Connect with us

Everything

Establishing a proper foothold in federalism

Published

on

Establishing a proper foothold in federalism

While I was away, I had plenty of time to think about federalism. One interesting note is that I did this without having the lens of current events in the way. I was completely away from pretty much all forms of news; if it wasn’t big enough to be talked about by family, I probably missed it.

One of the interesting side-effects of living like this is that my sometimes-random, sometimes-focused thoughts pertaining to federalism were geared towards historical and theoretical federalism. I wasn’t contemplating how a federalist should view Obamacare or gun control. Instead, I was able to apply proper federalist principles to a general perspective. Think of it as a 30,000-foot view.

There were some interesting conclusions and even more interesting questions I’ll go into in the future, but the biggest takeaway is that federalism can only work in modern America if we’re able to get a proper foothold. We’re on a slippery slope with a left-right, liberal-conservative dichotomy that currently holds the nation’s ideologies hostage. Most conservatives believe that federalism applies only to their ideas while most liberals believe federalism is a convenient tool to invoke only when they’re not in power.

The reality is that federalism has very little to do with right versus left, at least as it pertains to decision-making. Let’s look at a basic way to apply federalism generally. Hopefully then we can understand the challenges that can prevent us from finding our foothold. This is not meant to be a scholarly or philosophical look at federalism. It’s just a quick view to set the stage for finding solutions.

The federalist lens

I’ve written in the past that the roots of federalism were based on sharing powers, not making the national government more powerful. In the 18th century, states held the lion’s share of government power so it was necessary for early federalists to push for a stronger central government. Today, the power has shifted unnaturally to favor DC, so a true federalist will embrace taking power away from the central government and distributing it to states, counties, cities, communities, and most importantly to individuals and their families.

With that understood, let’s look at why federalism does not fall within the left-right paradigm that exists in America today. There’s no need to show examples of conservatism championed by federalism because conservatives have generally embraced most tenets of federalism whether they know it or not. However, there are many examples of how leftist ideas also invoke federalism and rightfully so.

One easy example is New York politicians’ desire to give “free education to all.” While conservatives will naturally ask the question of how expensive this “free” idea will become, many are calling on DC to figure out ways to block the attempt altogether. This is 100% against federalist tenets and should not be acceptable. If New York wants to go down that road, it is not DC’s job to stop them. One of the beauties of federalism applied to 50 states is that they should be free to attempt whatever programs their residents desire. If it fails, it is a lesson for other states. If it succeeds, it’s a model upon which others can embrace or improve.

Experimentation allows the states to be like governmental labs. This is a good thing. It applies all the way down (or up, depending on your point of view). Cities should be free to adopt just about anything that does not hinder others. This is a key point because the fear of a free-for-all in governance makes liberals and conservatives alike cringe. Are sanctuary cities acceptable in a federalist model? No. Unless a sanctuary city is able to contain the suspects and criminals they set free, their actions against federal cooperation are not true federalism. Cities cannot be allowed to harm their neighbors based on their actions (or lack of actions). Sanctuary cities are perversions of federalism.

Steps toward federalism

While I get back into the swing of things, there are still many questions I need to answer. One is where the Federalist Party stands, or more specifically where I stand within the Federalist Party itself. Just as with my friends here at NOQ Report who carried on in my absence, I know there were many who continued to build the groundswell for the Federalist Party. Where the party and I stand will be an important piece of information I’ll need before knowing how to proceed.

One thing that does not require any additional information is the realization I came to while on hiatus. For federalism to succeed in America and truly gain a foothold, it MUST be understood. I’m a firm believer that 70% or more of the American population would embrace the tenets of federalism if they understood it properly. Just as a right-leaning gun advocate can be shown how true reciprocity can only be accomplished between states instead of by decree in DC, so too can left-leaning environmentalist can be shown the benefits of localizing environmental protection rather than sinking money into the EPA or (gulp) the Paris accords.

In my downtime, I concluded that a population that does not understand federalism cannot properly embrace it. Conversely, bringing true federalism to light can and will help it gain more supporters because it simply makes sense. Going forward, that will be one of the most important roles I play in the outside world. Championing federalism is the best thing I can do in American politics. It won’t be easy, but if we’re to continue to prosper as a nation, we must wrest power away from DC and back into the hands of the people.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

The real reason Scott Wallace yelled ‘f*** off’ in a synagogue during a debate

Published

on

The real reason Scott Wallace yelled f off in a synagogue during a debate

Democrats have been claiming every Republican in the nation wants to eliminate the pre-existing conditions requirement in health care laws. It doesn’t matter whether they actually do or don’t (most do not). Public polling shows if you can convince voters the Republican candidate is going to take away their healthcare, it’s a winning message.

Scott Wallace, a Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives in Pennsylvania’s 1st district, has been participating in spreading the leftist lies about healthcare. Specifically, he’s been running ads claiming Representative Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) attempted to vote down the pre-existing conditions clause.

He didn’t. Even left-leaning Washington Post had to acknowledge that Wallace’s claims were a lie, giving him four Pinocchios for the outrageous claim.

