Can The Center Hold?

 I regularly participate in an online political group which despite having a wide spectrum of members including Democratic Socialists, Libertarians, Marxists and Greens, tends to be mostly (mostly) civil, regularly challenging each other to back up their positions and opinions with – gasp! – facts. Two years ago I posted a poll there, asking if States had the right to secede. The response was firmly “No” - that had been clearly decided in 1865. 

However, as I read the current delight that all too many are expressing as a wrecking ball is being applied to governmental departments and legal norms, I have also just read the 1777 “Articles of Confederation.” It occurs to me that I had asked the wrong question. The Articles suggest that we are a loose affiliation of Nation-States rather than the Federalist assumption of a unified nation – the “United States.” I therefore asked the group whether they consider “State’s Rights” superior to Federal law instead of the liberal Nationalistic interpretation of the Constitution. I followed that with a second question, one often raised regarding the supposed “State’s Rights” argument made in support of the old Confederacy: Rights to do what? While the major argument made by the Confederacy was ‘the right to manage their own economies’ particularly as Western territories became States, those economies were largely predicated on slavery, a legalized underclass.

I asked the question noting that I am less interested in particulars such as modern State’s economies regarding “Right to Work” laws, taxation, or use of State resources, but instead in terms of “Human Rights” and public participation in the political process.

Numerous States clearly want their governments actively promoting their majority Christian religious beliefs; should Utah therefore be able to declare its official religion as Mormonism? Many States seek to restrict marriage equality to traditional religious interpretations as heterosexual marriage; can Utah, therefore legalize polygamy despite the Edmunds Act of 1882? Various States clearly want to restrict non-traditional sexual roles including homo- and trans-sexual expressions; should they also have the “Right” to legislate classes of individual rights including those of pregnant women, children of immigrants, and the opportunities available to women, people of color, and the disabled? Should a hierarchy of legal privileges be determined by wealth? Should States have the Right to determine who may vote, what Parties are allowed to campaign, and can State Legislatures overturn the vote of its citizens?

I can be broadly called a “Progressive” – Green Social Democrat is my self-label - and my position on these questions can be broadly guessed at. I am pleased by how much discussion my essay has generated, but am dismayed how deeply the Federal government is mistrusted and how many, without citing specifics, suggest that the States should have the right to restrict personal conduct regardless of whether their expressions are actually harmful other than in their appearance.

From my educational background and on-going interest in cultural anthropo-socio-psychology I can’t help interpreting this as a reversion to Tribal behaviors under the stress of the on-going, rapid transition from centuries and millennia of traditional expectations. The Soviet Union balkanized; I have to wonder if this same process is at work in the United States. I’d prefer to believe otherwise, but history, of course, will have the final say.