Digging Our Own Grave

The latest bubble on the cauldron of American politics is an attempt to enshrine the very thing -- states' rights -- that will ensure that the Midwest, and probably the rest of the nation, loses the battle for global competitiveness.

The idea is a constitutional amendment that would allow states to overturn any act of Congress. This one comes out of Virginia but has support in at least 12 other states, not to mention the backing of the new House majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.). According to its backers, it has support in the legislatures of at least four Midwestern states -- Indiana, Iowa, Missouri and Minnesota.

Under this proposal, a new constitutional amendment would repeal any federal law or regulation if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states voted to do so. Other states have passed "sovereignty resolutions" supposedly nullifying federal laws, on gun control for instance. But these resolutions are symbolic. A "repeal amendment" would have teeth.

This assumes it would pass. Actually, the odds against its success are overwhelming. Like the Tea Party folk who are behind it, this idea seems likely to get some attention in the next two years, then fade away into the folk history of American politics.

But its rationale, if that's the word, is worth studying. In Cantor's words, "Washington has grown far too large and has become far too intrusive..........Massive expenditures like the stimulus, unconstitutional mandates like the takeover of health care and intrusions into the private sector like the auto bailouts have threatened the very core of the American free market."

One wonders what world Cantor and his allies live in. The real world is a globalizing web of alliances between nations (the European Union) or between provinces (the Pearl River Delta in China) all aimed at maximizing resources and leveraging strengths, to compete more effectively on global markets. In a world like this, individual states like Virginia or Indiana are simply too small to compete. Left to their own devices, as the Tea Party wants, they will slide into backwaters.

In this world, size is vital. States should be merging their assets, not retreating behind state lines. All help should be welcome, including the help that the national government can give.

The United States, as a nation, is having plenty of trouble competing in this world, as a splendid new book by Clyde Prestowitz, The Betrayal of American Prosperity, makes clear. Prestowitz has plenty of suggestions for reversing this trend. But splitting the nation into 50 fiefdoms, many of them run by politicians who are totally ignorant of global realities, isn't one of them.

The proposed amendment springs from the debate over federal power. Part of this is the fecklessness of Congress itself. It's hard to defend that body's paralyzing partisanship and its inability to deal effectively with serious national problems. But the thought that these problems could be better handled by the 50 state legislatures is an idea that would occur only to someone who has never watched those legislatures in action.

Legislative reform in this country is badly needed. But handcuffing national power is no solution.

Cantor's claim that the stimulus and the auto bailout "threaten the very core of the American free market" simply rewrites history. The stimulus and the auto bailout both were necessary to keep the failures of the free market from destroying the whole economy. Midwesterners who still have their auto-related jobs because of the bailout have special reason to reject this nonsense.

As the British politician Peter Mandelson wrote recently, "globalization is the process by which national boundaries become progressively less relevant to our economic lives." This being true, state lines are virtually irrelevant. States that are so jealous of their power and fearful for their identity that they cannot act together on a national basis are doomed to permanent irrelevance.

Many of these politicians and their constituents have reason to be wary of globalization. The global economy, with its assault on traditional industries and its outsourcing of once-safe jobs, looms as a threat to these people. Indeed, much of the Tea Party's power arises both from fear of this new force and from its attack on the very identity of traditional communities.

But it is no proper response to raise the drawbridge, to run off and hide. Coping with this new challenge is going to be a lot of work, involving tapping every source of power.

What we're seeing now is the opposite force in action. Two new Midwestern governors, in Ohio and Wisconsin, are so suspicious of Washington-bred projects that they've turned down millions of dollars in funding for high-speed rail. According to the Chronicle for Higher Education, a dozen new governors -- again including those in Ohio and Wisconsin -- have pledged to balance their state's budgets without cutting taxes: education, especially higher education, is expected to take a whack in these states. Never mind that education is the key to any future competitiveness for these states and their young people.

Much of this small-mindedness comes from the Republican side of the aisle, especially from its Tea Party fringe. There isn't much that Democrats can do about this except try to limit the damage. But Republican Party leaders, and especially the business people who support them, have the major responsibility to ensure that their party remains true to its traditional internationalist views and its commitment to a strong economy -- which today means a strong American economy within a global economy.   

For more information on economic development, visit the In the News section of the Global Midwest Web site.

Comments

[Aaron M. Renn]

Let's not forget, it is less Tea Party states than big liberal ones like California that have decided they should implement things like their own environmental policy or banning happy meals in San Francisco and such.

[ChicagoDan]

^^^
That is true indeed, however, these liberal ideas have progress and well being in mind. Where as tea party's train of though seems to be blanket rejection of all federal ideas, good and bad. In essence they want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is a part of me that would like to see the legislation passed so I can see these states who would reject federal money, environmental standards, etc, truly slide into the backwaters as you said. A part of me that says it serves them right for being so short sighted. I admit that I would get dark satisfaction in 2020 when these states would be environmental wastelands with all the job opportunities of Afghanistan and rotting urban cores. That would be too easy though, and the liberal, progressive side of me knows that in the end this is no good for the country overall and the federal government would EVENTUALLY have to go in and clean up the mess, which would translate to less federal money for the rest of us. What is the tea party global economic agenda? Would a tea party state reject minimum wage to make their citizens more competitive with countries like China? Or maybe the would benefit from zero environmental standards to boost the bottom line of big business? Isolationism didn't help us out during the start of WWII and it's not going to help now.

[Jeff Dziwulski]

John Calhoun's ghost walks the land. The return of nullification. I agree that this is quite reactionary. What's next, an amendment to allow states to overturn Supreme Court decisions if they don't like them.