• Introduction
  • About Ruby Red Republic
  • Contact
  • Blog

Ruby Red Republic

~ Thoughts on Red States and "Deplorables."

Ruby Red Republic

Category Archives: Localism

Our Duplicitous Supreme Court

03 Friday Dec 2021

Posted by Jim Langcuster in Alabama History, American Federalism, Localism, The Passing Scene, U.S. Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Federalism, Jim Langcuster, Roe v. Wade, States Rights, Supreme Court

I’ll not mince words: The Supreme Court, having arrogated to itself a responsibility constitutionally reserved to the states, deserves a lot of blame for the ravaging effects that the abortion issue has had on public discourse. This issue arguably would be a lot less psychologically charged if it had been left to state legislatures to resolve.

I will carry the argument a step further: I contend that the court, by insinuating itself into every facet of American life, has undermined the deliberative capacity of states and localities in many ways. One could argue that this is a symptom of just how impossibly large and unwieldy the federal union has become. 

The abortion issue not only has morphed into one of most contentious issues in America but has but also, certainly over the last 50 years, has sparked a considerable divergence of opinion over what exactly defines life. 

Moreover, one could make the case that  the wide divergence on the issue, which arguably was exacerbated unnecessarily by the Court’s 1973 ruling, also serves to underscore that the Framers were right from the start about country simply being too culturally diverse to be governed centrally.

Within the last century, the court ostensibly has expanded its purview at least partly based on the argument that Congress and state legislatures simply aren’t equipped to resolve such contentious, multifaceted issues. Yet, why should we assume that a court of nine legal specialists is any better equipped to resolve such a complex issue?

Fifty state legislators, comprised of thousands of people who arguably have far more knowledge of local concerns and aspirations of ordinary Americans, strike me as far better equipped to deal with such a damnably and emotional charged issue as abortion.

The “Gorbachev Moment” Approacheth

07 Sunday Nov 2021

Posted by Jim Langcuster in Alabama History, American Federalism, Federalism, Localism, secession, The Passing Scene

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

American Breakup, American identity, American National Identity, Civil War II, Gorbachev moment, Jim Langcuster, secession

Mikhail Gorbachev

Speaking as one who loves American history, the thought has occurred to me time and again: We have never been as united as we think we are. It was a major concern of the constitutional framers and, apart from a few factors in history that have created the illusion of unity, we remain a very pluralistic polity, culturally and politically, and we simply have to find a way to create new political structures to ensure we remain adequately equipped against geopolitical threats such as China but that also ensure that we don’t end up beating out each other’s brains.

If you have been a frequent reader of this forum, you are likely aware that I have come to describe all what is unfolding in the United States as our very own  “Gorbachev moment.” Recall that some 30 years ago the ill-fated refomer of Soviet society? Mikhail Gorbachev tried to negotiate a union treaty to hold things together but events got ahead of him. Boris Yetsin, president the Russian Soviet Republic, signed a compact with his counterparts in Byeloerussia and Ukraine that resulted the breakup of the Soviet state.

As this article attests, we seem to be approaching a similar impasse in the United States, reflected in the growing number of ordinary Americans who express an interest on secession.

For now, our leadership class remains conspicuously silent on the topic of secession. But the inevitable “the Emperor hath no clothes” moment inevitably will arise. Sooner or later, some prominent American, perhaps a governor or senator from either a blue or red state, simply will have to state frankly, “Something’s got to give.”

This is when the facade will crumble.

Then, pehaps, we can hope for some sort of modus vivendi that holds the country together to fend off geopolitical threats, though while ensuring that domestic  power is returned to states or, perhaps more realistic, compacts of states, that we can be assured of sufficient insulation from our increasingly malignant and consolidating ruling class.

Our Malignant Ruling Class (and Its Enablers)

27 Friday Oct 2017

Posted by Jim Langcuster in American Federalism, Localism, The Passing Scene, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bigotry, Elites, Jim Langcuster, John Stossel, Old Aristocracy, Ruling Class

plutocratsMy Facebook Memories reminded me today that I shared this piece by John Stossel exactly a year ago.  Given what’s transpired over the past year, it’s worth revisiting.

Stossel observes that America has historically been bereft of the “old aristocracy” of Europe, but this hasn’t stopped many self-anointed meritocrats – at least, those who pass as such – from upbraiding the rest of us about our moral, ethical and social failings.

