« Part II - Walid Shoebat (ex-terrorist) and Muslim Students | Main | Progressive Visions of America Part II »
February 12, 2007
Progressive Visions of America Part I
by Tina Grazier
“California, the nation-state, the harmonious state, the prosperous state, the cutting-edge state, becomes a model, not just for the 21st-century American society, but for the larger world.” Arnold Schwarzenegger quoted by Prof. Gar Alperovitz
“We have the economic strength, we have the population and the technological force of a nation-state.” Arnold Schwarzenegger quoted by Prof. Gar Aperovitz
I won’t try to crawl into the mind of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to figure out what he meant when he said these things but I was interested in the thoughts about the governors remarks expressed by Prof. Aperovitz in a
recent New York Times op-ed piece titled California Split. His is a progressive world and so the governors words were no doubt screened through his progressive vision for our possible future:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger seems to have grasped the essential truth that no nation — not even the United States — can be managed successfully from the center once it reaches a certain scale.
California’s governor has also put his finger on a little discussed flaw in America’s constitutional formula. The United States is almost certainly too big to be a meaningful democracy.
A recent study by the economists Alberto Alesina of Harvard and Enrico Spolaore of Tufts demonstrates that the bigger the nation, the harder it becomes for the government to meet the needs of its dispersed population. Regions that don’t feel well served by the government’s distribution of goods and services then have an incentive to take independent action, the economists note.
It’s quite clear from these excerpts that Professor Alperovitz, and his buds at Harvard and Tufts, think of America differently than I do. Their vision is more like Venezuella under Chavez or even England under King George. “…the government’s distribution…”? Only a progressive would hold first and foremost the idea that our government’s purpose is to distribute goods and services. In light of this, the governor’s words must have seemed like Dorothy’s yellow brick road pointing the way toward home. His vision is that California might be the perfect state to take the lead and “devolve” away from mere statehood under the Constitution to form a “nation state”. He sites George F. Kennan who said the following about devolving nation states:
“while retaining certain of the rudiments of a federal government,” might yield a “dozen constituent republics, absorbing not only the powers of the existing states but a considerable part of those of the present federal establishment.”
Why must we break (devolve) into “nation states” or regions? Why not just acknowledge states rights and begin to devolve power away from the federal government and back to the 50 states as was originally intended by the founders? The answer, simply stated, is because progressives don’t really believe in smaller government. They believe in socialism…taking from those with means and giving to those with need, through a large overreaching federal government! Ahh, but here’s the rub…only with democrats in power. When republicans hold the reigns they look to “break away…or move away. As long as there are those who will not buckle to the authority of a socialist doctrine you can be sure that there will be those who propose ideas that include things like “devolution” into nation states.
I’m not one who has thought that certain members of the opposition “hate” America, but after reading this article I’m not so certain anymore. This man is as nonchalant about “devolving” regions of the country into “nation states” as one might be about how neighbors arrange tulips in their flower beds.
Posted by Post Scripts at February 12, 2007 11:16 PM
Comments
Actually the whole premise of the professors argument is flawed...
The particulars of our system was actually set up with the future growth of America in mind..
Consider Pg. 11 "The Heritage guide to the Constitution"
"The effect of representation-of individual citizens being represented in the government rather than ruling through direct participatory democracy-is to refine and moderate public opinion through a deliberative process. Extending the Republic, literally increasing the size of the nation, would taking in a greater number and variety of opinions, making it harder for a majority to form on narrow interests contrary to the common good. The majority that did develop would be more settled and, by necessity, would encompass (and represent) a wider diversity of opinion. This idea that bigger is better reversed the prevailing assumption that republican government could only work in small states."
I also think that Tina has hit the nail on the head at the same time that the professor has completely missed the mark. The notion of federalism was built around the idea that a federal government could not effectively rule on the everyday issues of individuals. This is why such attention is given to the will and domain of the individual states. It has been through "progressive" policy that we have given the federal government greater authority.
It is the flaw in their position, not the Constitution that has led to inefficient and unresponsive governance.
Posted by: Nick Freitas at February 14, 2007 07:05 PM
It has been through "progressive" policy that we have given the federal government greater authority.
You would think they might notice, but the mess just piles up behind them...like pigpen's dirt trail in the Charlie Brown comics.
Posted by: Tina at February 15, 2007 08:57 PM
Liberals have become masters of creating problems to claim a certain solution does not work.
For instance: "It costs more to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for life."
Well the only reason it costs more is because of the policy's that liberals have put into place. Remove the policy's and their entire argument falls apart.
So it is not surprising that when they finally recognize a problem, they seem to forget that they created it, and quickly go about planning to dismantle the whole foundation as if it was something other than their failed policy causing the problem.
Posted by: Nick Freitas at February 17, 2007 05:39 PM