When I first heard that the teabaggers were out to rescind the 17th ammendment I confess I was confused about which amendment was which. I thought for sure that it was the income tax amendment, which at least makes sense from a libertarian perspective. And I am sure they want to repeal that one too. But why the 17th? Why would anyone want to go back to the old practice of selecting senators by the state legislatures?
The answer, apparently, is that such a move will help increase the power of the states. Its a state's rights thing.
We all know that state's rights has historically been elliptical for 'State's rights to keep black people down'. But there is something more going on here.
Federalism is not a dumb idea. The principle behind it is simple. If you want to know what is best for the Rhode Islanders, better to ask someone in Rhode Island than someone from Montana. Giving power to the states is a way of giving power to the people of those states to determine how they best should live. The criminal code is a good example to think of in this regard. It used to be assumed that the federal government has a very limited role in criminal law. There are some areas where the federal govenment has to be involved: counterfeiting, treason, crimes that occur accross state lines, but in general it was left to the state to determine what laws it should have. Of course this is still true in large measure. possession of pot can give you jailtime in some states, a fine in some others. But we still hear about federal laws that prohibit the use of marijuana.
Now the federalist says, rightly in my view, that questions like whether marijuana should be illegal ought to be left to the states to decide. Its just not the federal government's business whether California legalizes pot or Utah prohibits Alcoholic beverages. These decisons, like speed limit laws, and the penalties for drunken driving ought mibe left to the states to decide. Congress does not want to institute single payer, but that is no reason to prohibit Vermont from experimenting with such a system.
So much for the good side of federalism. But there is also the ugly downside. Often the rights of states means nothing other than a loss of rights for the individual. Looked at in this way, it makes sense for the teabaggers to be opposed to direct election of senators. Why should this be?
It's counterintuitive when you think about it. Why should giving power to a local or regional authority be more of a threat to individual liberty than power being given to the Federal Government?
And yet this is what often happens. We see it most recently in the Arizona immigration law. We see it in the bizzare educational standards imposed by the Texas board of education. Other examples abound.
It is true that democracy at a local or regional level is more democratic. Itg is also true that such democracy is more less likely to respect the rights of the individuals. The reason why this is so can be found way back, in Federalist # 10 in which Madison argues that the national government is less likely to tyranize the population because of the constant conflict between different factions. The plurality of factions bickering and arguing precludes one faction taking over and dominating the rest.
Madison was right on. But this way of protecting individual liberty works best on a large scale. On a small scale, on the scale of a state or a town, there is a much greater liklihood that one faction will dominate. Thus in TX we have conservative fundamentalists taking over. TX is an odd example in a way, given the huge diversity of that great state. If there were a national school board, no such crazed standards would ever make it to the light of day. Too many people would object.
The very considerations that support giving states and localities more power-- The culture is just different in MS than in suburban CT, so its stupid to demand that gun laws be the same in both--also create the risk for tyrany. The dominant culture can do two things. It can aim to protect its rights to live in a way different from the rest of the country (so, CA can insist on legalizing pot, even if no other state wants to do so) OR it can, in the same breadth use its hegemony to control minority points of view within the state.
I have sort of drifted from my original inspiration. But there is stib ll a tenuous connection. Those who support state's rights do sometimes support the right of the states to experiment, which is good. But more often the 'rights' of the states come at the expense of the rights of the individual. In this way we can make sense of the teabaggers demand that we take power away from the people and give it to the State Legistatures makes sense.
The upshot of all of this is that the notion of "state's rights' is really an oxymoron. Individuals are what have rights. States have power.
There is a strong argument that some powers are best left to the states, as I have indicated. But to use the rhetoric of "rights" in this context is a misleading. We should not say "we are against state's rights" Rather, we should say "we are against state power." For it is this, alas, that most proponents of "State's rights" are chiefly interested in. against the individual.