This script plays out day after day, not only among elites but also among those of the countless millions of ordinary Americans who are influenced to one degree or another by this imposed ethos.

I’m reminded of an especially annoying account shared with me a few years ago by a very talented former co-worker.  A native Alabamian with a palpable but cultivated Southern drawl, he enrolled in one of New York’s highly regarded Research I universities to complete a second graduate degree in his field. The course of study was an applied curriculum and he frequently was called upon to prepare projects to present to one of the classes.

The professor prefaced one of his presentations with the denigrating remark, “Let’s hear what Billy Bob has to say.”

Now, imagine the sh*t storm that would have erupted if this professor had prefaced a Muslim student’s presentation with something like “Let’s hear what Muhammad has to say” or an Indian Hindu student with “Let’s hear what Apu has to say.”

Granted, this professor technically can’t be defined as a member of the ruling class – he just rates as an enabler –  but this kind of brazen elitist contempt for people in so-called Flyover Country and particularly the South certainly reflects the cultural legacy of our ruling class.

We Southerners have shared these accounts among ourselves for years. A relative related to me a few months about about how her daughter-in-law, who developed rather flat General American accent in the course of growing up as an army brat, always feels compelled to intercede on behalf of high school teacher who conducts an annual student tour of New York City.  The teacher possesses a pronounced Appalachian twang, which frequently invokes the contemptuous obstinance of museum directors, tour guides and head waiters.

Granted, museum directors and tour guides do not rate as ruling class members, but their expressions of palpable aversion to this hapless educator and others speaks volumes about how successfully our self-anointed elites have sewn contempt for Southerners and other perceived bumpkins over the course of generations.

As I’ve said before, folks, I’m no Trump partisan, but I certainly understand and sympathize with the anger that has given rise to the Trump phenomenon.

Perhaps the serious blows dealt recently to Big Entertainment via the Harvey Weinstein revelations and to Big Media following new discoveries about DNC connections with the Trump Dossier will go a long way toward changing this dynamic.

Maybe the day is fast approaching when all or most of the facets of the Establishment left will be held to thedame level of contempt as Harvey Weinstein.

Yes, things may be changing – one can hope, at least – but for now, though, the ruling class still occupies the driver’s seat.  As Stossel stresses, it still decides “which ideas are acceptable, which scientific theories to believe, what speech is permitted.”

Why Is Secession Such a Terrible Word?

13 Friday Oct 2017

Posted by Jim Langcuster in American Federalism, American History, Devolution, Localism, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Articles of Confederation, Catalonia, Federalism, Jim Langcuster, John Stossel, Localism, secession, Thomas Jefferson, U.S. Constitution

John-Stossel

Libertarian pundit and author John Stossel. Photo: Courtesy of Gage Skidmore.

Libertarian author and pundit John Stossel is mystified by all the smack talk about secession.

“Why do so many people see secession as such a terrible thing?” he asks.

Stossel cites the recent Catalonian push for secession, stressing that the struggle is about Catalans taking charge of their own affairs.  As he stresses, no government is perfect, but local governments, generally speaking, are “more responsive to the needs of constituents.” Moreover, by keeping government closer to home, citizens secure a greater likelihood of keeping their governments under close watch.

So, why all the agonizing over secession? he asks.

Short answer:  because the people in charge of big governments are seldom willing to give up power.

I wholeheartedly agree with Stossel: Why is secession such a terribly unspeakable word among so many of us? As he stresses, secession is by no means alien to the American experience. Indeed, the United States is an outgrowth of a secession struggle against the British Empire.

But I wonder: How many of us are aware that the the post-constitutional United States is a product of secession, too?

Madison once referred to this secession as the “delicate truth” behind the current American union. In effect, 11 states seceded from the union of states founded on the Articles of Confederation to form the present union. Recall that Rhode Island and North Carolina had refused to accede to the new Constitution and were still out of the union when George Washington took the oath as the first president of the United States on March 4, 1789.

Quite a few of our Founding Fathers never lost their enduring affection for small governments. A few of our Founding Fathers even had a hard time envisioning a nation the size of the present-day United States.  Writing to Dr. Joseph Priestly on January 29, 1804, Thomas Jefferson observed:

Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children and descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty and the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.