Democratic attack ad falsely knocks Republican on preexisting conditions

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/15/democratic-attack-ad-falsely-knocks-republican-preexisting-conditions/The DCCC really crosses the line here. Fitzpatrick bucked his party to vote against one of the president’s top priorities, the repeal of Obamacare, specifically because he was concerned about the impact on people with preexisting conditions. His reward? Being attacked for selling his constituents out on the issue because of his minor procedural votes, when just about every member of Congress sticks to party lines.

The vote that really counted on preexisting conditions was the tough one — on the proposed law itself. You would think the Democrats would at least applaud him for his courage, but apparently that’s not how the game is played these days. The DCCC earns Four Pinocchios.

When Fitzpatrick tried to question Wallace about the blatantly false ad and the continued claims by his campaign that Fitzpatrick tried to vote down pre-existing conditions, Wallace erupted. In the middle of debate. In a synagogue.

Dem Congressional Candidate Tells Republican Opponent To ‘F*** off’ During Debate

https://freebeacon.com/politics/dem-congressional-candidate-tells-republican-opponent-f-off-during-debate/Scott Wallace, a Democratic congressional candidate in Pennsylvania, lost his composure and told his Republican opponent to “Fuck off” during a debate on Sunday. Wallace, who is running against Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R., Pa.), unleashed the expletive during an event at Congregation Tifereth Israel in Bensalem, Pennsylvania.

The candidates were standing on the synagogue’s bimah, an elevated platform used for reading the Torah during services, when Wallace made the remark, according to WBCB News. The outburst silenced the room and left Fitzpatrick “stunned.”

My Take

Wallace is a proud man who doesn’t like the fact that his entire campaign is built around a blatant lie. How would you feel if you had to destroy another person’s reputation by pretending they did something they did not do? His frustration over the lies his campaign is built upon are the real reason his frustration came out.

Wallace realizes he cannot win based on his ideologies or his accomplishments. His only path to victory is by continuing to lie in hopes the people of Pennsylvania are as stupid as he thinks they are.

Voters in Pennsylvania need to get this unhinged guy as far away from weapons, synagogues, and political office as possible. He’s a liar and a loose cannon. Keep Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick in there to continue working for the state and the nation.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Beto O’Rourke’s accomplishments through the eyes of his educated supporters

Published

on

Beto ORourkes accomplishments through the eyes of his educated supporters

Texas A&M is one of the most prestigious universities in the state. Its criteria for entry are stricter than other state schools and it has built a reputation of churning out some of the brightest minds in the Longhorn State.

They love their football, steaks, and politicians. Many of them love Beto O’Rourke.

Unfortunately, they don’t really know why they like him.

He’s charming, attractive, funny, and down to earth. He’s inclusive. They can gather all of this information from his smile and his political party. Beyond that, they seem to know very little about the Senate candidate. They definitely don’t know much about what he’s done in his adult life, the majority of which has been in politics.

This video by Campus Reform yields predictable responses. We have grown accustomed to the brightest minds of our future, particularly those on the left, knowing next to nothing about the people who “lead” our nation.

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

Saudi Arabia is stalling for themselves, not because of midterm elections

Published

on

Saudi Arabia is stalling for themselves not because of midterm elections

Saudi Arabia is extending their investigation into the murder Jamal Khashoggi by at least a month. This has brought further condemnation on the Kingdom from the press and some world leaders, including President Trump.

President Trump says he’s ‘not satisfied’ with Saudi response on journalist’s death

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/22/donald-trump-khashoggi-response-saudis-am-not-satisfied/1731094002/As he departed the White House for a campaign rally in Texas, the president said he had spoken to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman about Khashoggi’s disappearance after he entered Saudi Arabia’s consulate in Turkey this month.

“I am not satisfied with what I’ve heard,” Trump said. “We’re going to get to the bottom of it.”

The president specifically reacted to Saudi requests to extend the Khashoggi investigation for another month. That would mean most of the investigation’s findings would be released well after the November midterm election.

“I think it’s a long time,” Trump told reporters. “There’s no reason for that.”

My Take

Talking heads on mainstream media bug the tar out of me, as do activist news reporters passing of biased stories as factual reports. It took a while to find this story on USA Today. Most tried to tilt the story to claim Saudi Arabia was acting on behalf of President Trump to extend the investigation until after the election. USA Today only implied it.

The sad part is that it’s far from the truth. Saudi Arabia hasn’t taken the timing of our elections into account at all with anything associated with the mess they created. They have much more important issues of their own to deal with and the inconvenience of this all happening around American election time is no concern of theirs.

If anything, the President would love for this to get resolved sooner rather than later. The beginning of October would have been nice. He could have scolded them, slapped sanctions on them, and made it a non-issue during the election. Now, the actions of a foreign government are going to have a minor impact because of the association between the two governments. Voters won’t recall that President Obama was cozier with the Saudis than just about any American President. That’s ancient history to mainstream media.

If the left tries to make this an election issue, the American people should rebuke them. The press is already doing it for them. We’ll see if it has any impact at all. I doubt it.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report