"A good first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first
signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by
President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies
to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and
implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of
responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the
Framers of the Constitution. It was a fine idea that should never have been
revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it
that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected. "
While this is a movement that is gets its strength from the right, there are some solid reasons that those on the left should support it. In issues of Gay Marriage where there are a number of states that seem to be on the border of making it legal, it would take the road block of Washington power away from that happening. I think that federalism fell out of favor among environmentalists who wanted to get laws passed that would cover the whole nation. For environmental laws, working on a federal level makes sense. If you limit the amount of pollution in one state, the companies will move across state lines to a state that isn't as restrictive. Further there are many forms of pollution that effect a wide area, pollution from factories in the rest belt, can drift over to the New England states and come down as acid rain.
Even for environmentalists, it is possible to work with in a federal system. That means that efforts have to be made on a state by state basis, and maybe solutions found on a state by state basis, it takes more time and money, but it may be worth it. There is the danger that you spend so much of they spend so much of their time in Washington, working to change laws there that effect the nation, they don't talk to the real people in this country. That harbors the dangers, that the people don't really understand what the ideas you are fighting for are about, and it makes it easier for those who would oppose you to misinform voters. The second problem, maybe worse than the first is that they become another special interest group. While I think most of the public understand the difference between an environmental lobbyist and a lobbyist for tobacco or oil, it is the way they do business that becomes a weakness. When the business of environmental lobbyists in Washington becomes the same practices used by other lobbyists, they risk the danger of being called a special interest group and marginalised.
Being forced to work on a state by state business would move towards engaging more Americans in the discussions of our times. Discussions that they need to be a part of, the actions of the average American citizen will do more to save the planet than anyone in Washington can. People are honest and good, and American voters will make the right choice once they understand their choices. Actually having a grass roots level of understanding also makes it easier to defend those ideas when they are attacked.
No comments:
Post a Comment