I concluded a long time ago that the American Experiment has essentially amounted to a forlorn attempt to force one part of the country to meld culturally and politically into the rest. And it hasn’t happened – not after almost a quarter of a millennium. Yes, I would like to see us soldier on as looser federation sharing common market and defense.  There are legitimate geopolitical threats, after all.  But this business of forcing a nation as geographically and culturally diverse as the United States to march in ideological lockstep is madness, sheer madness.

A Republic of Pluralism

10 Tuesday Oct 2017

Posted by Jim Langcuster in American Federalism, American History, Devolution, Federalism, Localism, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Calexit, Federalism, First Amendment, Incorporation Doctrine, Jim Langcuster, Second Vermont Republic, Texas Nationalist Movement

vermont-flag

The Green Mountain Boys flag: The past and future flag of the Vermont Republic?  Photo: Courtesy of Amber Kincaid.

A social media conversation this morning prompted a few thoughts on the egregious lack of pluralism that characterizes America in the 21st century.

One poster observed that the white nationalist provocateur Richard Spencer is attempting another visit to Charlottesville, apparently with the intention of stirring up yet another racial hornets nest.

Yet, as another poster stressed, the University of Virginia, as a public institution that receives substantial federal funds, can’t easily refuse his request to stage another protest.

I’m no legal scholar, but it seems to me that we can ascribe the university’s predicament to the Incorporation Doctrine.  The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government.  It was extended to the states only through  incorporation, which was made possible by passage of the 14th Amendment. (Check me on this, but I believe I stand on solid ground.)

In time, I suspect the courts will formulatr some kind of compelling needs doctrine, which establishes some threshold for requests such as these, where there is the real risk of violence. Indeed, I presume that provisions such as these already are in place.

At this point, I feel compelled to offer a disclaimer: I am a free-speech purist – I think that open, robust speech is not only healthy but also vital to a free, open society.  But I also think that the prospect of federal authority extending its clammy fingers into every facet of American life is a grievous and dangerous thing and one that the Founders – the vast majority of them, at least – would have found abhorrent.

I am also as much a proponent for pluralism as free speech. Our Founders – certainly Jefferson – envisioned a very pluralistic “republic of republics” in which the state republics would conceive their own individual visions of ordered liberty.  While congenial to prevailing notions of liberty, these also would be adapted to local cultural, social and religious realities.

I’ll add a final disclaimer: I am as fervent a proponent as incrementalism as I am free speech and pluralism.   It seems to me that barring an Incorporation Doctrine all of the states in time would have adopted some degree of legal uniformity regarding free speech.  The openness required of federalism and a American common market would have necessitated such uniformity over time.

I know: I come off sounding like a  reactionary and a constitutional fossil – a so-called paleofederalist.  Most Americans would contend that we have moved far past that that quaint, bygone era when states functioned with many of the attributes of nationhood.  But Calexit, Texit, the Second Vermont Republic and other incipient sovereignty movements emerging across the breadth of America may be changing all of this.

The California National Party, which comprises one pillar of the California independence movement, seems to be demanding a new vision of democracy, constitutional law and identity that runs counter to much of the rest of the nation.

Who knows where all of this will lead?  These incipient autonomy movements may be pointing to a return to the original founding vision of American federalism. Maybe we ultimately will return to a constitutional arrangement in which states, at least, some states, will function as genuine sovereign states, with many of the hallmarks of nationhood.

Time will tell.

America’s Coming “Identity Awakening”

05 Thursday Oct 2017

Posted by Jim Langcuster in American Federalism, Federalism, Geo-Politics, Localism, U.S. Politics

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Alvin Toffler, Centralized States, Demassification, Devolution, European Union, Identity Awakening, Jim Langcuster, Nationalism, secession

Catalan-demonstration

A Demonstration of Catalan Nationalists.  Photo: Courtesy of Sergil.

Identity Awakening.  I like that term.

It’s a term that geopolitical analysts and commentators have improvised to account for how globalization has produced a sort of paradoxical effect.

“Everywhere we see regionalism, nationalism as well as religious devotion growing in intensity, sometimes morphing into intolerance. It’s the great paradox of globalization: Far from erasing the peoples’ identitarian and cultural claims, it reinforces them,” writes Li Figaro’s Renaud Giraud.

Technology in the form of digitalization has played a role, too. This takes me back to the writings of the recently deceased Alvin Toffler, a futurist who wrote extensively about the the implications of digital technology, especially in terms of how it would transform society, culture, politics and the economy.

