded that secession has ascended to respectable levels of discourse now that citizens in respectable blue states such as California and Oregon were contemplating it.
Don’t misunderstand me. I am hoping fervently that this blue-state resistance against President Trump unfolds with zeal. It has the potential to open up a serious national dialogue about the future of federalism.
Moreover, these recently expressed blue state grievances reflect what a deeply divided nation we are. If all this acrimonious discussion talk about standing up to a Trump presidency reveals one thing, it’s that we are far too big and diverse a nation to be governed any longer by a federal model conceived more than century ago in the Industrial Age by progressive centralizers. To put it another way, imposing a one-size-fits-all domestic policy on a country characterized by this much ethnic, cultural and political diversity is sheer madness.
There, I’ve said it.
But let’s not forget that there would be little, if any, discussion of these issues if Hillary Clinton had emerged the victor last month.
That’s the disturbing part to all of this as I see it. Federalism, until now, at least, has remained off limits, simply because the “right” kind of people – the political leadership in the blue states – have been unwilling to discuss it. But I am holding out hope that Americans on both sides of the great political divide have finally begun to see the federal impasse for what it is: the big belching, flatulent elephant in the American living room.
Ruby Red Republic 
It amazes me that anyone would be amazed that so many would want to block Trump’s presidency? But besides that, what is your solution to “the big belching, flatulent elephant in the American living room”?
LikeLike
Actually, it doesn’t surprise or bother me at all. I was merely pointing out the irony that many on the left and in blue states have not been so forthcoming on issues of state autonomy and localism when red states, disturbed by the growth of federal power, have demanded a return of autonomy secured by the Founders. These demands have been derided as militia-driven, treasonous hate talk. Regarding what to do: acknowledge California’s legitimate grievances and begin to acknowledge U.S. states for what their are – quasi-nations, entities with many of the attributes of nationhood.
LikeLike
Well, as indifferent and soft as we Americans have become, there is no conceivable way that I can see where we would ever find enough gumption and political spirit as a nation to take on such a task. Simply acknowledging a problem, perceived or otherwise, is far from a solution and offering it as one furthers nothing.
What, in your mind, would it really take for “a return of autonomy secured by the Founders”?
LikeLike
Well, you raise an excellent point. The late esteemed American diplomat George F. Kennan advocated the reorganization of the country into 10 or 15 constituent republics with sufficient population and a revenue base to reassume the attributes of sovereign states. A limited numbers of powers would be assigned to the central government, as the Founders originally conceived the Union.
LikeLike
Well, I am certain beyond doubt that there is no end to the intellectual solutions to what you see as “the big belching, flatulent elephant in the American living room.” What I’m interested in knowing is what actions will have to be taken to effectuate any such proposed solution. We can’t just wish them into being. And, by your stated problem, we are too divided to effectuate them politically… So, how do you envision this change actually happening?
LikeLike