We have to recognize that we’re in a crisis, and that the left-right divide is probably unbridgeable. And if it is, we’ll have to give up on doing big things in Washington, and do as little as we possibly can at the national level. We’re going to have to return as much as we can to states and localities, and hope that innovative solutions spring from technology or private industry.At least on this one point, the left-right divide is not unbridgeable!
I am convinced that a reinvigorated commitment to federalism is the only way this country can move forward. If our fellow countrymen and women on the left would abandon their insistence on a one-size-fits-all approach to national policy we would all get along so much better. Nothing is gained but resentment in trying to make places like Mississippi mirror Massachusetts. Few things would make me feel better about our national prospects than the left embracing the wisdom of the 10th Amendment.
ReplyDeleteMy sentiments exactly.
ReplyDeleteHaidt:
ReplyDeleteThe new sacred values on the left are about anti-racism and fighting discrimination.
From what I had previously read of Haidt, he had concluded that sacred values were important for the right but not for the left. It appears that Haidt now admits- perhaps he did all along- that sacred values are also important for the left. However, what is sacred to the left is not necessarily what is sacred to the right. Another sacred value for the left is environmentalism.
Being fair to people -a.k.a. anti-racism & fighting discrimination- and the environment are important for me. Where I differ from the left is that they consider government intervention to always to be good, while I view government intervention as having diminishing returns. Too many times laws have had results rather different from the results that the lawmakers intended. Moreover, I see imperfect people writing and administering imperfect law as potentially leading to tyranny and to results that fair-minded people would not like. In addition, while many or most on the left assign people to fair or unfair categories, with no intersection, I see fairness and unfairness [tolerance/intolerance] as inherent within us all. I have fair and unfair [intolerant and intolerant] elements within myself. I view no person as being completely fair or completely unfair, while it appears that the left has a more Manichean view of things.
By contrast, those on the left are continually informing us "There ought to be a law"- until they find out that a given law inconveniences them, of course. Then they will ignore the law.
The Jews had so many laws that it led their judge oligarchy to sentence Jesus, the Holy One of Israel, to death. Or rather, the Jews demanded that Jesus be executed as a rebel or king by the Romans.
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing is as I happened to read the Apostle claims, the Romans had no idea what they were going to execute Jesus of Nazareth for. J of N had broken no laws deserving of death to the Romans, yet the Jews had all kinds of man made laws which they considered divine or Mosaic laws.
The Romans, for fear of angering the Jewish mob and religious executioners/judges, decided to crucify Jesus of Nazareth for this "King of the Jews".
They also tried this trick with Paul, but it happened that Paul was a Roman citizen and couldn't be merely flogged as a compromise without a trial or appeal to Caesar (Nero at the time).
The irony of people who made so many laws based on what Moses commanded, yet forgot the entire point that human laws are subservient to divine laws, getting their own godly avatar killed because of their human laws. It's quite amusing, better than fiction.
From what I had previously read of Haidt, he had concluded that sacred values were important for the right but not for the left. It appears that Haidt now admits- perhaps he did all along- that sacred values are also important for the left. However, what is sacred to the left is not necessarily what is sacred to the right. Another sacred value for the left is environmentalism.
ReplyDeleteYep! And food purity (whatever that is)!
In his early lectures he did talk about sacred values for the left, but I think his thinking has evolved quite a bit since I first started reading his work (2004).
I just listened to a lecture of his I hadn't heard last night, and it had some new material. I was struck - forcibly - by his passionate tone, something I really haven't heard from him much before about 6 months ago. He talked a lot about the transition from an honor culture to a dignity culture to a victim culture (ground he covered earlier in the year) but he also talked about the intersection between justice and social justice, and how when social justice seeks for people to be treated equally (not discriminated against because of race or gender or whatever), that's firmly part of "justice".
But when they seek equal outcomes (without considering factors other than race/gender, as in, "All X must experience equal outcomes, regardless of other factors that affect outcomes, simply because they belong to group X", that violates justice.
Good interview - I had not seen it, so thanks for posting it, Grim :)
There are some problems for the Left in embracing Federalism. First, unlike the Federal government, States (theoretically/legally/usually) can’t run huge deficits to pay for their activities and programs. So if a State has a generous job or welfare or health care program, the voters in that State will see the price tag and have to pay it in real time. At the Federal level, the cost just get lost in the deficit noise.
ReplyDeleteSecond, internal immigration. If a State establishes a generous job or welfare or health care program, it may attract people from other States who move specifically to take advantage of the generous program but contribute little or nothing to the tax base. Similarly, if a State establishes Draconian tax and/or regulation regimes, individuals and corporations can more to a different State with lower taxes and/or fewer rules. (We seem to be seeing this with, for example, Californians moving to Texas.) Therefore, the generous States can only be generous if all other States are similarly generous; the Draconian States can only be Draconian if all other States are similarly Draconian.
(When I was a child living in Alabama, one of the explanations I heard for why the country established a national welfare system as part of the Great Society legislation had to do with internal immigration. In this telling, States like New York had generous welfare plans and people from less generous States were moving in to take advantage of that. Therefore, the generous States wanted to create a Federal welfare program to reduce the disparity in generosity among the States.)
Third, to the extent that the Left sees its agenda as good versus evil, they cannot let the States go their own way. The Left would see it as immoral (“sacred values”, “high moral stakes”) to leave the groups it believes it is protecting (minorities, women, LGBTQ+, the poor, Muslims, etc) to the mercies of an unenlightened red State.
There are some problems for the Left in embracing Federalism.
ReplyDeleteWaPo, in its infinite wisdom, has identified the way to slash through that Gordian knot.
Eric Hines
@ Eric Hines. Lawrence Samuel is almost frightening in his ability to attend to some facts and ignore others, isn't he? Words fail.
ReplyDeleteMany states have balanced budget limitations, which prevent deficit spending. They have to raise taxes or cut parts of the bureaucracy. Federal government is immune due to FDr and other Demoncrat operations.
ReplyDelete