Toffler perceived demassification as one very palpable effect of digital technology.  Mass media would no longer be, well, a mass phenomenon.  There would be no more news anchormen of the stature, not to mention, with the temerity, of Walter Cronkite ending newscasts with the hyper-confident pronouncement:  “That’s the way it is…”

As bandwidth expanded, Toffler predicted that media would scale down to accommodate smaller, more defined audiences.

Remarkably, though, this demassification is not only affecting media but also entire nations.

Demassification seems to have played a major role in the “identity awakenings” occurring throughout the world, particularly in Europe.  It even appears that identity awakenings soon will be playing out in America.  Judging from what’s occurring in California, Texas, Vermont,and Cascadia, they already are.

And why shouldn’t they?  If the Toffler’s musings drove home one realization to me, it’s that national identities based on strong, highly centralized governments are a relic associated with 20th century industrialism, just as mass media are – were.

While I am a great sympathizer with and proponent of identity awakenings, I’m no rigid ideologue.  We are urgently in need of decentrism in America, but  we also depend on a common American market and a common defense, much as Europeans require a common continental market and defense apparatus. But to demand that continents as culturally diverse as America and Europe march in cultural and even political lockstep? It’s madness, as more and more people are coming to realize.

Sooner or later, our institutions will reflect that new reality.  Let’s hope that this occurs as a result of peaceful evolution.

Richard Florida’s Nine Precepts of Devolution

17 Saturday Dec 2016

Posted by Jim Langcuster in Devolution, Federalism, Localism, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Devolution, Donald Trump, Federalism, Jim Langcuster, Localism, Richard Florida

richard-florida

Richard Florida, urban studies expert and best-selling author.  Photo: Courtesy of Jere Keys.

I’ve maintained for some time that American devolution will not be taken seriously until prominent public intellectuals on the left endorse it. One of my decentrist liberal friends in New England,  (@ethnobot), pointed me to a series of tweets by Dr. Richard Florida (@Richard_Florida), an urban studies expert and best-selling author who has written extensively on the nature and promise of the urban creative class.

Florida recently tweeted what could be accurately described as 9 precepts of devolution and localism.

Note that Florida, too, perceives the divisions between red and blue America as being essentially intractable, though he still holds out hope that some form of peaceful coexistence can be maintained. However, he believes that this can be achieved by what he calls “massive devolution,” reflected by a “re-tuned federalism,” though with a heavy bipartisan emphasis on devolving as much power as possible to localities.

Frankly, I couldn’t agree more.

Incidentally, I also wholeheartedly agree with his characterization of the U.S presidency, which I think is long overdue for a complete re-tooling, perhaps along the lines of Ireland’s, Germany’s and Israel’s monarchical presidential models or, at the very least, France’s bifurcated model.

Following are Richard’s 9 devolution precepts:

1. The problem runs way, way way deeper than Trump.

2. The problem is nation-state & imperial presidency that has far, far too much power & is out of sync with clustered knowledge capitalism.

3. The problem is a nation that is terribly divided & cannot be put back together …

4. The problem is a nation that has now been taken over not just by Trump but by the taker class of finance & resources …

5. The only way out I can see lies in massive devolution of power & local empowerment across multiple scales – neighborhood, city, metro…

6. American federalism is a powerful & dynamic instrument that can be re-tuned for our new age of geographic concentration & division.

7. The two America’s can find a way to live together – a mutual coexistence.

8. The only true alternative & opposition to Trumpism I can see is a broad partisan coalition for local empowerment …

9. Compare Jerry Brown’s speech to anything said by national level politicians … Mayors can be even more effective …

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • February 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • June 2018
  • March 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • February 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016

Categories

  • Alabama History
  • American Education
  • American Federalism
  • American History
  • Brexit
  • Censorship
  • Christianity
  • Conservatism
  • Devolution
  • Federalism
  • Geo-Politics
  • Imperial Decline
  • Localism
  • Mainstream Media
  • Nullification
  • oligarchy
  • Patriotism
  • Red-State Faith
  • secession
  • Secularism
  • Southern Athletics
  • Southern History
  • The Passing Scene
  • U.S. Politics
  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • Ruby Red Republic
    • Join 26 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Ruby Red Republic
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...